Far Western Ethno Wiki - User contributions [en]

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T19:22:11Z

WikiSysop: /* REFERENCES CONSULTED */

='''Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol9-cover.png|right|150px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==
The in-progress ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) brings together decades of research and mission record analysis into selected volumes that will eventually be part of a 15 volume print/wiki encyclopedia portraying the socio-political landscape of native California after first contact with the Spanish, between 1770 and 1830.

Volume 1 of the series presents an overview of the CDM model, explaining the process of ethnographic data analysis and regional mapping unit construction across all portions of California. Volumes 2-15 will eventually represent contextual overviews of each of the 14 analytical zones identified within California. Each zone has a group of independent, landholding regions (totaling 663) defined by mutual history, shared languages, and similar land-use patterns. (Table 1) An introduction to each volume will focus on multi-regional issues (overview of history, ethnography, and research techniques) followed by individual regional monographs (some complete, some unfinished) covering languages, environment, and early expedition, mission, historic, and ethnographic sources, as applicable. A comprehensive bibliography will conclude each volume.

Volume 9, entitled ''South San Joaquin Analytical Zone'', almost complete, includes the southern portion of the Yokuts language family area as well as the western Mono and Tubatalabal language areas. It contains 56 regions covering portions of Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties.

The CDM is also presented in a collaborative Wiki website (currently accessible through farwestern.com) which consists of several major elements—ACCESS data tables, GIS maps, and narrative text. In this format, the ethnographic data are available to scholars from academia, tribal communities, and agencies that can locate and organize data effectively, add new information as it becomes available, and generate feature articles that can include maps, pictures, or cross-references.

This series has been produced by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., with support from a number of district environmental branches within the California Department of Transportation.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="72%" align="center"
|+Table 1. Volume, Analytical Zone, and Languages Spoken.
|-
|align = "center"|VOLUME Number
|align = "center"|ANALYTICAL ZONE
|align = "center"|LANGUAGE
|align = "center"|NUMBER OF REGIONS

|-
|align = "center"|2
|align = "center"|Northwest
|align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok Athabascan Karok Takelman
|align = "center"|37

|-
|align = "center"|3
|align = "center"|North
|align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko Wintu and Nomlaki Yana
|align = "center"|48

|-
|align = "center"|4
|align = "center"|Northeast
|align = "center"|Modoc Mountain Maidu Numic Pit River Washoe
|align = "center"|28

|-
|align = "center"|5
|align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Lake Miwok Pomo Wappo Yuki
|align = "center"|59

|-
|align = "center"|6
|align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
|align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu Patwin Wintuan Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Northern Ohlone
|align = "center"|66

|-
|align = "center"|8
|align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok Delta Yokuts 
|align = "center"|54

|-
|align = "center"|9
|align = "center"|South San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Mono Numic Tubatulabal Yokuts
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|10
|align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Northern Chumash Esselen Ohlone Salinan
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|11
|align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
|align = "center"|Chumash 
|align = "center"|68

|-
|align = "center"|12
|align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
|align = "center"|Takic
|align = "center"|58

|-
|align = "center"|13
|align = "center"|Southeast
|align = "center"|Numic Takic
|align = "center"|45

|-
|align = "center"|14
|align = "center"|South
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|20

|-
|align = "center"|15
|align = "center"|Colorado River
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|13

|-
|align = "right" colspan="3"|Total
|align = "center"|663

|}

==Landholding Groups of the South San Joaquin Zone - Yokutsan, Tubatulabal, and Western Mono Speakers==

[[File:Vol9-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. South San Joaquin Analytical Zone with Regions.
]]The South San Joaquin zone includes the San Joaquin Valley plain from Buenavista-Kern Lake northward almost to the Merced River, as well as the contiguous western Sierra Nevada front. The CDM divides the zone into 56 year-round habitation regions (Figure 1). The Southern San Joaquin encompasses the ethnographic lands of the western Mono-speakers, the Tubatulabal speakers, and most Yokuts-speakers. Excluded from the zone are the lands of Delta Yokuts speakers from the Merced River northward to the Stockton vicinity. (They are addressed as part of the Delta-Northern San Joaquin Zone.)

This zone does not represent any distinct ethnographic socio-political area. It is rather a conveniently sized subarea of California for presenting an overview about ethnography, history, and problems in ethnogeographic reconstruction. The South San Joaquin zone is one of those portions of California where we must rely upon the clues imbedded in the Franciscan mission registers to build the ethnogeographic picture in the west, while relying upon the classic ethnographic literature for reconstructing ethnogeography in the east. Contextual ethnogeographic and historic information for understanding the details in the zone<nowiki>’</nowiki>s monographs are provided below. This zone study concludes with the combined bibliography for all of its constituent regional monographs.

===Linguistic Groups===
[[File:Vol9-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Regions by Language Group.]]Two language families—Yokutsan and Uto-Aztecan—are represented among the ethnographic groups of the South San Joaquin analytic zone. The Uto-Aztecan family is represented in the South San Joaquin zone by Mono of the Numic branch and by Tubatulabal, both in Sierra fothills. The Yokutsan family is represented by a number of closely related languages spoken throughout the lowlands, as well as in some Sierran foothills regions Figure 2.

====Uto-Aztecan Family Languages====
The Uto-Aztecan family has nine major branches spoken over a wide area from Idaho on the north to El Salvador on the south: Numic, Tubatulabal, Takic, Hopi, Tepiman, Taracahitan, Tubar, Corachol, and Aztecan (Goddard 1996:323). The four northern branches, as argued by Kroeber, form a distinct Shoshonean branch of the overall family; they are Hopic, Numic, Takic, and Tubatulabal. Linguists today refer to the former Shoshonean branch as Northern Uto-Aztecan (Miller 1986; Mithun 1999:540).

Mono (a language within the Numic subbranch) and Tubatulabal are the two ethnographic Uto-Aztecan languages of the South San Joaquin Zone. Mono was spoken by the Western Mono people along the west slope of the southern Sierra Nevada range from south of Mono Lake down to the Mount Whitney vicinity; it is precisely the same language as that spoken by the Owens Valley Paiute directly across the southern Sierra Nevada Range to the east. Farther south, Tubatulabal was the native language in the mountainous portion of the Kern River watershed at the time of western contact. Mithun (1999:541) provides a bibliography of linguistic studies of the Mono and Tubatulabal languages.

====Yokutsan Family Languages====
The Yokutsan language family includes a number of closely related Yokuts languages, all within the drainage of the San Joaquin River in California (Shipley 1979:82-84). The family is a member of the Penutian language stock. It has recently been suggested to be a branch of a Yok-Utian family within that stock, together with Miwokan and Ohlone-Costanoan (Callaghan 1997; Mithun 1999:309). The northern boundary of Yokutsan, where its speakers bordered the Plains Miwok, lay just north of Stockton (within the Delta-North San Joaquin zone). To the south, Yokutsan languages were spoken down the San Joaquin Valley to Buena Vista Lake at the foot of the Transverse Ranges. The eastern Yokutsan boundary varied. Where it contacted Sierra Miwok speakers, it was generally along the break between the plains and the Sierra Nevada foothills. South of the Fresno River, where it contacted Mono speakers, the border tended to be at higher elevations, in the yellow pine forest belt. On the west, the boundary between Yokutsan and Ohlone-Costanoan speakers was along the edge of the Coast Range foothills (Milliken 1994; cf. Kroeber 1925).

Three major branches within the Yokutsan language family are distinguished—Poso Creek, Buena Vista, and Nim-Yokuts. On the basis of comparative historical phonology and morphology, Whistler and Golla (1986) portray a complex division of ever-more-recent splits and expansions in Yokuts languages from south to north. They provide evidence that the Poso Creek language, on the one hand, and combined Buena Vista and Nim-Yokuts on the other hand, are two separate branches of the family. Nim-Yokuts, the most widespread of the three main branches, is itself split into Tule-Kaweah (of the southern Sierran foothills) and Northern Yokuts. Finally, Northern Yokuts itself is represented by the Delta, Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Kings River Yokuts languages. Mithun (1999:567-568) provides an overview of recent linguistic insights regarding Yokutsan, as well as a bibliography of relevant linguistic studies.

The South San Joaquin region includes all of the Yokutsan language areas except the Delta Yokuts, a language within the Nim-Yokuts branch.

===Western Contact and Disruption===
Change of traditional native life in the South San Joaquin vicinity was caused by both direct and indirect forces. The direct forces were Spanish expeditions, emigration to Coast Range missions (Figure 3), arrival of traders and gold miners in the late 1840s, arrival of settlers in the 1850s, and the removal of many groups to a series of reservations from the 1850s through the 1890s. Indirect impacts were the arrival of new diseases, new ideas, and new tools that reached groups ahead of direct contact.

====Spanish Period====
=====First Contact=====
[[File:Vol9-fig3.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 3. Degree of Mission-Induced Depopulation in the South San Joaquin Analytic Zone.]]The year 1771 marked the first Spanish expedition into the South San Joaquin vicinity. It was led by Pedro Fages, who came into the area from the south in search of deserters from the Spanish military. Herbert Bolton (1935), translater of the journal entries that indirectly describe that trip, reconstructed Fages<nowiki>’</nowiki> journey from San Diego up to Cajon Pass and Antelope Valley, then over Tejon Pass into the Buenavista Lake region. The trip seems to have occurred in winter, perhaps February 1771, because Fages was later able to provide the earliest description of a southern Yokuts winter village:

In their villages the natives live in the winter in very large squares, the families divided from each other, and outside they have very large houses in the form of hemisphere, where they keep their seeds and utensils <nowiki>[</nowiki>Fages 1772 in Bolton 1935:12<nowiki>]</nowiki>.

In 1776 Father F. Garces came into the southern San Joaquin Valley from the south as an unarmed evangelizer for Christianity. Garces probably entered the valley by way of Cottonwood Creek and Tejon Creek, and then went north to the Kern River in the present Bakersfield area. He learned that the Yokuts people of the Kern Lake and Bakersfield regions had been visited by Spanish deserters who abused their women; the tribal people executed them for committing these assaults. He also was told that one Spanish deserter was living happily in a nearby community, married to an Indian woman (Coues 1900:272-302).

=====Post-1800 Spanish Expeditions=====
No Spanish expeditions into the South San Joaquin are documented from the time of Garcés to 1805. Beginning that year, numerous groups entered the valley during the Spanish period. Whether led by soldiers or missionaries, these parties always included soldiers and always searched for baptized Indians who broke the territorial law by leaving their missions without permission. The expeditions included:

* 1805 Martin (in Cook 1960:243-244): Mission San Miguel to the Wowol villages on the south shore of Tulare Lake.
* 1806 Zalvidea (in Cook 1960:245-247): Mission Santa Barbara over San Rafael Mountains to Buenavista and Kern Lakes, then to the Kern River at present Bakersfield (Kern County), over Tejon Pass to Antelope Valley, Cajon Pass, and Mission San Gabriel.
* 1806 Moraga-Muñoz (in Cook 1960: 247-253): Mission San Juan Bautista east to the east side of the San Joaquin River (in Merced County), north as far as the Mokelumne River (San Joaquin County), then back south along the east side of the valley all the way to Kern Lake and over Tejon Pass (Kern County) to Mission San Gabriel.
* 1808 Palomares (in Cook 1960:256-257): From Mission San Fernando to the Antelope Valley (Los Angeles and Kern counties), to the hill country overlooking the southern San Joaquin Valley (Kern County), and back to Mission San Fernando.
* 1815 Ortega (in Cook 1960:267-68): From Mission San Miguel to the Kaweah River (through Kings and Tulare counties)
* 1815 Pico (in Cook 1960: 268-269): From Mission San Juan Bautista to the Kaweah River (through Merced, Fresno, and Kings counties).
* 1815 Pico-Ortega (in Cook 1960 269-271): Pico and Ortega joined forces at a distributary of the Kaweah River (Corcoran vicinity), then backtracked Pico<nowiki>’</nowiki>s route north (through Kings and Fresno counties), crossed the San Joaquin River, and continued north (in Madera County) almost to the Merced River, then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.
* 1816 Martinez (in Cook 1960:271-272): From Mission San Luis Obispo across the Temblor Range to the south end of Tulare Lake (Kern County), thence southeast to Goose Lake, and probably to the Bakersfield vicinity on the Kern River, back to Tulare Lake (all Kern County), then west back to Mission San Luis Obispo.
* 1819 Estudillo (in Gayton 1936): From Mission San Miguel to the south side of Tulare Lake and Goose Lake (Kern County), northeast to the White, Tule, and Kaweah rivers (Tulare County), to the north side of Tulare Lake and lower Kings River (Kings County), then north along Fresno Slough to the bend of the San Joaquin River (Fresno County) and Los Banos Creek (Merced County), then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.

=====Spanish Era (up through 1821) Mission Recruitment=====
Approximately 3,200 people moved to Franciscan missions in the Coast Ranges from the South San Joaquin zone. The preponderance of them (1,790; 56%) went during the Spanish era, through late 1821. Many, but not all, of the South San Joaquin Valley people to arrive at the missions before 1822 can be traced to groups from specific areas. Probably all in that early group were Yokuts speakers. Below is an overview of Spanish period Yokuts missionization, presented by county.

Merced County—More than 800 Yokuts people moved to the missions from Merced County between 1798 and 1821. The largest group was Nopchenches from the Santa Rita region, 111 people. Surprisingly, most members of the next largest single group—208 Janalamne/Tejeys—went to Mission Santa Clara, the remainder to Santa Cruz; they are tentatively associated with the Gustine area. The first Merced County people at the missions were the Chaneches of the Los Banos region, 106 people (most at Santa Cruz). The Notoals/Huocons of the Mud Slough region were split between missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista. From just east of the San Joaquin River, most of the Quithrathres of the Atwater region and Uthrocus of the El Nido region were at Mission San Juan Bautista by the end of 1821.

Fresno County—More than 500 people from western Fresno County were at the missions by the end of 1821. First came the Quihueths of the Oro Loma region, More than 100 people were absorbed into missions San Juan Bautista and Soledad before 1817. The Helm region people—hard to identify individually, but probably more than 90 people—went to Mission Soledad prior to 1818. Mendota people, the Cutochos, were at the missions before 1821, split between San Juan Bautista and Soledad. The other large Fresno County groups nearly entirely removed to the missions by that time were the Eyuslahuas and Copchas of the Firebaugh region. Remaining Fresno County groups at the end of the period lived eastward of the lowest portions of the San Joaquin Valley.

Madera County—Only 78 identifiable Yokuts people from areas centered in Madera County were at any mission before 1822. Most, 65, were Chausilas from the western Chausila Dairyland region. Another 11 were Heuchis from the Madera region. One was a Hoyima and one was from a poorly documented small group called Oatsin that may have been in the Sierra foothills.

Kings County—At least 82 Yokuts people from groups in Kings County were at the missions before 1822. The great majority (61; 74%) were Tachis; they were divided almost equally among missions Soledad, San Antonio, and San Miguel. Another 11 were Telesmecoyo people from the Dudley Ridge area on the west shore of Tulare Lake, three at Mission San Antonio, and eight at San Miguel; there should have been more, and it is likely that they also appeared at the missions under synonymous names that have not been identified with any specific San Joaquin Valley location. Another nine Chunuts from the Corcoran region were at the missions, four each at Soledad and San Miguel, plus one at San Antonio. One Nutunutu from the Hanford region had gone to Mission San Antonio.

Tulare County—Only eight people from groups centered in Tulare County had gone to the missions by the end of 1821. Six of them were Telamnes from Goshen/Visalia, at Mission San Miguel. Two others were Choinocs from the Tulare region, at Mission San Buenaventura.

Kern County—At least 243 Yokuts people from Kern County were at missions by the end of 1822. The great majority (198; 81%) went to San Miguel, where the Wowols of Alpaugh were the highest represented (103), followed by the Auyamnes of the Buttonwillow region (63). Also appearing in San Miguel registers were 14 Tulamnis from the Buenavista region and 11 Yaulmanis from Bakersfield. Mission San Luis Obispo had baptized 29 South San Joaquin people, the largest group being 14 Auyamnes from Buttonwillow, and the next largest being only seven Tulamnis from Buenavista. Buenavista also sent two people to Santa Barbara, three to San Fernando, and two to San Buenaventura. Ten Quiyamnes were distributed among San Miguel, San Luis Obispo, and San Fernando. Only four Kern Lake Hometwalis are identifiable in the pre-1822 records, two at Santa Barbara and one each at San Buenaventura and La Purisima.

In summary, by the end of 1821 the northwest portion of the South San Joaquin zone was empty of villages on the plains on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in northwest Fresno County and Merced County, as well as along the north-south flowing San Joaquin River in present Merced County and far western Madera County. Southeast and east of that area tribal life was still intact at the end of the year 1821.

One other caveat—the Quiyamne (Famoso region) and Auyamne (Buttonwillow), two Yokuts tribelets in the otherwise-intact area south of Tulare Lake, seem to have been destroyed as viable groups in wars with their neighbors prior to 1821.

====Mexican Period====
An independent Mexican government replaced Spain in control of the coastal missions and presidios over the winter of 1821-1822. More military expeditions entered the valley during the Mexican Period, in search of fugitive Christian neophytes and of native people who raided mission horse herds. North American fur trappers also began to enter the South San Joaquin regions during the Mexican period. Brief overviews are provided below regarding key expeditions.

=====Mexican Period San Joaquin Diaries=====
''1826 Pico (in Cook 1962:181-184)'': Pico went into the San Joaquin Valley to punish horse raiders and capture fugitive Christian Indians. He left Monterey on December 27, 1825. The raid took them into Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties. After discovering some fugitive Christian Indians in the Firebaugh area they went east to the Herndon vicinity, then north into Heuchi lands, in search of the Hoyima. They captured 40 people, and arrested seven of these as criminals. Next they traveled south to the Kings River, where they visited villages up and down the river. Returning north along the east side of Fresno Slough to the Mendota area, they split off a group to return to Monterey with their prisoners. Then Pico doubled back south along the west side of Fresno Slough to Tulare Lake, in an attempt to sneak up on the Tachi, who were harboring fugitive Christians. Unsuccessful in that attempt, the party swung around the east side of Tulare Lake lands, stopped to visit friendly Wowols, and returned westward. The party reached Mission San Miguel on January 25, 1826.

''1827 Jedediah Smith (1977)'': Jedediah Smith led a group of American trappers up the San Joaquin Valley in the late winter and early spring of 1827. His large party, complete with its own herd of horses, crossed the Tehachapi Range from Antelope Valley to Kern Lake over February 9-11. At the lake they secured as a guide an Indian man who spoke Spanish. Farther north in the Bakersfield region Smith reported, "Several Indians some of them having horses visited the encampment" (Smith 1977:136). Arriving at Tulare Lake, he saw a Wowol village "of two or three hundred inhabitants" (Smith 1977:139). He described the Kaweah River country as "populous" and specifically mentioned a large village of the "Wimmilche" people, after whom he named the current Kings River. The population picture changed when Smith moved north to the bend of the San Joaquin River, which "they called the Peticutry." From that point northward Smith found no villages in the flat San Joaquin Valley until he reached the Mokelumne River (Smith 1977:146).

''1828a Rodriguez (in Cook1962:184-185)'': From April 22 until May 5, Rodriguez was in the Merced and Madera county areas raiding the Chausila, Heuchi, and Hoyima. "I brought in 52 horses taken from the village called Joyima and, between Christians and heathen, 85 souls," Rodriguez reported (in Cook 1962:185).

''1828b Rodriguez (in Cook 1962:185-186)'': On his second 1828 trip, Rodriguez raided areas south of Tulare Lake. He entered the San Joaquin Valley from La Panza (east of Mission San Luis Obispo) and reached the Tulamni on the west side of Buenavista Lake on May 29. Upon being informed that Indian people in the mountains to the south had horses, he moved south and raided small villages in the Santiago Creek, San Emigdio, and Grapevine Creek regions (Santa Barbara CDM zone). Returning northward, he raided the "Carrizos" (probably Hometwali) and the Yaulmani of the Bakersfield region before arriving farther north at his allies the Wowol of the Alpaugh region at Tulare Lake. He then left the San Joaquin Valley in the direction of Mission San Miguel.

''1830<'': North American fur trappers entered California in the 1830s, for instance Ewing Young (in Holmes 1967). Any diaries they might have left should be examined for information on ethnogeography.

=====Mexican Era (1822-1846) Mission Recruitment=====
Some 1,460 South San Joaquin region people moved to the missions during the Mexican era. About 1,270 (87%) have been assigned to specific regions, all Yokuts-speaking. Of the remaining 190 who are merely from "the Tulares," some small number may have been Western Mono or Tubatulabal. Three-quarters of the 1,270 people identifiable to region were baptized in one or another of three years:

1822—288 people, most (124) from the San Joaquin River in Fresno and Madera counties or from Merced County (121). Most were remnants of the Merced County groups on and just east of the San Joaquin River (Nopchenche, Quithrathre, Uthrocos), but a significant new group were the Pitcache of the Kerman region.

1834—264 people, most from Kings or Tulare counties. They included Chunut, Tachi, and Wowol of Tulare Lake, as well as Choinoc of Tulare and Wechihit of Sanger. These people were probably survivors of the malaria epidemic of 1833.

1835—277 people, most from Kern, Kings, and Tulare counties. Most were from the same groups baptized the previous year, but they also included a few Tulamnis of Buenavista, Tajanishilac (Hometwali) of Kern Lake, Yualmani of Bakersfied, and Telamne of Goshen/Visalia.

Malaria struck the Central Valley in August 1833. The epidemic devastated tribal groups farther north in the Sacramento Valley (Cook 1955) and south of the bend of the San Joaquin River as far as Kern Lake.

=====Mission Closure and Horse Raiding, 1837-1845=====
The Franciscan missions were closed as land-holding communes between 1834 and 1836. Under the original Spanish law and subsequent Mexican law, mission Indians were to be given half of the mission lands and livestock (Geary 1934). But only a handful of Mission Indian individuals were given any land or livestock by the commissioners of the Mexican government. None of them were tribal people of the South San Joaquin zone.

Surviving Coast Range Chumash, Salinan, and Ohlone-Costanoans went to work on various Mexican ranchos to the south and west of the San Joaquin Valley, as did some of those Yokuts people who had been at the missions since the early 1820s or earlier. Some of the "New Christians" who had been baptized since 1822 also stayed to work on Coast Range ranches. But most of the New Christians from tribelets on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley returned to their old homelands.

Many of those who returned to the San Joaquin Valley joined their remnant valley relatives who had survived the malaria epidemic to take up the horse raiding life that they had practiced in the early 1820s, before they moved to the missions. To an unknown extent, they brought people from Sierra foothill groups along on some of the horse raids. Horse raiding in the South San Joaquin seems to have been centered in present Madera County.

''1845 John C. Fremont (1886)'': Fremont brought his third exploring expedition down the east side of the San Joaquin Valley from Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort in December 1845. His encounter with the "Chauchiles" is discussed in detail in the Raymond region monograph, with quotes from Latta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1949) extract of his memoirs. Freemont<nowiki>’</nowiki>s full works have not been seen by this author. They should be consulted and all relevant material for ethnogeography should be cited in appropriate CDM monographs.

====Early American Period====
On May 13, 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico over an incident along the Texas border. The military occupation government appointed John Sutter sub-Indian agent for the district of Sacramento and San Joaquin in the spring of 1847. He was granted power to advise the government and threaten Indians and settlers with future recriminations in cases of illegal behavior. There is no evidence that he interacted with any groups of the South San Joaquin zone.

Reports of gold discovery in the mountains east of Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort brought a small flood of Hispanic and Anglo Californians to the Sierra foothills in the spring of 1848. In the summer of 1848, Governor Mason toured the central mines and reported thousands of Indians panning for gold with pans or willow baskets (Hurtado 1988:104). Adventurer James D. Savage soon hired Indian people to conduct placer mining operations with their basketry equipment. Savage set up a series of trading posts to collect gold from Indian people of the present Mariposa and Madera county areas (Hall 1978:66-67; Hurtado 1988:112-115; Munoz 1980); his main ally was Jose Reyes, a Chausila headman from the present west-central Madera County area who had been baptized at Mission San Juan Bautista in 1837 (San Juan Bautista Baptism 4298).

The spring and summer of 1849 brought a huge influx of young foreign men to California. By late 1850, 10,000 miners were reportedly working the Stanislaus River watershed (Hall 1978:54). The famous gold-mining settlements of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas, Angels Camp, Sonora, Coulterville, and Mariposa all grew up within Sierra Miwok territory. North Americans, French, Mexicans, and Chileans joined the Anglo and Hispanic Californians at the mines in 1849 and 1850. Some Mission Indians from the coastal settlements took up entrepreneurial activities in the mining towns, as Perkins described, in late 1849 or 1850:

<blockquote>Mission Indians, with scarlet bandanas round their heads, a richly colored zarape over their shoulders, a pair of cotton drawers, and bare-footed, would push their way through the crowd, carrying pails of iced liquor on their heads, crying … agua fresca, cuatro reales <nowiki>[</nowiki>Perkins 1964:106<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Anglo Americans predominated in the mines by 1850. Most of them had little regard for the native Indian people, considered them racially inferior and a nuisance, to be removed in any way possible. They began to drive the native workers out, often with violence and brutality. After 1850 the local Indians "continued to live on the margins of mining camps and boomtowns" but were never again a large percentage of the labor force (Hurtado 1988:108).

=====Unratified Treaties, Mariposa Indian War, 1850-1852=====
California was admitted to the United States as a free state on September 9, 1850. The new governor of California reflected the attitude of the majority of the state<nowiki>’</nowiki>s citizens. On January 7, 1851, in his annual message to the state legislature, Governor Peter Burnett stated that a war of extermination would be waged "until the Indian race should become extinct" and that it was "beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert the inevitable destiny" (Hittell 1897:899). As North American whites settled the best lands of the San Joaquin Valley, the Indians were driven off. When they poached some of the immigrant property, they were hunted down and killed.

Friction between the local people and North Americans in the southern mining district in present Mariposa County sparked the native resistance called the Mariposa Indian War of 1851.The resistance began in the fall of 1850 and culminated with the defeat of the leading groups, the Chauchila and the Chukchansi Yokuts, in the spring of 1851. Their leaders signed a treaty with the US government on April 29, 1851. (See further discussion of this and other treaties in the next section below.) We present here a summary of that war<nowiki>’</nowiki>s events, which involved local tribes who were living at the time in the Raymond, Le Grand, Coarse Gold, and Nipinnawassee regions. (The sources used here are the 1997 and 2004 works by George Phillips, themselves based on a myriad of primary manuscripts):

* At the start of the Gold Rush the Chauchila seem to have been living in either the Le Grand or Raymond region, perhaps both. In 1849, James Savage, a widower from Illinois, established trading posts along the Merced, Mariposa, and Fresno rivers, cohabited with a number of Indian wives, and hired local Indians to pan gold dust for him.
* Late in 1850 some Indians from the region between the Merced and Fresno rivers attacked Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s northern trading post on the Merced River. As tensions continued to build, Savage attempted to help the local groups face the new reality of western conquest by taking a "Chowchilla" chief named Jose Juarez to see San Francisco in the fall. (Jose Juarez is not identifiable in any Franciscan mission records.) In San Francisco, Juarez boasted that the tribes were preparing to drive the whites from the mountains (Phillips 1997:42, 43).
* In late November 1850, a group of tribes gathered near Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post (near the later Savage Monument in the eastern Raymond region); Phillips lists the Potuyanthre Miwok, Nuchu Miwok, Chauchila Yokuts, and Pitkachi Yokuts. (It is hard to imagine that the Chuckchansi Yokuts were not there also.) Savage went to talk with them and urge them to avoid war, but his efforts were rejected. Then, on December 1, Indian agent Adam Johnston arrived in the area and went to talk to the Chauchila chiefs at Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River station. After Johnson distributed gifts, the Chauchila assured him they would not oppose the whites.
* On December 17, a combined group of Chauchila Yokuts, Chukchansi Yokuts, and Pohonichi Miwoks raided Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post, killed three men, and made off with goods and livestock. On the same day Savage noticed that Potuyanthre Indians living around his Mariposa post had withdrawn into the mountains and followed them to a camp in the higher mountains; they may have been diverting Savage away from the Fresno River attack (Phillips 1997:43, 44).
* On December 25, more than 100 Indians attacked a miners<nowiki>’</nowiki> camp and ferry in what may be the later Cassidys Bar area along the San Joaquin River, an area now flooded by Millerton Lake. One miner was killed and ten were wounded. Specific tribes were not mentioned, but just days before, the local sheriff had warned all miners to leave the San Joaquin River after he spoke with Pitkachi chief Tom-quit at his village (Phillips 1997:47).
* The Americans responded by sending out a posse of about 100 miners and settlers from various mining camps in the Mariposa district. A few days after January 7, 1851 they found the Heuchi, along with many Chauchilas and some Chukchansis, in a mountainous village of 60 or 70 huts; diaries indicate they traveled 50 miles, but that may not have been on a direct line. They burned the village and killed 30 people (Phillips 1997:49-52). This refuge may have been at Fresno Flats or farther east in the Bass Lake area.
* On January 17, 1851 the settler posse went out again, by way of Fine Gold Creek. They found the resisting Indians "on the north fork of the San Joaquin" (Phillips 1997:53), which, if true, put them deep into the Sierra and far above the snow line of the North Fork region. Phillips summarized: "At a nearby village resided elements of the Chauchila, Chukchansi, Gawia, Nukchu, Potoyanti, Pohonichi, and Yosemite. Numbering some five hundred fighting men, they were led by Chauchila chiefs José Rey and José Juarez" (Phillips 1997:53). (Chief Jose Rey is probably the individual baptized at San Juan Bautista in 1837 as a 19 year old Chauchila <nowiki>[</nowiki>SJB-B 4298<nowiki>]</nowiki>). Again, the native camp was burned and the Indians retreated.
* In February and early March 1851 miners and settlers were attacked over a wide area of the Sierra foothills, from the Stanislaus River south to the Kaweah River. Among places where whites were killed were the San Joaquin River in the Friant region and Fine Gold Gulch in the Coarse Gold region. The Chauchila were blamed for most of the raids (Phillips 1997:55, 71).

A group of three federal commissioners arrived in the Jamestown vicinity (Delta/North San Joaquin zone), north of the main disturbance area, on February 20, 1851. They had been directed by the United States Congress to make a series of treaties with local groups across the state. The purpose of the treaties was to get the tribes out of the mining and farming lands and onto lands that were not desired by the rapidly growing North American population. Under the treaties, three reservations were set up along the front edge of the foothills within the South San Joaquin zone.

* The federal treaty commissioners arrived in the San Joaquin Valley in February 1851, at the same time that state officials were organizing an official militia to suppress the Indians. The commissioners established Camp Fremont on the Little Mariposa River on March 8 and soon began talking with the adjacent Potoyanti (the Hunter Valley region) and Siyante (Catheys Valley region). The commissioners picked lands for their reservation north of the Merced River in the San Joaquin Valley. The Potoyanti, Siyante, and four local tribes of the upper Merced and Tuolumne rivers signed the first federal treaty (later called Treaty M<ref>The letter sequence for these treaties was not used in the field but was imposed years later in Washington D.C.</ref>) on March 19, 1851 (Phillips 2004:27).
* Beginning on March 19, 1851, companies from the newly organized Mariposa Battalion went into the mountains to bring in the many resisting groups. One of the companies followed Tenaya<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Yosemite group into Yosemite Valley in late March.
* While the militia was chasing the various groups, the commissioners moved south to the Fresno River, where they arrived on March 27.
* On April 9 some Indian women came in to the commissioners to say that the Chauchila would sign a treaty, but not until they had finished their mortuary ceremonies for Chief José Reyes, who had died of his earlier wounds. In mid-April a portion of the Mariposa Battalion headed towards the North Fork of the San Joaquin River by way of Coarse Gold Gulch, in search of the Chauchila. They found a deserted village and the remains of José Reye<nowiki>’</nowiki>s cremation. It turned out that the main group of Chauchila people had already gone down the San Joaquin River to the valley to meet with the commissioners (Phillips 1997:83-84).

Treaty N was signed on April 29, 1851 with tribelets of present southwest Mariposa County, central Madera County, and central Fresno County. The Chauchila, Heuchi, Chukchansi (all three Yokuts), Pohonichi, and Nuchu (both Sierra Miwok) all came out of the mountains to sign the treaty at a spot called Camp Barbour on the San Joaquin River (now the Friant vicinity of Fresno County). There they joined local tribes from along the San Joaquin and others who had been brought north from the Kings River. The Treaty N reservation territory, as described in the treaty text, was to be a very large stretch of plain along the base of the Sierra, from the Chowchilla River to the Kings River. In all, 16 tribes signed the treaty in three geographic groupings (Heizer 1972:71-81; Phillips 2004:27, 30). The Chauchila and Chukchansi were part of the northern geographic group, along with the Heuchi Yokuts, the Pohonichi Miwok, and the Nutchu Miwok, all of whom "acknowledge Nai-yak-qua as their principal chief" (Heizer 1972:72). (See the Madera region CDM monograph for more information about Nai-yak-qua of the Heuchi.) Also of note, none of the Chauchila or Chukchansi Treaty N signatories had a Spanish name; the Chauchila signatories were Po-ho-leel, E-keeno, Kay-o-ya, A-pem-shee, and Cho-no-hal-ma, while the Chukchansi were Co-tumsi, Ti-moh, Sa-wa-lai, A-chat-a-na, and Mi-e-wal (Heizer 1972:72-79).

The Mariposa War was nearly over with the signing of Treaty N in April 1851 by all of the resisting groups except the Yosemites (probably composite Bull Creek region and eastern Sierra Monos) and "Monos" of the North Fork region. The Yosemites were captured by mid-May, by which time the Monos were believed to have fled over the Sierra (Phillips 1997:1-99, 2004:25-34).

The commissioners continued south in May 1851. On May 13, at the Kings River, perhaps in the Kingston vicinity, the Tachi, Nutunutu, Wimilche, Telamni, Choinoc, Kaweah, and Yokod of the plains signed Treaty A along with the Entibich, Tuhucmache, Toineche, Holcuma, and Wukchumne of the foothills. Some of the hill groups were Mono speakers.

On May 30 more groups were brought together by the commissioners on the Kaweah River. There the Koyeti, Wolasi, Padwisha, and Wacksache signed Treaty B, along with some groups whose names are not definitely associated with those known ethnographically. Again, the groups included both Yokuts and Mono speakers.

On June 3, 1851, groups gathered on the White River signed Treay C. The groups included the Chunut, Wowol, Yalumne, and another segment of the Koyeti.

On June 10, 1851 groups from the far south end of the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding hill country, who had been gathered together at Tejon Creek, signed Treaty D. Those who are recognizable were the Texon (Kitenamuk), Castake (Castaic Chumash), San Imigdio (Chumash), Uvas (Chumash), Carises (Hometwali Yokuts), Buena Vista (Tulamni Yokuts), and Hol-mi-uh (Paleumne Yokuts). Less definite by location were the Holoclame, Sohonuts, and Tocia groups.

=====Valley and Sierra Indian Experience, 1852-1868=====
Edward F. Beale was appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California in March 1852. In October he proposed a series of temporary reservations with military posts. All Indians from the northern and central San Joaquin Valley and adjoining hills were to be brought to the Fresno River Farm, a small part of the Treaty N territory in present Madera County. The Fresno River Farm was activated that winter and maintained until 1860 (Hurtado 1988:142). Hurtado writes, "Indians from Tuolumne and Mariposa counties lived part of the year on the reservations and spent the rest of their time in their homelands" (1988:152).

The Fresno Indian Farm was closed in 1861. During the Civil War, a number of hostilities occurred between Indian people in the far north of California and the US military. However, other reservations were founded at Tule River and on Tejon Creek. Indian people of the South San Joaquin counties who did not stay on those reservations were subjected to many atrocities without recourse to legal protection.

=====Church-run Reservations in the Grant Administration=====
Ulysses Grant appointed army officers to run most of the reservations in the west at the outset of his first administration, in 1869. However, the US Congress passed a law in 1870 that forbade army officers from holding civil positions. Grant then turned to religious institutions, including the Methodists, Episcopalians, and the Friends, to run the reservations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1873 the Tule River Reservation, the only remaining reservation in the San Joaquin Valley, was moved from high quality valley lands up to less valuable lands in the dry foothills of Tulare County (Forbes 1969:65). Some Yokuts speakers from the old Fresno Indian Farm may have been moved there during the 1870s or earlier.

=====Indian Boarding Schools=====
The federal government began an aggressive policy of training Indians to assimilate into white culture during the 1870s and 1880s. Day schools for Indians were established in reservation areas of the state during the 1880s. Additionally, boarding schools were established to remove young Indians from the cultural influences of their parents. Boarding schools were established at Tule River in 1881, at Middletown in Lake County in 1885, at Hoopa Valley and Perris in 1893, and at Fort Bidwell in 1898 (Castillo 1978:116). The boarding schools were vocationally oriented, and young Indians from some schools were sent out as domestics to nearby white homes.

=====Dawes Act of 1887 and Jackson Rancheria in 1895=====
The Dawes Act, directing the breakup of communal Indian reservation tracts across the United States into small family-owned parcels, was passed by Congress in 1887. The Act was the result of general indignation regarding the situation of non-reservation California Indians stimulated by publication of Helen Hunt Jackson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s book ''Century of Dishonor'' (1881). Jackson Rancheria was one of 17 small "postage stamp" reservations or rancherias (14 in the southern California mission area), purchased in California during the 1890s under the Act.

=====Legal and Social Status Changes after 1900=====
By the beginning of the twentieth century, the economies of the Sierra foothill counties were shifting from mining to farming, ranching, and timber harvesting. Yokuts and Mono men who had survived to this period obtained jobs as laborers in these industries when they could. The women worked as field laborers and house servants. Indian people were still being treated badly by many whites, but laws and attitudes were beginning to change—slowly.

In 1905-1906 C. E. Kelsey, a lawyer from San Jose, carried out an investigation into the condition of landless Indians in California for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As a result, Congress authorized $100,000 to the Secretary of the Interior for land purchase and water development for landless California Indians in acts of June 21, 1906 and April 30, 1908. Dozens of tiny rancherias were purchased throughout California over the next few years under this act.

=====Education and Voting Rights Activities=====
From 1909 forward, California Indian people pressed their own claims for civil rights and land. Some of the cases were aided by an umbrella group called The Indian Board of Cooperation, led by a white protestant minister named Frederick G. Collet. One of their first actions was to press for improved Indian access to education. Major educational improvements occurred between 1915 and 1919, writes Jack Forbes (1969:73):

In 1915 only 316 Indian pupils were attending public school in California but by 1919 this number had increased to 2,199. In general, this was the result of a campaign carried out by Indians and the Indian Board of Cooperation and a new government policy of integrating Indians in public schools in areas such as California and Nevada where the native population was intermixed with white communities.

The Indian Board of Cooperation also aided a Lake County Pomo man, Ethan Anderson, in his court case to obtain the right to vote. Anderson won his case before the California Supreme Court in 1917, thereby essentially winning citizenship rights for all California Indians who did not live on reservations. Thus most California Indian people first became US citizens in 1917.

Recognition of Indian voting rights in 1917 pertained only to Indians living off of federal reservations. Full citizenship for all Native Americans was not recognized by Congress until an act of June 1924. However, a series of complex decisions since that time has limited Indian civil rights on federal reservation lands (see Forbes 1969:95-98).

===Classic and Recent Ethnographers===
Many of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s most famous field ethnographers worked in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The six whose works are most valuable—Anna Gayton, Edward W. Gifford, J. P. Harrington, A. L. Kroeber, Frank Latta, and C. Hart Merriam—are discussed individually below, followed by a paragraph on others who also contributed in the field, and a final paragraph mentioning those who have contributed more recent synthetic ethnogeographic studies.

====C. Hart Merriam (1855-1942)====
Merriam, a university-trained biologist and medical doctor, became first chief of the predecessor agency to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1886. In that capacity he worked in the field in California off-and-on between 1898 and 1910, keeping numerous notes about the Indian people that he met in his regular biologists field notebooks. In 1910 he received a life-time endowment from the Harriman Trust which allowed him to retire and conduct any research that he wanted. He chose to devote most of his attention to fieldwork with California Indians. Reflecting that change in circumstances, from 1910 forward he wrote his detailed ethnographic notes separately from his daily journals, the latter becoming merely diaries.

Merriam worked among Indian people in many areas of the South San Joaquin zone, all in or near the Sierra Nevada foothills, between 1902 and 1934. Most of his material pertinent to the local regions of the South San Joaquin zone have been published under editorship of Robert F. Heizer (Merriam 1967, 1977). These materials have been quoted in the completed CDM monographs. Detailed future research should rely, whenever possible, on Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s original field materials to best appreciate the context of their collection.

Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field dairy/journals are now in the Library of Congress (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938a<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His separate ethnographic journals and notes are at the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley, along with his extensive collection of photographs of Indian people (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938b<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His collection of North American Indian basketry is at the Anthropology Museum at the Department of Anthropology at UC Davis.

====Alfred L. Kroeber (1876-1960)====
A. L. Kroeber received the first doctorate in anthropology awarded at Columbia University in 1901 under Franz Boas. His first California field work took place a year earlier, when, as temporary curator of Indian artifacts at the Academy of Science in San Francisco, he interviewed Indian people in the Klamath River area of northwest California. With Ph.D. in hand, he joined the new Department of Anthropology at the University of California in 1902, where he became department head and taught until his retirement in 1946. The entire body of his field notes is in the Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley (Kroeber <nowiki>[</nowiki>1869-1972<nowiki>]</nowiki>).

Kroeber did quite a bit of field work in the South San Joaquin, much of it prior to 1910. In later years he wrote, "A summary of what I obtained as to tribal territories, place names, sites inhabited, and local resources went into my ''Handbook of the Indians of California'', chapter 32. But the great mass of primary data was too intricate and detailed to print in so general a work as that was, and much of the mass remains in my notebooks, or in incomplete handwritten extracts" (Kroeber 1963:178). Good references to his early informants, but little in the way of ethnogeography, is found in the posthumously published "Yokuts Dialect Survey" (Kroeber 1963).

====John P. Harrington (1884-1961)====
J. P. Harrington took a circuitous route to become a great linguist and ethnologist of California Indian people. Finishing undergraduate work at Stanford University in 1905, he went to Leipzig and then Berlin to pursue a Ph.D. But he dropped out and returned to become a high school teacher and work with elderly Chumash speakers between 1912 and 1914. He was hired as a permanent field ethnologist by the Bureau of American Ethnography in 1915 and worked for the Bureau until 1955. He published very little, but left behind more than one million pages of only moderately organized notes, mostly on language but also on mythology and geography, for native groups from Alaska to South America. His papers are housed at the Smithsonian Institution, although many are available through copy microfilm at a number of institutions across the United States (Mills 1986).

Between 1912 and 1940 Harrington made two significant trips into the South San Joaquin regions. In October 1914 he visited elderly Yokuts speakers at the Santa Rosa Rancheria and Tule River Reservation. Then he spent months at the Tejon Reservation among Chumash, Kitenamuk, Serrano, and Yokuts speakers during the late fall and winter of 1916-1917. Although these two visits represent a small portion of Harrington<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field time, they resulted in a rich and important body of material (Earle 2003).

====E. W. Gifford (1887-1959)====
Gifford was a colleague of Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s at the UC Berkeley Department of Anthropology. He made a number of important contributions to California ethnology, particularly in the areas of kinship systems and kinship terminology. This included an important ethnographic study of clans and moieties in the southern part of the state, carried out in 1918. Gifford was a remarkable scholar, particularly as he had no college degree—something of a rarity for a UC Berkeley faculty member.

Gifford worked among Sierran Miwok groups and the North Fork Mono. His monograph on the North Fork Mono is perhaps the most detailed ethnogeography of any central California people.

====Frank F. Latta (1892-1981)====
Frank Latta was an educator and self-trained field ethnographer of the Yokuts. He began interviewing his Yokuts neighbors soon after he moved to Visalia, Tulare County, in 1923. One of his important informants was Bill Wilson (Pahmit), a mixed Dumna-Kechayi-Pitkachi of Friant, Fresno County. The other was Yoimut, Chunut-Wowol who spent her life on the ranches of Tulare County. Yoimut may have been the best-informed of all Yokuts consultants. "She could read, write, and speak Spanish and English, as well as talk six Yokuts languages," wrote Latta (1949:224). Latta published two significantly different versions of his ''Handbook of Yokuts Indians'', first in 1949 and then an expanded version in 1977. The two should be studied and cited separately because the 1977 version re-arranged earlier text, added new conclusions, and modified the spellings of several words.

====Anna Gayton (1899-1977)====
Anna H. Gayton was the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in anthropology from UC Berkeley, in 1928, majoring under Kroeber and Lowie. She taught Decorative Art at Berkeley from 1948 to 1965. Gayton produced a spectacular amount of published material on Yokuts and Western Mono groups of the southern Sierra Nevada and adjacent eastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley based on field work done in 1925-1930. A series of articles and a detailed monograph embodying most of her field data were published in 1948. In addition to presenting her own field results, she performs knowledgeable critiques of contradictory and unclear material gathered by earlier ethnographers.

====Other Field Ethnographers====
Other people did work in the South San Joaquin zone who have contributed to our ethnogeographic monographs, such as linguist Stanley S. Newman (1905-1984) and Harold Driver (1907-1992), professor of Anthropology at Indiana University.

====More Recent Synthesizers====
The first researcher to study the systematic distribution of groups and populations in the South San Joaquin zone was Sherburne Cook(1955, 1976)), a Harvard-trained professor of physiology at Berkeley who detailed the population of California Indians using quantitative analysis. George Phillips, a University of Colorado historian, synthesized literature on the 1851 treaties (1975) and, more recently, data on the Tejón reservation (1997). William J. Wallace<nowiki>’</nowiki>s sections on the Yokuts in the Handbook of North American Indians, California, offer an unsystematic presentation from the classic literature.

===Organization of Landholding Groups===
Yokuts clearly had tribelets: Kroeber (1925); Kunkel (1962).

Western Mono were independent hamlets, but some were given regional names by Yokuts neighbors, names that have stuck. It is not clear if they really formed regional communities.

Tubatulabal seem to have been between tribelets and independent hamlet groups, but they had some sense of being in three loose communities.

===Conclusion: Mapping Approaches and Constraints===
Mapping approaches with the South San Joaquin zone varied with the nature of available evidence. To put simply, wherever the heartland of a particular group was identifiable through classic ethnography or an early diary, a node was established for that group. Upon initial application of nodes, the analytical zone could be divided into five areas, each with its own unique mapping problems and opportunities, in order of data quality:

* Sierra foothills: all areas of the zone, from the upper San Joaquin River south to the Kern River, had excellent field ethnographic work among people who still remembered the original tribal distributions. There are two exceptions: in Madera County, ethnographic consultants remembered that the Chuckchanis held a large expanse north of the San Joaquin River; other evidence suggests that the term was taken from one regional tribelet and generalized to some of their neighbors. The other ambiguity involves Toltechi, a Yokuts group attributed by one consultant to a small area in the San Joaquin River Canyon (Kerchoff reservoir) that would otherwise seem to have been within Western Mono lands.
* Tulare Lake, Kern-Buenavista Lake Basin, Kaweah River delta: Classic ethnographic consultants remembered well the native groups of these flat valley regions, with two exceptions. First, the mission records list a group called Quiyamne, unknown to ethnographic consultants; their marriage ties suggest they were from the Famosa region and their name is reminiscent of the obscure Giamina Uto-Aztecans of Kroeber (1925:479). The other problem is contradictory evidence regarding the geography and identity of the Wolasi and Choinok Yokuts between the modern towns of Visalia and Tulare.
* San Joaquin River on the valley plain: triblet organization in this area had been almost completely destroyed through missionization and disease by the time of the gold rush. Remnant Chausila, Heuchi, Hoyima, and Pitcache people were living with foothill people in the years of classic ethnographic field research. Thus their tribelet locations are tentatively reconstructed from hints garnered by ethnographers, comments in Hispanic expedition diaries, and the traditional mission register analysis techniques of time sequence and marriage studies. Confident locational results have been obtained for all but the Chausila.
* Kings River drainage: survivors told classic ethnographiers the locations of the Wilmilche, Nutunuu, and Wechihit, in locations supported by early expedition commentaries. However, a mystery still remains about the groups at the edge of the Sierra foothills, adjacent to the Wechihit, to both the northwest and southeast. We tentatively model the Gashowu as originally inhabiting the plain west of Sanger and in the Fresno vicinity, following Kroeber (1925). On the southeast side, the Orange Grove inhabitants are still more problematic. Although we lack positive evidence, we suggest the possibility that the historical Chukamina were driven up into the Dunlap region from the plain in the Orange Grove region below.
* Western Plain from Merced River south to the Kings River Country: people of this area were entirely removed to the missions before 1820. Group names such as Quihueths, Cutocho, and Yyin, appear enough times in the mission records to suggest they were the major groups of the west side; however, a significant number of west-side people were merely identified as "Tulares" in the mission records. Thus the CDM regions in this area are best-guess representations of the original condition.

==Regions==
* [[COARSE GOLD REGION|Coarse Gold]]
* [[DAIRYLAND REGION|Dairyland]]
* [[FIREBAUGH REGION|Firebaugh]]
* [[FRIANT REGION|Friant]]
* [[HERNDON REGION|Herndon]]
* [[KERMAN REGION|Kerman]]
* [[LE GRAND REGION|Le Grand]]
* [[MADERA REGION|Madera]]
* [[NORTH FORK REGION|North Fork]]
* [[ORO LOMA REGION|Oro Loma]]
* [[RAYMOND REGION|Raymond]]
* [[SANTA RITA REGION|Santa Rita]]

==Bibliography==
Aginsky, B. W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1943
|''Culture Element Distributions, XXIV: Central Sierra''. University of California Anthropological Records 8(4):393-468. Berkeley.

|}

Arroyo de la Cuesta, Felipe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1810-1819
|Untitled Notebook containing Religious Texts in Indian Languages, compiled by the author for personal use between 1810 and 1819. BANC MSS C-C 60. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1821-1837
|''Lengua de California''. Notebook containing grammar and vocabularies of various California Indian group, recorded at several missions between 1821 and 1837. BANC MSS C-C 63b. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1822''-''1824''
|Libro de Gobierno del P. Fr. Felipe Arroyo con los Nombres de los Neofitos de los Tulares ya Gentiles baja Christianos, segun contan en el Libro de Bautismos … q.e en por donde ellos, esso es, los Yndios se entienden y distinguen unos de otros''.  Manuscript at the Catholic Diocesan Archives of Monterey, 485 Church Street, Monterey, California. Cited from microfilm copy in possession of Randall Milliken, Davis, California.

|}

Barrett, Samuel A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1908
|The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''6(2):333-368. Berkeley

|}

Beeler, Madison S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|Noptinte Yokuts. In Studies in American Indian Languages:11-76. Jesse Sawyer, ed. ''University of California Publications in Linguistics'' 65. Berkeley.

|}

Bolton, Herbert

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1935
|''In the South San Joaquin Ahead of Garces''. Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield, California.

|}

Callaghan, Catherine

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|Evidence for Yok-Utian. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 63:18-64.

|}

Castillo, Edward D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Cook, Sherburne F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 16, University of California Press, Berkeley. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1960
|Colonial expeditions to the interior of California, 1800-1820. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''16.6. University of California Press, Berkeley. . <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1962
|Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''20(5):151-214. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1976
|''The Conflict Between the California Indians and White Civilization''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Coues, Elliott. ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''On The Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garcés (Missionary Priest) in His Travels Through Sonora, Arizona, and California 1775- 1776''. 2 vols. Francis P. Harper, New York.

|}

Derby, George H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1933
|The Topographica Reports of Lieutenant George H. Derby <nowiki>[</nowiki>1849<nowiki>]</nowiki>. Francis F. Farquhar, ed. ''California Historical Society Publications ''6. San Francisco.

|}

Driver, Harold E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Culture Element Distributions, VI: Southern Sierra Nevada. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''1(2):53-154

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Technical document submitted to Caltrans District 6, Fresno by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis.

|}

Estudillo, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1895
|''Report of Mission Tule River Agency. In Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1894'', Reports of Agents in California, pp. 119-124. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Forbes, Jack D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1969
|''Native Americans of California and Nevada: A Handbook''. Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg, California.

|}

Frémont, John Charles

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1886
| Memoirs of my life : including in the narrative five journeys of western explorations during the years 1842, 1843-4, 1845-6-7, 1848-9,

|}

Gamble, Lynn Hunter

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1991
|Organization of Activities at the Historic Settlement of Helo<nowiki>’</nowiki>: A Chumash Political, Economic, and Religious Center. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

Gayton, Anna H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1925-1965
|colspan = "2"|''A. H. (Anne Hadwick) Gayton papers.''

|-
| 
|1930
|Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24(3):239-251.

|-
| 
|1936
|Estudillo among the Yokuts: 1819. In: ''Essays in anthropology presented to A. L. Kroeber in celebration of his sixtieth birthday'' June 11, 1936. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1945
|Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. ''American Anthropologist'' 47(3):409-426.

|-
| 
|1948
|Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24:361-420. Berkeley.

|}

Geary, G. J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1934
|''The Secularization of the California Missions (1810-1846).'' Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C.

|}

Gifford, Edward W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1918
|Clans and Moieties in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Anthropology'', 14(2):155-219. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1932
|The Northfork Mono. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 31(2):15-65. Berkeley.

|}

Goddard, Ives

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|The Classification of the Native Languages of North America. ''Handbook of North American Indians, ''Volume 17 (Languages). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Grunsky, Carl E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1898
|Irrigation Near Fresno, California. ''Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of the US Geological Survey No. 18.'' Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Hall, A. L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Ethnohistorical Studies of the Central Sierra Miwok: 1800-1900. Unpublished M.A. thesis in anthropology, San Francisco State University.

|}

Heizer, Robert F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|California Indian Linguistic Records: The Mission Indian Vocabularies of Alphonse Pinart. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''15(1):1-84. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1966
|''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1972
|''The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-1852 between the California Indians and the United States Government''. University of California Archaeological Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978
|''California''. Edited by W. C. Sturtevant. Handbook of North American Indians 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Hittell, T. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1897
|''History of California''. N. J. Stone, San Francisco, California.

|}

Holmes, Kenneth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1967
|''Ewing Young:master trapper''. Portland, Oregon: Binsford & Mort.

|}

Hoopes, Alban W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1932
|''Indian Affairs and Their Administration, with Special Reference to the Far West, 1849-1860''. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932.

|}

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William Abeloe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|''Historic Spots in California''. 3rd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

|}

Hurtado, Albert L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|''Indian Survival on the California Frontier''. Yale University Press, New Haven.

|}

Jackson, H. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1881
|''Century of Dishonor: A Sketch of the United States Government<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Dealings with Some of the Indian Tribes''. Harper and Brothers, New York.

|}

Johnson, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|Social Responses to Climate Change on the Chumash Indians of South Central California''. ''In ''The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action'', Roderick J. McIntosh, Joseph A. Tainter, and Susan Keech McIntosh, pp. 301-327. , Columbia University Press, New York.

|}

Kelsey, C. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1905-1906
|colspan = "2"|Some Numerals from the California Indian Languages. Collection of Manuscripts from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 424. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1971
|''Census of Non-reservation California Indians, 1905-1906''. Edited by Robert F. Heizer. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Kroeber, Alfred L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1869-1972
|colspan = "2"|A.L. Kroeber Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1904
|The languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco. ''University of California Publications on American Archaeology and Ethnology ''2(2):29-80.

|-
| 
|1907
|Shoshonean Dialects of California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 4(3):65 165).

|-
| 
|1925
|''Handbook of the Indians of California''. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington.

|-
| 
|1948
|Seven Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(1).

|-
| 
|1951
|A Mohave Historical Epic. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(2)

|-
| 
|1959
|Ethnographic Interpretations, 7-11. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 47(3):235-310.

|-
| 
|1963
|Yokuts dialect survey. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(3).

|-
| 
|1972
|More Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 27.

|}

Kunkel, Peter H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Lamb, Sydney M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1953-1957
|colspan = "2"|Chukchansi Yokuts: Informant Nancy Wyatt. Manuscript at the Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1958
|Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 24(2):95-100.

|}

Latta, Frank F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1949
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. 1st Edition (287 pages). Kern County Museum, Bakersfield, California.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. Second Edition, revised and enlarged (765 pages). Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

|}

Leupp, F. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|Indian Lands: Their Administration with Reference to Present and Future Use. ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. ''33 (3), 136-146.

|}

Levy, Richard S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Eastern Miwok''. ''In ''California'', edited Richard F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8 , William C. Sturtevant general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Lynch, John M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1951
|The Kocheyali and the Aiticha. Collection of Manuscripts of from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 422. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|}

Mayfield, Thomas J

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Indian summer: Traditional life among the Choinumne Indians of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Joaquin Valley''. Berkeley, Calif: Heyday Books.

|}

McKay, Scott

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1914
|Official Map of Fresno, California, Compiled from Official Records and Latest Surveys. Electronic Document, http://www.davidrumsey.com, accessed May 12, 2010.

|}

Merriam, C. Hart

1898-1938a The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

1898-1938b C. Hart Merriam papers relating to work with California Indians, 1850-1974. Bulk 1898-1938. History of Science and Technology Collection. (Microfilm: BANC FILM 1022; Originals: BANC MSS 80/18 C). The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1902
|''The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam''. Journal II for 1902. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Photocopies on file with the C. Hart Merriam Collection, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

|-
| 
|1904
|Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''Science'' 19:912-917.

|-
| 
|1930
|The Em-tim-bitch, a Shoshonean Tribe. ''American Anthropologist'' 31:136-137.

|-
| 
|1955
|''Studies in California Indians''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1967
|Ethnographic Notes on Central California Indian Tribes. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Reports'', No. 68(3). Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1968
|Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey ''74, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

|-
| 
|1969
|''Catalogue of the C. Hart Merriam Collection of Data Concerning California Tribes and Other American Indians''. Robert F. Heizer and staff, editors. Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Ethnographic and Ethnosynonymic Data from Central California Tribes''. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Milliken, Randall T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|Tribal Political Geography''. ''In ''Archaeological Test Excavations at Fourteen Sites along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California: Volume 2'', Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland,

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. In ''The Ohlone Past and Present'', edited by Lowell John Bean, pp. 165-182. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|}

Miller, Wick R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Numic Languages. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.31-50. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Mills, Elaine L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1985
|''The papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957. Northern and Central California''. White Plains, N.Y.: Kraus International Publications.

|}

Mithun, Marianne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|''The Languages of Native North America''. University Press, Cambridge, UK

|}

Munoz, Neva Jeanne Harkins

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|''Political Middlemanship and the Double Bind: James D. Savage and the Fresno River Reservation''. Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology at the University of California, Riverside.

|}

Nell Boulé, Mary

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|''Tubatulabal Tribe''. Marryant Publishing, Vashon, Washington

|}

Newman, Stanley S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1944
|Yokuts Language of Califirnia. ''Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology'' 2. New York.

|}

Palomares, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1808
|''Diary of Francisco Palomares''. Provincial State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Vol. I, pp.232-242. California State Achives, Sacramento.

|}

Perkins, W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1964
|''Three Years in California: William Perkins<nowiki>’</nowiki> Journal of Life at Sonora, 1849-1852.'' University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Phillips, George Harwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1975
|''Chiefs and Challengers: Indian resistance and Cooperation in Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1993
|''Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1769-1849''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1849-1852''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma

|-
| 
|2004
|''Bringing Them Under Subjection: California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Tejón Indian Reservation and Beyond, 1852-1864''

|}

Powell, J. W., and G. W. Ingalls

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1873-1874
|Report of Special Commissioners J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls. In ''Report of the Secretary of the Interior'', 1874. US House of Representatives, 43rd congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 157, pp. 2-31.

|}

Powell, John Wesley

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Linguistics. In Tribes of California, by Stephen Powers. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology ''3. Washington: US Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.

|-
| 
|1891
|Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. ''7th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1885-1886''. Washington, D.C.

|}

Powers, Stephen

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Tribes of California. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology'' 3. U.S. Geographic and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington D.C.

|}

Schenck, W. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography'' 25(2):123-146.

|}

Shipley, William F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|Native Languages of California. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Smith, Charles, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1968-1972
|colspan = "2"|Ethnographic and Ethnobotanaical Notes from approximately 12 Months Field work among the Tübatulabal, California. Manusccrpit in possession of the author as of 1978.

|-
| 
|1978
|Tubatulabal. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 437-445. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Smith, Jedediah S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|''The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-1827'', edited with an introduction by George R. Brooks. A. H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.

|}

Spier, Robert F. G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Foothill Yokuts''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 471-484. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978
|Monache''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 426-436. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Swanton, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indian Tribes of North America''. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Wallace, William J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Southern Valley Yokuts. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 448-461. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Waterman, Thomas Talbot

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1885-1936
|Tubatulabal texts, vocabulary, and ethnographic notes. Ethnological Documents of the Department and Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Whistler, Kenneth and Victor Golla

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Proto-Yokuts Reconsidered. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 52:317-358.

|}

==References Consulted==
Anderton, Alice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|The Language of the Kitanemuks of California. PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Anza, Juan Bautista de

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1930
|Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Diary of the Second Anza Expedition, 1775-1776. Pp. 1-200 in ''Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s California Expeditions'', Volume 3. Herbert Bolton, editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Baksh, Michael

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|''Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Investigations of the Silurian Valley and Greater Central Mojave Desert''. Tierra Environmental Services. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACA09-94-D-0019.

|}

Barras, Judy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Their Places Shall Know Them No More''. Sierra Printers, Bakersfield, Ca.

|}

Barrows, David P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''The Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

|}

Basgall, Mark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''A Brief Cultural History of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California''. Archaeological Curation Facility, Fort Irwin, California.

|}

Baumhoff, Martin A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1963
|Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''49(2):155-236. Berkeley.

|}

Bean, Lowell John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|''Mukat<nowiki>’</nowiki>s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978a
| Cahuilla. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 575-588. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
| Social Organization. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 673-682. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell J and Thomas C. Blackburn

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Kitanemuk. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 564-569. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell John and Mason, William M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Diaries and Accounts of the Romero Expeditions in Arizona and California, 1823-1826''. Ward Richie Press, Los Angeles.

|}

Bean, Lowell J and Charles R. Smith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978a
| Serrano. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 570-574. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
|Cupeño. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 588-591. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell and Sylvia Brakke Vane

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|''Allen-Warner Valley Energy System: Western Transmission System: Ethnographic and Historical Resources''. Report Submitted by Cultural Systems Research, Inc. to Southern California Edison Co. December 15, 1979. Cultural Systems Research, Inc, Menlo Park, CA.

|}

Beatty Bullfrog

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1905
|''Indian Pow Wow. Remnants of the Piute Tribe Meet at Pahrump''. Beatty Bullfrog <nowiki>[</nowiki>Beatty, Nevada<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1(27):9/23/1905:1

|}

Benedict, Ruth.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1924
|A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. ''American Anthropologist'' 26(3):366-392.

|}

Blackburn, Thomas

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Native California.. in ''Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective'', Lowel J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, eds., pp. 225-243.. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.

|}

California. Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1890
|''Records of California Men in the War of the Rebellion, 1861 to 1867, revised and compiled by Brig. Gen. Richard H. Orton, Adjutant-General of California''. California Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office, Sacramento.

|}

Cappannari, Philip

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Copies of Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1946-1948. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|}

Casebier, Dennis

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|Carleton<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Pah-Ute Campaign. ''Tales of the Mojave Road'', No.1, pp.1-57. Tales of the Mojave Road, Norco, California.

|}

Caughey, John W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indians of Southern California in 1852: The B.D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Commentary''. Huntington Library, San Marino.

|}

Coville, Frederick V.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1892
|The Panamint Indians of California. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 5:351-361.

|}

Davis, James T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1961
|Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Report ''54. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Deloria, Vine and Richard W. Stoffle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense''. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

|}

d<nowiki>’</nowiki> Heureuse, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1863
|Photographic Views of the Mojave Route, Eldorado Canon and Fort Mojave, Photos 1-43. Picture Drawer, Bancroft Library, Berkeley.

|}

Dixon, Roland B. and Alfred L. Kroeber

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1903
|The Native Languages of California. ''American Anthropologist'' 5(1):1-26.

|}

Drover, Christopher E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northern Mohave Sink, San Bernardino County, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

|}

Dutcher, B. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1893
|Pinon Gathering Among the Panamint Indians. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 6:377-380.

|}

Eargle, Dolan H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|''The Earth is Our Mother: A Guide to The Indians of California, Their Locales and Historic Sites''. Trees Company Press, San Francisco

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|New Evidence on the Political Geography of the Antelope Valley and Western Mojave Desert at Spanish Contact. in ''Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and Vicinity'', Bruce Love and William H. DeWitt, eds., pp. 87-104. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.2. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Lancaster, Ca.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Ethnohistoric Overview of the Edwards Air Force Base Region and the Western Mojave Desert''. Prepared by Earle and Associates, Palmdale, California for Environmental Management Office, Air Force Fight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Earle and Associates, Palmdale,California .

|-
| 
|2004
|Native Population and Settlement in the Western Mojave Desert in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In ''The Human Journey and Ancient Life in California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference'', Mark W. Allen and Judyth Reed, eds., pp. 173-186. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|-
| 
|2005
|The Mojave River and the Central Mojave Desert: Native Settlement, Travel, and Exchange in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. ''Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology'', 25(1):1-37.

|}

Eerkens, Jelmer W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|Common Pool Resources, Buffer Zones, and Jointly Owned Territories: Hunter-Gatherer Land and Resource Tenure in Fort Irwin, Southeastern California. ''Human Ecology'' 27(2):297-318.

|}

Fages, Pedro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1936
|''A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California''. Original written in 1775. Herbert I. Priestley, translator and editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Ferrus Garcia, Anna

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''1994 Vegetation Studies at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Ca''. Robert Niehous, Inc. Mojave Desert Ecology Project, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, Ca.

|}

Forde, Cyril Daryll

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1931
|Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 28 (4):83-278.

|}

Fouts, Margaret

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''A Teacher<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Life. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 219-221. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Subsistence . In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.64-97. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|date
|Some Notes on Ethnographic Subsistence Systems in Mojavean Environments in the Great Basin. ''Journal of Ethnobiology'' 15(1):99-117.

|-
| 
|1996
|Historical Perspectives on Timbisha Shoshone Land Management Practices, Death Valley, California. In ''Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology'', edited by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Lee A. Nessom, and Sylvia J. Scudder. Plenum Press, New York.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco, and Pauline Esteves

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|In the Field in Death Valley: Julian Steward<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Panamint Shoshone Fieldwork. In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 53-59. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco and the Historic Preservation Committee of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (Pauline Esteves, Grace Goad, Ed Esteves, Ken Watterson).

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Residence Without Reservation: Ethnographic Overview and Traditional Land Use Study, Timbisha Shoshone, Death Valley National Park, California (Phase I)''. Submitted to the National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Fowler, Don D. and Catherine S. Fowler (editors)

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|''Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Manuscripts of the Numic Peoples of Western North America, 1868-1880''. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 14, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Galvin, John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1965
|''A Record of Travels in Arizona and California 1775-1776''. Translated and edited by John Galvin. J. Howell Books, San Francisco.

|}

Garrett, Lewis.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|Postal History of San Bernardino County. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 39(4):1-77.

|}

Geertz, Clifford

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|"From the Native<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Point of View": On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. in ''Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology'', pp. 55-70. Basic Books, New York.

|}

Golla, Victor

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2007
|Linguistic Prehistory. In ''California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity''. Altamira Press, New York.

|}

Goss, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|The Yamparika- Shoshones, Comanches, or Utes- or Does It Matter? In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 74-84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Grayson, Donald K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''The Desert<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Past : A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin''. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

|}

Hall, Matt

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Inventory of Spring/Seep Locations in the East Mojave Desert Region. In ''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; Chester King and Dennis Casebier, eds., pp. 70-193. Prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Harrington, John P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''John P. Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: '' ''Southern California. ''Washington, D.C''.'':Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Microfilm edition. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|}

Hodge, Frederick W., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1910
|''Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico'', Volume 2. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. Washington, D.C.

|}

Irwin, Charles N., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|The Shoshoni Indians of Inyo County, California : the Kerr Manuscript. Manuscript prepared by Mark Kerr, introductory preface by Charles N. Irwin. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico, and Eastern California Museum, Independence, California.

|}

Jackson, Donald and Mary Lee Spence.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|''The Expeditions of John Charles Fremont. Volume I: Travels From 1838 to 1844''. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

|}

Johnson, David H., Monroe D. Bryand and Alden H. Miller

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1948
|Vertebrate Animals of the Providence Mountains Area of California. ''University of California Publications in Zoology ''48(5):221-376.

|}

Johnston, Bernice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Gabrielino Indians''. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

|}

Kaldenberg, Russell L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|The Archaeology of Selected Springs and Playas on Fort Irwin and in Portions of the Avawatz Mountains. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 28 (3-4):1-102.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

|-
| 
|1934
|Southern Paiute Bands. ''American Anthropologist'' 36(4):548-560.

|-
| 
|1953
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. University of California, Archives No. 138.1m. Anthropology Documents 17-18.

|-
| 
|1964
|''Southern Paiute Ethnography''. Glen Canyon Series 21, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, 69. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T. and Catherine S. Fowler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Southern Paiute. In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Key, Harold

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|A Mojave Cremation. ''The Kiva'' 36:23-38.

|}

King, Chester and Dennis Casebier

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; with sections by Matthew C. Hall and Carol Rector; prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Knack, Martha

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|Ethnographic Overview. In ''A Cultural Resource Overview for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units'', by Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, Elizabeth von Till Warren ; Eric W. Ritter, general editor. Bureau of Land Management, Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, California.

|}

Kocher, A. E. and F. O. Youngs

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Soil Survey of the Palo Verde Area, California''. US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.

|}

Kroeber, Clifton and Bernard L. Fontana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Massacre on the Gila''. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

|}

Laird, Carobeth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Chemehuevis''. Malki Museum, Banning, California

|-
| 
|1984
|''Mirror and Pattern: George Laird<nowiki>’</nowiki>s World of Chemehuevi Mythology''. Malki Museum, Banning, California.

|}

Leland, Joy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Population In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.608-619. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Lerch, Michael K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Another Look at the Desert Mojave. Manuscript.

|}

Lockwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1872
|Report of Daniel W. Lockwood. Appendix A in ''Preliminary Report Concerning Explorations and Surveys Principally in Nevada and Arizona…1871'', edited by George M. Wheeler. Government Printing Office, Washington.

|}

Lyman, Leo

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|History of the Victor Valley. Manuscript, Archives, West Antelope Valley Historical Society, Lancaster, California.

|}

Manners, Robert A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1974
|''Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi: An Ethnohistorical Report''. Garland American Indian Ethnohistory Series.

|}

Mendenhall, W. C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|''Some Desert Watering Places in Southeastern California and Southwestern Nevada''. United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 224,

|}

Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1797-1855''. Mission San Fernando Rey de España, San Fernando, California.

|}

Mission San Gabriel Arcangel

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1773-1821''. Mission San Gabriel Arcangel, San Gabriel, California.

|}

Moapa Band

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|Information provided by Moapa Band on the history and current development of the Moapa reservation community.

|}

Mollhausen, Baldwin

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|1969 <nowiki>[</nowiki>1858<nowiki>]</nowiki>''
|Diary of A Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific, Vol. 2''. Johnson Reprint, New York.

|}

Morris, Lucie.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Interviews of Pioneer Residents of Antelope Valley and Surrounding Areas, circa 1935- 1937. Typescript.

|}

Nelson, E. W., Jr.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1891
|The Panamint and Saline Valley (Cal.) Indians. ''American Anthropologist'' 4(4):371-372.

|}

Palóu, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Historical Memoirs of New California''. 4 Volumes. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Park, Willard Z., Edgar Siskin, Anne M. Cook, William T. Mulloy, Marvin K. Opler, Isabel T. Kelly, and Maurice L. Zigmond

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|Tribal Distribution in the Great Basin. ''American Anthropologist'' 40(4):622-638

|}

Parker, Patricia and Tom King

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Pauley, Joe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Personal communication regarding procurement of desert tortoises in late1920s by himself and others in Muroc region for the urban market.

|}

Rhode, David

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2002
|''Native Plants of Southern Nevada: An Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Roth, George

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|The Calloway Affair of 1880: Chemehuevi Adaptations and Chemehuevi-Mohave Relations. ''Journal of California Anthropology'' 4(2):273-286.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1927
|Central and North American Languages. ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' Volume 5, pp. 138-141. Encyclopedia Britannica Company, London and New York.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1930-1931
|The Southern Paiute Language. ''Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences'' 65(1-3). Boston.

|}

Schneider, Joan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1989
|The Archaeology of the Afton Canyon Site. ''San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly'' 36(1):1-161.

|}

Sebastian, Lynne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Protecting Traditional Cultural Properties Through the Section 106 Process''. CRM Vol. 16:22-26.

|}

Service, Elman R

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Primitive Social Organization''. Random House, New York.

|}

Settle, Glen and Dorene Settle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Antelope Valley Pioneers''. Rosamond: Kern-Antelope Historical Society, Inc.

|}

Shapiro, Judith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Kinship In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.620-627. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Stanley , J. Q. A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|1866-1867
|''Report of J. Q. A. Stanley, Special Indian Agent, Los Angeles, Ca. to Charles Maltby, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, California, August 5, 1866''. Report of the Secretary of the Interior. Executive Documents. Thirty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, pp. 102-103.

|}

Steward, Julian H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Linguistic Distributions and Political Groups of the Great Basin Shoshoneans. ''American Anthropologist ''39:625-634.

|-
| 
|1938
|Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.

|-
| 
|1955
|The Great Basin Shoshonean Indians. in ''Theory of Cultural Change'', by Julian H. Steward, pp. 101-121

|-
| 
|1977
|The Foundations of Basin-Plateau Shoshonean Society. In ''Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation'', Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy, eds., pp. 366-406.

|}

Stewart, Kenneth M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|Mohave. in ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Vol. 10, Southwest, Alfonso Ortiz, ed., pp.55-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution

|}

Stewart, Omer C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1939
|The Northern Paiute Bands. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 2(3):127-149.

|-
| 
|1942
|Culture Element Distributions, XVIII: Ute-Southern Paiute. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 6(4):231-256. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1959
|Shoshone History and Social Organization. In ''Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of Americanists'', Vol. 2, pp. 132-142.

|}

Strong, William Duncan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|Aboriginal Society in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.

|}

Theodoratus, Dorothea, Geri Emberson, David White, Stephen W. Conkling, and Deborah McLean.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|''Death Valley National Park Cultural Affiliation Study''. LSA Associates. Submitted to Death Valley National Park, Contract No. 1443CX8130-96-003.

|}

Thomas, David Hurst, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Western Shoshone. In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, David G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|''The Mohave Desert Region, California: A Geographic, Geologic, and Hydrologic Reconnaissance''. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 578. United States Department of the Interior, USGS, United States Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, Richard and Kathryn Thompson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Pioneer of the Mojave: The Life and Times of Aaron G. Lane''. Desert Knolls Press, Apple Valley, California.

|}

Turner, Raymond M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Mojave Desertscrub. in ''Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico'', David E. Brown, ed., pp. 157-168. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

United States Decennial Census

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1880
|Population enumeration district enumeration sheets for Lookout and Resting Springs Precincts, Inyo County, California and Mountain Precinct, San Bernardino County, California. Tenth Decennial Census of the United States, State of California, Counties of Inyo and San Bernardino. Bureau of the Census, U.S, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

|}

Van Dyke, Dix

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Life on the Mojave River Valley: The Piutes of 1904. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 41. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Van Valkenburgh, R. F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Chemehuevi Notes. Indian Claims Commission Docket 88 330. In: ''American Indian Ethnohistory, California and Basin Plateau Indians, Paiute Indians II'', pp. 225 253. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

|}

Vernon, Charles Clark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1956
|A History of the San Gabriel Mountains. ''Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly'' 38(1): 39-60; 38(2): 141-166; 38(3): 263-296; 38(4): 373- 384.

|}

Voegelin, Erminie Wheeler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|''Tubatulabal Ethnography''. University of California Anthropological Records 2(1):1-84.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''Early Mines of the Southern Clark Mountains, the Northern Mescal Range and the Ivanpah Mountains. in Punctuated Chaos in the Northeastern Mojave Desert'', Robert E. and Jennifer Reynolds, ed., pp.67-72. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly 43(1-2): 1-155.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M., Gary L. Shumway, Russell D. Hartill

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Desert Fever: An Overview of Mining in the California Desert''. Living West Press, Canoga Park, California

|}

Walker, Clifford J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Back Door to California: The Story of the Mojave River Trail''. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Whipple, Lieut. A. W., Thomas Eubank, Esq., and Prof. Wm. W. Turner.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|Report Upon the Indian Tribes. ''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Vol. 3, Part 3. US 33d Congress, 1st Session. Senate. Ex doc no. 29, Senate executive document (United States. Congress. Senate) ; 33rd Congress, 2nd session. Senate Exec. Doc. No. 78. Washington, D.C.

|}

Whitley, David S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|History and Prehistory of the Coso Range: The Native American Past on the Western Edge of the Great Basin. In ''Coso Rock Art, A New Perspective'', Elva Younkin, ed., pp.29-68. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|}

Wilkie, Phillip and Harry W. Lawton

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Expedition of Capt. J. W. Davidson From Ft. Tejon to the Owens Valley in 1859''. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 8. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|}

Williamson, R. S., Lieut., Corps of Topographical Engineers.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route For a Railroad From the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Volume 5. Made under the direction of the Secretary of War in 1853-1854. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. Nicholson.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1936-1974. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|1938
|Kawaiisu Territory. In ''Tribal Distributions in the Great Basin'', by Willard Z. Park, et al., pp. 634-638. American Anthropologist 40(4).

|-
| 
|1941
|Ethnobotanical Studies Among California and Great Basin Shoshoneans. PhD Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

|-
| 
|1980
|''Kawaiisu Mythology: An Oral Tradition of South-Central California''. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 18. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|-
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|-
| 
|1986
|Kawaiisu. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp. 398-411. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice, Curtis G. Booth, and Pamela Munro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu: A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts''. University of California Los Angeles, Institute of Linguistics. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

|}

Zeitelhack, June and Jan Zeitelhack La Barge

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Operations of the Pacific Coast Borax Company 1883-1907: Daggett, Marion, Borate, and the Borate-Daggett Railroad. in ''Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., pp.96-104. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

[[Category:Volume]][[Category:Volume 9]]

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T19:18:09Z

WikiSysop: /* Bibliography */

='''Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol9-cover.png|right|150px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==
The in-progress ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) brings together decades of research and mission record analysis into selected volumes that will eventually be part of a 15 volume print/wiki encyclopedia portraying the socio-political landscape of native California after first contact with the Spanish, between 1770 and 1830.

Volume 1 of the series presents an overview of the CDM model, explaining the process of ethnographic data analysis and regional mapping unit construction across all portions of California. Volumes 2-15 will eventually represent contextual overviews of each of the 14 analytical zones identified within California. Each zone has a group of independent, landholding regions (totaling 663) defined by mutual history, shared languages, and similar land-use patterns. (Table 1) An introduction to each volume will focus on multi-regional issues (overview of history, ethnography, and research techniques) followed by individual regional monographs (some complete, some unfinished) covering languages, environment, and early expedition, mission, historic, and ethnographic sources, as applicable. A comprehensive bibliography will conclude each volume.

Volume 9, entitled ''South San Joaquin Analytical Zone'', almost complete, includes the southern portion of the Yokuts language family area as well as the western Mono and Tubatalabal language areas. It contains 56 regions covering portions of Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties.

The CDM is also presented in a collaborative Wiki website (currently accessible through farwestern.com) which consists of several major elements—ACCESS data tables, GIS maps, and narrative text. In this format, the ethnographic data are available to scholars from academia, tribal communities, and agencies that can locate and organize data effectively, add new information as it becomes available, and generate feature articles that can include maps, pictures, or cross-references.

This series has been produced by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., with support from a number of district environmental branches within the California Department of Transportation.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="72%" align="center"
|+Table 1. Volume, Analytical Zone, and Languages Spoken.
|-
|align = "center"|VOLUME Number
|align = "center"|ANALYTICAL ZONE
|align = "center"|LANGUAGE
|align = "center"|NUMBER OF REGIONS

|-
|align = "center"|2
|align = "center"|Northwest
|align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok Athabascan Karok Takelman
|align = "center"|37

|-
|align = "center"|3
|align = "center"|North
|align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko Wintu and Nomlaki Yana
|align = "center"|48

|-
|align = "center"|4
|align = "center"|Northeast
|align = "center"|Modoc Mountain Maidu Numic Pit River Washoe
|align = "center"|28

|-
|align = "center"|5
|align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Lake Miwok Pomo Wappo Yuki
|align = "center"|59

|-
|align = "center"|6
|align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
|align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu Patwin Wintuan Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Northern Ohlone
|align = "center"|66

|-
|align = "center"|8
|align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok Delta Yokuts 
|align = "center"|54

|-
|align = "center"|9
|align = "center"|South San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Mono Numic Tubatulabal Yokuts
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|10
|align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Northern Chumash Esselen Ohlone Salinan
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|11
|align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
|align = "center"|Chumash 
|align = "center"|68

|-
|align = "center"|12
|align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
|align = "center"|Takic
|align = "center"|58

|-
|align = "center"|13
|align = "center"|Southeast
|align = "center"|Numic Takic
|align = "center"|45

|-
|align = "center"|14
|align = "center"|South
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|20

|-
|align = "center"|15
|align = "center"|Colorado River
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|13

|-
|align = "right" colspan="3"|Total
|align = "center"|663

|}

==Landholding Groups of the South San Joaquin Zone - Yokutsan, Tubatulabal, and Western Mono Speakers==

[[File:Vol9-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. South San Joaquin Analytical Zone with Regions.
]]The South San Joaquin zone includes the San Joaquin Valley plain from Buenavista-Kern Lake northward almost to the Merced River, as well as the contiguous western Sierra Nevada front. The CDM divides the zone into 56 year-round habitation regions (Figure 1). The Southern San Joaquin encompasses the ethnographic lands of the western Mono-speakers, the Tubatulabal speakers, and most Yokuts-speakers. Excluded from the zone are the lands of Delta Yokuts speakers from the Merced River northward to the Stockton vicinity. (They are addressed as part of the Delta-Northern San Joaquin Zone.)

This zone does not represent any distinct ethnographic socio-political area. It is rather a conveniently sized subarea of California for presenting an overview about ethnography, history, and problems in ethnogeographic reconstruction. The South San Joaquin zone is one of those portions of California where we must rely upon the clues imbedded in the Franciscan mission registers to build the ethnogeographic picture in the west, while relying upon the classic ethnographic literature for reconstructing ethnogeography in the east. Contextual ethnogeographic and historic information for understanding the details in the zone<nowiki>’</nowiki>s monographs are provided below. This zone study concludes with the combined bibliography for all of its constituent regional monographs.

===Linguistic Groups===
[[File:Vol9-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Regions by Language Group.]]Two language families—Yokutsan and Uto-Aztecan—are represented among the ethnographic groups of the South San Joaquin analytic zone. The Uto-Aztecan family is represented in the South San Joaquin zone by Mono of the Numic branch and by Tubatulabal, both in Sierra fothills. The Yokutsan family is represented by a number of closely related languages spoken throughout the lowlands, as well as in some Sierran foothills regions Figure 2.

====Uto-Aztecan Family Languages====
The Uto-Aztecan family has nine major branches spoken over a wide area from Idaho on the north to El Salvador on the south: Numic, Tubatulabal, Takic, Hopi, Tepiman, Taracahitan, Tubar, Corachol, and Aztecan (Goddard 1996:323). The four northern branches, as argued by Kroeber, form a distinct Shoshonean branch of the overall family; they are Hopic, Numic, Takic, and Tubatulabal. Linguists today refer to the former Shoshonean branch as Northern Uto-Aztecan (Miller 1986; Mithun 1999:540).

Mono (a language within the Numic subbranch) and Tubatulabal are the two ethnographic Uto-Aztecan languages of the South San Joaquin Zone. Mono was spoken by the Western Mono people along the west slope of the southern Sierra Nevada range from south of Mono Lake down to the Mount Whitney vicinity; it is precisely the same language as that spoken by the Owens Valley Paiute directly across the southern Sierra Nevada Range to the east. Farther south, Tubatulabal was the native language in the mountainous portion of the Kern River watershed at the time of western contact. Mithun (1999:541) provides a bibliography of linguistic studies of the Mono and Tubatulabal languages.

====Yokutsan Family Languages====
The Yokutsan language family includes a number of closely related Yokuts languages, all within the drainage of the San Joaquin River in California (Shipley 1979:82-84). The family is a member of the Penutian language stock. It has recently been suggested to be a branch of a Yok-Utian family within that stock, together with Miwokan and Ohlone-Costanoan (Callaghan 1997; Mithun 1999:309). The northern boundary of Yokutsan, where its speakers bordered the Plains Miwok, lay just north of Stockton (within the Delta-North San Joaquin zone). To the south, Yokutsan languages were spoken down the San Joaquin Valley to Buena Vista Lake at the foot of the Transverse Ranges. The eastern Yokutsan boundary varied. Where it contacted Sierra Miwok speakers, it was generally along the break between the plains and the Sierra Nevada foothills. South of the Fresno River, where it contacted Mono speakers, the border tended to be at higher elevations, in the yellow pine forest belt. On the west, the boundary between Yokutsan and Ohlone-Costanoan speakers was along the edge of the Coast Range foothills (Milliken 1994; cf. Kroeber 1925).

Three major branches within the Yokutsan language family are distinguished—Poso Creek, Buena Vista, and Nim-Yokuts. On the basis of comparative historical phonology and morphology, Whistler and Golla (1986) portray a complex division of ever-more-recent splits and expansions in Yokuts languages from south to north. They provide evidence that the Poso Creek language, on the one hand, and combined Buena Vista and Nim-Yokuts on the other hand, are two separate branches of the family. Nim-Yokuts, the most widespread of the three main branches, is itself split into Tule-Kaweah (of the southern Sierran foothills) and Northern Yokuts. Finally, Northern Yokuts itself is represented by the Delta, Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Kings River Yokuts languages. Mithun (1999:567-568) provides an overview of recent linguistic insights regarding Yokutsan, as well as a bibliography of relevant linguistic studies.

The South San Joaquin region includes all of the Yokutsan language areas except the Delta Yokuts, a language within the Nim-Yokuts branch.

===Western Contact and Disruption===
Change of traditional native life in the South San Joaquin vicinity was caused by both direct and indirect forces. The direct forces were Spanish expeditions, emigration to Coast Range missions (Figure 3), arrival of traders and gold miners in the late 1840s, arrival of settlers in the 1850s, and the removal of many groups to a series of reservations from the 1850s through the 1890s. Indirect impacts were the arrival of new diseases, new ideas, and new tools that reached groups ahead of direct contact.

====Spanish Period====
=====First Contact=====
[[File:Vol9-fig3.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 3. Degree of Mission-Induced Depopulation in the South San Joaquin Analytic Zone.]]The year 1771 marked the first Spanish expedition into the South San Joaquin vicinity. It was led by Pedro Fages, who came into the area from the south in search of deserters from the Spanish military. Herbert Bolton (1935), translater of the journal entries that indirectly describe that trip, reconstructed Fages<nowiki>’</nowiki> journey from San Diego up to Cajon Pass and Antelope Valley, then over Tejon Pass into the Buenavista Lake region. The trip seems to have occurred in winter, perhaps February 1771, because Fages was later able to provide the earliest description of a southern Yokuts winter village:

In their villages the natives live in the winter in very large squares, the families divided from each other, and outside they have very large houses in the form of hemisphere, where they keep their seeds and utensils <nowiki>[</nowiki>Fages 1772 in Bolton 1935:12<nowiki>]</nowiki>.

In 1776 Father F. Garces came into the southern San Joaquin Valley from the south as an unarmed evangelizer for Christianity. Garces probably entered the valley by way of Cottonwood Creek and Tejon Creek, and then went north to the Kern River in the present Bakersfield area. He learned that the Yokuts people of the Kern Lake and Bakersfield regions had been visited by Spanish deserters who abused their women; the tribal people executed them for committing these assaults. He also was told that one Spanish deserter was living happily in a nearby community, married to an Indian woman (Coues 1900:272-302).

=====Post-1800 Spanish Expeditions=====
No Spanish expeditions into the South San Joaquin are documented from the time of Garcés to 1805. Beginning that year, numerous groups entered the valley during the Spanish period. Whether led by soldiers or missionaries, these parties always included soldiers and always searched for baptized Indians who broke the territorial law by leaving their missions without permission. The expeditions included:

* 1805 Martin (in Cook 1960:243-244): Mission San Miguel to the Wowol villages on the south shore of Tulare Lake.
* 1806 Zalvidea (in Cook 1960:245-247): Mission Santa Barbara over San Rafael Mountains to Buenavista and Kern Lakes, then to the Kern River at present Bakersfield (Kern County), over Tejon Pass to Antelope Valley, Cajon Pass, and Mission San Gabriel.
* 1806 Moraga-Muñoz (in Cook 1960: 247-253): Mission San Juan Bautista east to the east side of the San Joaquin River (in Merced County), north as far as the Mokelumne River (San Joaquin County), then back south along the east side of the valley all the way to Kern Lake and over Tejon Pass (Kern County) to Mission San Gabriel.
* 1808 Palomares (in Cook 1960:256-257): From Mission San Fernando to the Antelope Valley (Los Angeles and Kern counties), to the hill country overlooking the southern San Joaquin Valley (Kern County), and back to Mission San Fernando.
* 1815 Ortega (in Cook 1960:267-68): From Mission San Miguel to the Kaweah River (through Kings and Tulare counties)
* 1815 Pico (in Cook 1960: 268-269): From Mission San Juan Bautista to the Kaweah River (through Merced, Fresno, and Kings counties).
* 1815 Pico-Ortega (in Cook 1960 269-271): Pico and Ortega joined forces at a distributary of the Kaweah River (Corcoran vicinity), then backtracked Pico<nowiki>’</nowiki>s route north (through Kings and Fresno counties), crossed the San Joaquin River, and continued north (in Madera County) almost to the Merced River, then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.
* 1816 Martinez (in Cook 1960:271-272): From Mission San Luis Obispo across the Temblor Range to the south end of Tulare Lake (Kern County), thence southeast to Goose Lake, and probably to the Bakersfield vicinity on the Kern River, back to Tulare Lake (all Kern County), then west back to Mission San Luis Obispo.
* 1819 Estudillo (in Gayton 1936): From Mission San Miguel to the south side of Tulare Lake and Goose Lake (Kern County), northeast to the White, Tule, and Kaweah rivers (Tulare County), to the north side of Tulare Lake and lower Kings River (Kings County), then north along Fresno Slough to the bend of the San Joaquin River (Fresno County) and Los Banos Creek (Merced County), then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.

=====Spanish Era (up through 1821) Mission Recruitment=====
Approximately 3,200 people moved to Franciscan missions in the Coast Ranges from the South San Joaquin zone. The preponderance of them (1,790; 56%) went during the Spanish era, through late 1821. Many, but not all, of the South San Joaquin Valley people to arrive at the missions before 1822 can be traced to groups from specific areas. Probably all in that early group were Yokuts speakers. Below is an overview of Spanish period Yokuts missionization, presented by county.

Merced County—More than 800 Yokuts people moved to the missions from Merced County between 1798 and 1821. The largest group was Nopchenches from the Santa Rita region, 111 people. Surprisingly, most members of the next largest single group—208 Janalamne/Tejeys—went to Mission Santa Clara, the remainder to Santa Cruz; they are tentatively associated with the Gustine area. The first Merced County people at the missions were the Chaneches of the Los Banos region, 106 people (most at Santa Cruz). The Notoals/Huocons of the Mud Slough region were split between missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista. From just east of the San Joaquin River, most of the Quithrathres of the Atwater region and Uthrocus of the El Nido region were at Mission San Juan Bautista by the end of 1821.

Fresno County—More than 500 people from western Fresno County were at the missions by the end of 1821. First came the Quihueths of the Oro Loma region, More than 100 people were absorbed into missions San Juan Bautista and Soledad before 1817. The Helm region people—hard to identify individually, but probably more than 90 people—went to Mission Soledad prior to 1818. Mendota people, the Cutochos, were at the missions before 1821, split between San Juan Bautista and Soledad. The other large Fresno County groups nearly entirely removed to the missions by that time were the Eyuslahuas and Copchas of the Firebaugh region. Remaining Fresno County groups at the end of the period lived eastward of the lowest portions of the San Joaquin Valley.

Madera County—Only 78 identifiable Yokuts people from areas centered in Madera County were at any mission before 1822. Most, 65, were Chausilas from the western Chausila Dairyland region. Another 11 were Heuchis from the Madera region. One was a Hoyima and one was from a poorly documented small group called Oatsin that may have been in the Sierra foothills.

Kings County—At least 82 Yokuts people from groups in Kings County were at the missions before 1822. The great majority (61; 74%) were Tachis; they were divided almost equally among missions Soledad, San Antonio, and San Miguel. Another 11 were Telesmecoyo people from the Dudley Ridge area on the west shore of Tulare Lake, three at Mission San Antonio, and eight at San Miguel; there should have been more, and it is likely that they also appeared at the missions under synonymous names that have not been identified with any specific San Joaquin Valley location. Another nine Chunuts from the Corcoran region were at the missions, four each at Soledad and San Miguel, plus one at San Antonio. One Nutunutu from the Hanford region had gone to Mission San Antonio.

Tulare County—Only eight people from groups centered in Tulare County had gone to the missions by the end of 1821. Six of them were Telamnes from Goshen/Visalia, at Mission San Miguel. Two others were Choinocs from the Tulare region, at Mission San Buenaventura.

Kern County—At least 243 Yokuts people from Kern County were at missions by the end of 1822. The great majority (198; 81%) went to San Miguel, where the Wowols of Alpaugh were the highest represented (103), followed by the Auyamnes of the Buttonwillow region (63). Also appearing in San Miguel registers were 14 Tulamnis from the Buenavista region and 11 Yaulmanis from Bakersfield. Mission San Luis Obispo had baptized 29 South San Joaquin people, the largest group being 14 Auyamnes from Buttonwillow, and the next largest being only seven Tulamnis from Buenavista. Buenavista also sent two people to Santa Barbara, three to San Fernando, and two to San Buenaventura. Ten Quiyamnes were distributed among San Miguel, San Luis Obispo, and San Fernando. Only four Kern Lake Hometwalis are identifiable in the pre-1822 records, two at Santa Barbara and one each at San Buenaventura and La Purisima.

In summary, by the end of 1821 the northwest portion of the South San Joaquin zone was empty of villages on the plains on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in northwest Fresno County and Merced County, as well as along the north-south flowing San Joaquin River in present Merced County and far western Madera County. Southeast and east of that area tribal life was still intact at the end of the year 1821.

One other caveat—the Quiyamne (Famoso region) and Auyamne (Buttonwillow), two Yokuts tribelets in the otherwise-intact area south of Tulare Lake, seem to have been destroyed as viable groups in wars with their neighbors prior to 1821.

====Mexican Period====
An independent Mexican government replaced Spain in control of the coastal missions and presidios over the winter of 1821-1822. More military expeditions entered the valley during the Mexican Period, in search of fugitive Christian neophytes and of native people who raided mission horse herds. North American fur trappers also began to enter the South San Joaquin regions during the Mexican period. Brief overviews are provided below regarding key expeditions.

=====Mexican Period San Joaquin Diaries=====
''1826 Pico (in Cook 1962:181-184)'': Pico went into the San Joaquin Valley to punish horse raiders and capture fugitive Christian Indians. He left Monterey on December 27, 1825. The raid took them into Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties. After discovering some fugitive Christian Indians in the Firebaugh area they went east to the Herndon vicinity, then north into Heuchi lands, in search of the Hoyima. They captured 40 people, and arrested seven of these as criminals. Next they traveled south to the Kings River, where they visited villages up and down the river. Returning north along the east side of Fresno Slough to the Mendota area, they split off a group to return to Monterey with their prisoners. Then Pico doubled back south along the west side of Fresno Slough to Tulare Lake, in an attempt to sneak up on the Tachi, who were harboring fugitive Christians. Unsuccessful in that attempt, the party swung around the east side of Tulare Lake lands, stopped to visit friendly Wowols, and returned westward. The party reached Mission San Miguel on January 25, 1826.

''1827 Jedediah Smith (1977)'': Jedediah Smith led a group of American trappers up the San Joaquin Valley in the late winter and early spring of 1827. His large party, complete with its own herd of horses, crossed the Tehachapi Range from Antelope Valley to Kern Lake over February 9-11. At the lake they secured as a guide an Indian man who spoke Spanish. Farther north in the Bakersfield region Smith reported, "Several Indians some of them having horses visited the encampment" (Smith 1977:136). Arriving at Tulare Lake, he saw a Wowol village "of two or three hundred inhabitants" (Smith 1977:139). He described the Kaweah River country as "populous" and specifically mentioned a large village of the "Wimmilche" people, after whom he named the current Kings River. The population picture changed when Smith moved north to the bend of the San Joaquin River, which "they called the Peticutry." From that point northward Smith found no villages in the flat San Joaquin Valley until he reached the Mokelumne River (Smith 1977:146).

''1828a Rodriguez (in Cook1962:184-185)'': From April 22 until May 5, Rodriguez was in the Merced and Madera county areas raiding the Chausila, Heuchi, and Hoyima. "I brought in 52 horses taken from the village called Joyima and, between Christians and heathen, 85 souls," Rodriguez reported (in Cook 1962:185).

''1828b Rodriguez (in Cook 1962:185-186)'': On his second 1828 trip, Rodriguez raided areas south of Tulare Lake. He entered the San Joaquin Valley from La Panza (east of Mission San Luis Obispo) and reached the Tulamni on the west side of Buenavista Lake on May 29. Upon being informed that Indian people in the mountains to the south had horses, he moved south and raided small villages in the Santiago Creek, San Emigdio, and Grapevine Creek regions (Santa Barbara CDM zone). Returning northward, he raided the "Carrizos" (probably Hometwali) and the Yaulmani of the Bakersfield region before arriving farther north at his allies the Wowol of the Alpaugh region at Tulare Lake. He then left the San Joaquin Valley in the direction of Mission San Miguel.

''1830<'': North American fur trappers entered California in the 1830s, for instance Ewing Young (in Holmes 1967). Any diaries they might have left should be examined for information on ethnogeography.

=====Mexican Era (1822-1846) Mission Recruitment=====
Some 1,460 South San Joaquin region people moved to the missions during the Mexican era. About 1,270 (87%) have been assigned to specific regions, all Yokuts-speaking. Of the remaining 190 who are merely from "the Tulares," some small number may have been Western Mono or Tubatulabal. Three-quarters of the 1,270 people identifiable to region were baptized in one or another of three years:

1822—288 people, most (124) from the San Joaquin River in Fresno and Madera counties or from Merced County (121). Most were remnants of the Merced County groups on and just east of the San Joaquin River (Nopchenche, Quithrathre, Uthrocos), but a significant new group were the Pitcache of the Kerman region.

1834—264 people, most from Kings or Tulare counties. They included Chunut, Tachi, and Wowol of Tulare Lake, as well as Choinoc of Tulare and Wechihit of Sanger. These people were probably survivors of the malaria epidemic of 1833.

1835—277 people, most from Kern, Kings, and Tulare counties. Most were from the same groups baptized the previous year, but they also included a few Tulamnis of Buenavista, Tajanishilac (Hometwali) of Kern Lake, Yualmani of Bakersfied, and Telamne of Goshen/Visalia.

Malaria struck the Central Valley in August 1833. The epidemic devastated tribal groups farther north in the Sacramento Valley (Cook 1955) and south of the bend of the San Joaquin River as far as Kern Lake.

=====Mission Closure and Horse Raiding, 1837-1845=====
The Franciscan missions were closed as land-holding communes between 1834 and 1836. Under the original Spanish law and subsequent Mexican law, mission Indians were to be given half of the mission lands and livestock (Geary 1934). But only a handful of Mission Indian individuals were given any land or livestock by the commissioners of the Mexican government. None of them were tribal people of the South San Joaquin zone.

Surviving Coast Range Chumash, Salinan, and Ohlone-Costanoans went to work on various Mexican ranchos to the south and west of the San Joaquin Valley, as did some of those Yokuts people who had been at the missions since the early 1820s or earlier. Some of the "New Christians" who had been baptized since 1822 also stayed to work on Coast Range ranches. But most of the New Christians from tribelets on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley returned to their old homelands.

Many of those who returned to the San Joaquin Valley joined their remnant valley relatives who had survived the malaria epidemic to take up the horse raiding life that they had practiced in the early 1820s, before they moved to the missions. To an unknown extent, they brought people from Sierra foothill groups along on some of the horse raids. Horse raiding in the South San Joaquin seems to have been centered in present Madera County.

''1845 John C. Fremont (1886)'': Fremont brought his third exploring expedition down the east side of the San Joaquin Valley from Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort in December 1845. His encounter with the "Chauchiles" is discussed in detail in the Raymond region monograph, with quotes from Latta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1949) extract of his memoirs. Freemont<nowiki>’</nowiki>s full works have not been seen by this author. They should be consulted and all relevant material for ethnogeography should be cited in appropriate CDM monographs.

====Early American Period====
On May 13, 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico over an incident along the Texas border. The military occupation government appointed John Sutter sub-Indian agent for the district of Sacramento and San Joaquin in the spring of 1847. He was granted power to advise the government and threaten Indians and settlers with future recriminations in cases of illegal behavior. There is no evidence that he interacted with any groups of the South San Joaquin zone.

Reports of gold discovery in the mountains east of Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort brought a small flood of Hispanic and Anglo Californians to the Sierra foothills in the spring of 1848. In the summer of 1848, Governor Mason toured the central mines and reported thousands of Indians panning for gold with pans or willow baskets (Hurtado 1988:104). Adventurer James D. Savage soon hired Indian people to conduct placer mining operations with their basketry equipment. Savage set up a series of trading posts to collect gold from Indian people of the present Mariposa and Madera county areas (Hall 1978:66-67; Hurtado 1988:112-115; Munoz 1980); his main ally was Jose Reyes, a Chausila headman from the present west-central Madera County area who had been baptized at Mission San Juan Bautista in 1837 (San Juan Bautista Baptism 4298).

The spring and summer of 1849 brought a huge influx of young foreign men to California. By late 1850, 10,000 miners were reportedly working the Stanislaus River watershed (Hall 1978:54). The famous gold-mining settlements of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas, Angels Camp, Sonora, Coulterville, and Mariposa all grew up within Sierra Miwok territory. North Americans, French, Mexicans, and Chileans joined the Anglo and Hispanic Californians at the mines in 1849 and 1850. Some Mission Indians from the coastal settlements took up entrepreneurial activities in the mining towns, as Perkins described, in late 1849 or 1850:

<blockquote>Mission Indians, with scarlet bandanas round their heads, a richly colored zarape over their shoulders, a pair of cotton drawers, and bare-footed, would push their way through the crowd, carrying pails of iced liquor on their heads, crying … agua fresca, cuatro reales <nowiki>[</nowiki>Perkins 1964:106<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Anglo Americans predominated in the mines by 1850. Most of them had little regard for the native Indian people, considered them racially inferior and a nuisance, to be removed in any way possible. They began to drive the native workers out, often with violence and brutality. After 1850 the local Indians "continued to live on the margins of mining camps and boomtowns" but were never again a large percentage of the labor force (Hurtado 1988:108).

=====Unratified Treaties, Mariposa Indian War, 1850-1852=====
California was admitted to the United States as a free state on September 9, 1850. The new governor of California reflected the attitude of the majority of the state<nowiki>’</nowiki>s citizens. On January 7, 1851, in his annual message to the state legislature, Governor Peter Burnett stated that a war of extermination would be waged "until the Indian race should become extinct" and that it was "beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert the inevitable destiny" (Hittell 1897:899). As North American whites settled the best lands of the San Joaquin Valley, the Indians were driven off. When they poached some of the immigrant property, they were hunted down and killed.

Friction between the local people and North Americans in the southern mining district in present Mariposa County sparked the native resistance called the Mariposa Indian War of 1851.The resistance began in the fall of 1850 and culminated with the defeat of the leading groups, the Chauchila and the Chukchansi Yokuts, in the spring of 1851. Their leaders signed a treaty with the US government on April 29, 1851. (See further discussion of this and other treaties in the next section below.) We present here a summary of that war<nowiki>’</nowiki>s events, which involved local tribes who were living at the time in the Raymond, Le Grand, Coarse Gold, and Nipinnawassee regions. (The sources used here are the 1997 and 2004 works by George Phillips, themselves based on a myriad of primary manuscripts):

* At the start of the Gold Rush the Chauchila seem to have been living in either the Le Grand or Raymond region, perhaps both. In 1849, James Savage, a widower from Illinois, established trading posts along the Merced, Mariposa, and Fresno rivers, cohabited with a number of Indian wives, and hired local Indians to pan gold dust for him.
* Late in 1850 some Indians from the region between the Merced and Fresno rivers attacked Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s northern trading post on the Merced River. As tensions continued to build, Savage attempted to help the local groups face the new reality of western conquest by taking a "Chowchilla" chief named Jose Juarez to see San Francisco in the fall. (Jose Juarez is not identifiable in any Franciscan mission records.) In San Francisco, Juarez boasted that the tribes were preparing to drive the whites from the mountains (Phillips 1997:42, 43).
* In late November 1850, a group of tribes gathered near Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post (near the later Savage Monument in the eastern Raymond region); Phillips lists the Potuyanthre Miwok, Nuchu Miwok, Chauchila Yokuts, and Pitkachi Yokuts. (It is hard to imagine that the Chuckchansi Yokuts were not there also.) Savage went to talk with them and urge them to avoid war, but his efforts were rejected. Then, on December 1, Indian agent Adam Johnston arrived in the area and went to talk to the Chauchila chiefs at Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River station. After Johnson distributed gifts, the Chauchila assured him they would not oppose the whites.
* On December 17, a combined group of Chauchila Yokuts, Chukchansi Yokuts, and Pohonichi Miwoks raided Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post, killed three men, and made off with goods and livestock. On the same day Savage noticed that Potuyanthre Indians living around his Mariposa post had withdrawn into the mountains and followed them to a camp in the higher mountains; they may have been diverting Savage away from the Fresno River attack (Phillips 1997:43, 44).
* On December 25, more than 100 Indians attacked a miners<nowiki>’</nowiki> camp and ferry in what may be the later Cassidys Bar area along the San Joaquin River, an area now flooded by Millerton Lake. One miner was killed and ten were wounded. Specific tribes were not mentioned, but just days before, the local sheriff had warned all miners to leave the San Joaquin River after he spoke with Pitkachi chief Tom-quit at his village (Phillips 1997:47).
* The Americans responded by sending out a posse of about 100 miners and settlers from various mining camps in the Mariposa district. A few days after January 7, 1851 they found the Heuchi, along with many Chauchilas and some Chukchansis, in a mountainous village of 60 or 70 huts; diaries indicate they traveled 50 miles, but that may not have been on a direct line. They burned the village and killed 30 people (Phillips 1997:49-52). This refuge may have been at Fresno Flats or farther east in the Bass Lake area.
* On January 17, 1851 the settler posse went out again, by way of Fine Gold Creek. They found the resisting Indians "on the north fork of the San Joaquin" (Phillips 1997:53), which, if true, put them deep into the Sierra and far above the snow line of the North Fork region. Phillips summarized: "At a nearby village resided elements of the Chauchila, Chukchansi, Gawia, Nukchu, Potoyanti, Pohonichi, and Yosemite. Numbering some five hundred fighting men, they were led by Chauchila chiefs José Rey and José Juarez" (Phillips 1997:53). (Chief Jose Rey is probably the individual baptized at San Juan Bautista in 1837 as a 19 year old Chauchila <nowiki>[</nowiki>SJB-B 4298<nowiki>]</nowiki>). Again, the native camp was burned and the Indians retreated.
* In February and early March 1851 miners and settlers were attacked over a wide area of the Sierra foothills, from the Stanislaus River south to the Kaweah River. Among places where whites were killed were the San Joaquin River in the Friant region and Fine Gold Gulch in the Coarse Gold region. The Chauchila were blamed for most of the raids (Phillips 1997:55, 71).

A group of three federal commissioners arrived in the Jamestown vicinity (Delta/North San Joaquin zone), north of the main disturbance area, on February 20, 1851. They had been directed by the United States Congress to make a series of treaties with local groups across the state. The purpose of the treaties was to get the tribes out of the mining and farming lands and onto lands that were not desired by the rapidly growing North American population. Under the treaties, three reservations were set up along the front edge of the foothills within the South San Joaquin zone.

* The federal treaty commissioners arrived in the San Joaquin Valley in February 1851, at the same time that state officials were organizing an official militia to suppress the Indians. The commissioners established Camp Fremont on the Little Mariposa River on March 8 and soon began talking with the adjacent Potoyanti (the Hunter Valley region) and Siyante (Catheys Valley region). The commissioners picked lands for their reservation north of the Merced River in the San Joaquin Valley. The Potoyanti, Siyante, and four local tribes of the upper Merced and Tuolumne rivers signed the first federal treaty (later called Treaty M<ref>The letter sequence for these treaties was not used in the field but was imposed years later in Washington D.C.</ref>) on March 19, 1851 (Phillips 2004:27).
* Beginning on March 19, 1851, companies from the newly organized Mariposa Battalion went into the mountains to bring in the many resisting groups. One of the companies followed Tenaya<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Yosemite group into Yosemite Valley in late March.
* While the militia was chasing the various groups, the commissioners moved south to the Fresno River, where they arrived on March 27.
* On April 9 some Indian women came in to the commissioners to say that the Chauchila would sign a treaty, but not until they had finished their mortuary ceremonies for Chief José Reyes, who had died of his earlier wounds. In mid-April a portion of the Mariposa Battalion headed towards the North Fork of the San Joaquin River by way of Coarse Gold Gulch, in search of the Chauchila. They found a deserted village and the remains of José Reye<nowiki>’</nowiki>s cremation. It turned out that the main group of Chauchila people had already gone down the San Joaquin River to the valley to meet with the commissioners (Phillips 1997:83-84).

Treaty N was signed on April 29, 1851 with tribelets of present southwest Mariposa County, central Madera County, and central Fresno County. The Chauchila, Heuchi, Chukchansi (all three Yokuts), Pohonichi, and Nuchu (both Sierra Miwok) all came out of the mountains to sign the treaty at a spot called Camp Barbour on the San Joaquin River (now the Friant vicinity of Fresno County). There they joined local tribes from along the San Joaquin and others who had been brought north from the Kings River. The Treaty N reservation territory, as described in the treaty text, was to be a very large stretch of plain along the base of the Sierra, from the Chowchilla River to the Kings River. In all, 16 tribes signed the treaty in three geographic groupings (Heizer 1972:71-81; Phillips 2004:27, 30). The Chauchila and Chukchansi were part of the northern geographic group, along with the Heuchi Yokuts, the Pohonichi Miwok, and the Nutchu Miwok, all of whom "acknowledge Nai-yak-qua as their principal chief" (Heizer 1972:72). (See the Madera region CDM monograph for more information about Nai-yak-qua of the Heuchi.) Also of note, none of the Chauchila or Chukchansi Treaty N signatories had a Spanish name; the Chauchila signatories were Po-ho-leel, E-keeno, Kay-o-ya, A-pem-shee, and Cho-no-hal-ma, while the Chukchansi were Co-tumsi, Ti-moh, Sa-wa-lai, A-chat-a-na, and Mi-e-wal (Heizer 1972:72-79).

The Mariposa War was nearly over with the signing of Treaty N in April 1851 by all of the resisting groups except the Yosemites (probably composite Bull Creek region and eastern Sierra Monos) and "Monos" of the North Fork region. The Yosemites were captured by mid-May, by which time the Monos were believed to have fled over the Sierra (Phillips 1997:1-99, 2004:25-34).

The commissioners continued south in May 1851. On May 13, at the Kings River, perhaps in the Kingston vicinity, the Tachi, Nutunutu, Wimilche, Telamni, Choinoc, Kaweah, and Yokod of the plains signed Treaty A along with the Entibich, Tuhucmache, Toineche, Holcuma, and Wukchumne of the foothills. Some of the hill groups were Mono speakers.

On May 30 more groups were brought together by the commissioners on the Kaweah River. There the Koyeti, Wolasi, Padwisha, and Wacksache signed Treaty B, along with some groups whose names are not definitely associated with those known ethnographically. Again, the groups included both Yokuts and Mono speakers.

On June 3, 1851, groups gathered on the White River signed Treay C. The groups included the Chunut, Wowol, Yalumne, and another segment of the Koyeti.

On June 10, 1851 groups from the far south end of the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding hill country, who had been gathered together at Tejon Creek, signed Treaty D. Those who are recognizable were the Texon (Kitenamuk), Castake (Castaic Chumash), San Imigdio (Chumash), Uvas (Chumash), Carises (Hometwali Yokuts), Buena Vista (Tulamni Yokuts), and Hol-mi-uh (Paleumne Yokuts). Less definite by location were the Holoclame, Sohonuts, and Tocia groups.

=====Valley and Sierra Indian Experience, 1852-1868=====
Edward F. Beale was appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California in March 1852. In October he proposed a series of temporary reservations with military posts. All Indians from the northern and central San Joaquin Valley and adjoining hills were to be brought to the Fresno River Farm, a small part of the Treaty N territory in present Madera County. The Fresno River Farm was activated that winter and maintained until 1860 (Hurtado 1988:142). Hurtado writes, "Indians from Tuolumne and Mariposa counties lived part of the year on the reservations and spent the rest of their time in their homelands" (1988:152).

The Fresno Indian Farm was closed in 1861. During the Civil War, a number of hostilities occurred between Indian people in the far north of California and the US military. However, other reservations were founded at Tule River and on Tejon Creek. Indian people of the South San Joaquin counties who did not stay on those reservations were subjected to many atrocities without recourse to legal protection.

=====Church-run Reservations in the Grant Administration=====
Ulysses Grant appointed army officers to run most of the reservations in the west at the outset of his first administration, in 1869. However, the US Congress passed a law in 1870 that forbade army officers from holding civil positions. Grant then turned to religious institutions, including the Methodists, Episcopalians, and the Friends, to run the reservations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1873 the Tule River Reservation, the only remaining reservation in the San Joaquin Valley, was moved from high quality valley lands up to less valuable lands in the dry foothills of Tulare County (Forbes 1969:65). Some Yokuts speakers from the old Fresno Indian Farm may have been moved there during the 1870s or earlier.

=====Indian Boarding Schools=====
The federal government began an aggressive policy of training Indians to assimilate into white culture during the 1870s and 1880s. Day schools for Indians were established in reservation areas of the state during the 1880s. Additionally, boarding schools were established to remove young Indians from the cultural influences of their parents. Boarding schools were established at Tule River in 1881, at Middletown in Lake County in 1885, at Hoopa Valley and Perris in 1893, and at Fort Bidwell in 1898 (Castillo 1978:116). The boarding schools were vocationally oriented, and young Indians from some schools were sent out as domestics to nearby white homes.

=====Dawes Act of 1887 and Jackson Rancheria in 1895=====
The Dawes Act, directing the breakup of communal Indian reservation tracts across the United States into small family-owned parcels, was passed by Congress in 1887. The Act was the result of general indignation regarding the situation of non-reservation California Indians stimulated by publication of Helen Hunt Jackson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s book ''Century of Dishonor'' (1881). Jackson Rancheria was one of 17 small "postage stamp" reservations or rancherias (14 in the southern California mission area), purchased in California during the 1890s under the Act.

=====Legal and Social Status Changes after 1900=====
By the beginning of the twentieth century, the economies of the Sierra foothill counties were shifting from mining to farming, ranching, and timber harvesting. Yokuts and Mono men who had survived to this period obtained jobs as laborers in these industries when they could. The women worked as field laborers and house servants. Indian people were still being treated badly by many whites, but laws and attitudes were beginning to change—slowly.

In 1905-1906 C. E. Kelsey, a lawyer from San Jose, carried out an investigation into the condition of landless Indians in California for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As a result, Congress authorized $100,000 to the Secretary of the Interior for land purchase and water development for landless California Indians in acts of June 21, 1906 and April 30, 1908. Dozens of tiny rancherias were purchased throughout California over the next few years under this act.

=====Education and Voting Rights Activities=====
From 1909 forward, California Indian people pressed their own claims for civil rights and land. Some of the cases were aided by an umbrella group called The Indian Board of Cooperation, led by a white protestant minister named Frederick G. Collet. One of their first actions was to press for improved Indian access to education. Major educational improvements occurred between 1915 and 1919, writes Jack Forbes (1969:73):

In 1915 only 316 Indian pupils were attending public school in California but by 1919 this number had increased to 2,199. In general, this was the result of a campaign carried out by Indians and the Indian Board of Cooperation and a new government policy of integrating Indians in public schools in areas such as California and Nevada where the native population was intermixed with white communities.

The Indian Board of Cooperation also aided a Lake County Pomo man, Ethan Anderson, in his court case to obtain the right to vote. Anderson won his case before the California Supreme Court in 1917, thereby essentially winning citizenship rights for all California Indians who did not live on reservations. Thus most California Indian people first became US citizens in 1917.

Recognition of Indian voting rights in 1917 pertained only to Indians living off of federal reservations. Full citizenship for all Native Americans was not recognized by Congress until an act of June 1924. However, a series of complex decisions since that time has limited Indian civil rights on federal reservation lands (see Forbes 1969:95-98).

===Classic and Recent Ethnographers===
Many of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s most famous field ethnographers worked in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The six whose works are most valuable—Anna Gayton, Edward W. Gifford, J. P. Harrington, A. L. Kroeber, Frank Latta, and C. Hart Merriam—are discussed individually below, followed by a paragraph on others who also contributed in the field, and a final paragraph mentioning those who have contributed more recent synthetic ethnogeographic studies.

====C. Hart Merriam (1855-1942)====
Merriam, a university-trained biologist and medical doctor, became first chief of the predecessor agency to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1886. In that capacity he worked in the field in California off-and-on between 1898 and 1910, keeping numerous notes about the Indian people that he met in his regular biologists field notebooks. In 1910 he received a life-time endowment from the Harriman Trust which allowed him to retire and conduct any research that he wanted. He chose to devote most of his attention to fieldwork with California Indians. Reflecting that change in circumstances, from 1910 forward he wrote his detailed ethnographic notes separately from his daily journals, the latter becoming merely diaries.

Merriam worked among Indian people in many areas of the South San Joaquin zone, all in or near the Sierra Nevada foothills, between 1902 and 1934. Most of his material pertinent to the local regions of the South San Joaquin zone have been published under editorship of Robert F. Heizer (Merriam 1967, 1977). These materials have been quoted in the completed CDM monographs. Detailed future research should rely, whenever possible, on Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s original field materials to best appreciate the context of their collection.

Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field dairy/journals are now in the Library of Congress (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938a<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His separate ethnographic journals and notes are at the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley, along with his extensive collection of photographs of Indian people (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938b<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His collection of North American Indian basketry is at the Anthropology Museum at the Department of Anthropology at UC Davis.

====Alfred L. Kroeber (1876-1960)====
A. L. Kroeber received the first doctorate in anthropology awarded at Columbia University in 1901 under Franz Boas. His first California field work took place a year earlier, when, as temporary curator of Indian artifacts at the Academy of Science in San Francisco, he interviewed Indian people in the Klamath River area of northwest California. With Ph.D. in hand, he joined the new Department of Anthropology at the University of California in 1902, where he became department head and taught until his retirement in 1946. The entire body of his field notes is in the Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley (Kroeber <nowiki>[</nowiki>1869-1972<nowiki>]</nowiki>).

Kroeber did quite a bit of field work in the South San Joaquin, much of it prior to 1910. In later years he wrote, "A summary of what I obtained as to tribal territories, place names, sites inhabited, and local resources went into my ''Handbook of the Indians of California'', chapter 32. But the great mass of primary data was too intricate and detailed to print in so general a work as that was, and much of the mass remains in my notebooks, or in incomplete handwritten extracts" (Kroeber 1963:178). Good references to his early informants, but little in the way of ethnogeography, is found in the posthumously published "Yokuts Dialect Survey" (Kroeber 1963).

====John P. Harrington (1884-1961)====
J. P. Harrington took a circuitous route to become a great linguist and ethnologist of California Indian people. Finishing undergraduate work at Stanford University in 1905, he went to Leipzig and then Berlin to pursue a Ph.D. But he dropped out and returned to become a high school teacher and work with elderly Chumash speakers between 1912 and 1914. He was hired as a permanent field ethnologist by the Bureau of American Ethnography in 1915 and worked for the Bureau until 1955. He published very little, but left behind more than one million pages of only moderately organized notes, mostly on language but also on mythology and geography, for native groups from Alaska to South America. His papers are housed at the Smithsonian Institution, although many are available through copy microfilm at a number of institutions across the United States (Mills 1986).

Between 1912 and 1940 Harrington made two significant trips into the South San Joaquin regions. In October 1914 he visited elderly Yokuts speakers at the Santa Rosa Rancheria and Tule River Reservation. Then he spent months at the Tejon Reservation among Chumash, Kitenamuk, Serrano, and Yokuts speakers during the late fall and winter of 1916-1917. Although these two visits represent a small portion of Harrington<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field time, they resulted in a rich and important body of material (Earle 2003).

====E. W. Gifford (1887-1959)====
Gifford was a colleague of Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s at the UC Berkeley Department of Anthropology. He made a number of important contributions to California ethnology, particularly in the areas of kinship systems and kinship terminology. This included an important ethnographic study of clans and moieties in the southern part of the state, carried out in 1918. Gifford was a remarkable scholar, particularly as he had no college degree—something of a rarity for a UC Berkeley faculty member.

Gifford worked among Sierran Miwok groups and the North Fork Mono. His monograph on the North Fork Mono is perhaps the most detailed ethnogeography of any central California people.

====Frank F. Latta (1892-1981)====
Frank Latta was an educator and self-trained field ethnographer of the Yokuts. He began interviewing his Yokuts neighbors soon after he moved to Visalia, Tulare County, in 1923. One of his important informants was Bill Wilson (Pahmit), a mixed Dumna-Kechayi-Pitkachi of Friant, Fresno County. The other was Yoimut, Chunut-Wowol who spent her life on the ranches of Tulare County. Yoimut may have been the best-informed of all Yokuts consultants. "She could read, write, and speak Spanish and English, as well as talk six Yokuts languages," wrote Latta (1949:224). Latta published two significantly different versions of his ''Handbook of Yokuts Indians'', first in 1949 and then an expanded version in 1977. The two should be studied and cited separately because the 1977 version re-arranged earlier text, added new conclusions, and modified the spellings of several words.

====Anna Gayton (1899-1977)====
Anna H. Gayton was the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in anthropology from UC Berkeley, in 1928, majoring under Kroeber and Lowie. She taught Decorative Art at Berkeley from 1948 to 1965. Gayton produced a spectacular amount of published material on Yokuts and Western Mono groups of the southern Sierra Nevada and adjacent eastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley based on field work done in 1925-1930. A series of articles and a detailed monograph embodying most of her field data were published in 1948. In addition to presenting her own field results, she performs knowledgeable critiques of contradictory and unclear material gathered by earlier ethnographers.

====Other Field Ethnographers====
Other people did work in the South San Joaquin zone who have contributed to our ethnogeographic monographs, such as linguist Stanley S. Newman (1905-1984) and Harold Driver (1907-1992), professor of Anthropology at Indiana University.

====More Recent Synthesizers====
The first researcher to study the systematic distribution of groups and populations in the South San Joaquin zone was Sherburne Cook(1955, 1976)), a Harvard-trained professor of physiology at Berkeley who detailed the population of California Indians using quantitative analysis. George Phillips, a University of Colorado historian, synthesized literature on the 1851 treaties (1975) and, more recently, data on the Tejón reservation (1997). William J. Wallace<nowiki>’</nowiki>s sections on the Yokuts in the Handbook of North American Indians, California, offer an unsystematic presentation from the classic literature.

===Organization of Landholding Groups===
Yokuts clearly had tribelets: Kroeber (1925); Kunkel (1962).

Western Mono were independent hamlets, but some were given regional names by Yokuts neighbors, names that have stuck. It is not clear if they really formed regional communities.

Tubatulabal seem to have been between tribelets and independent hamlet groups, but they had some sense of being in three loose communities.

===Conclusion: Mapping Approaches and Constraints===
Mapping approaches with the South San Joaquin zone varied with the nature of available evidence. To put simply, wherever the heartland of a particular group was identifiable through classic ethnography or an early diary, a node was established for that group. Upon initial application of nodes, the analytical zone could be divided into five areas, each with its own unique mapping problems and opportunities, in order of data quality:

* Sierra foothills: all areas of the zone, from the upper San Joaquin River south to the Kern River, had excellent field ethnographic work among people who still remembered the original tribal distributions. There are two exceptions: in Madera County, ethnographic consultants remembered that the Chuckchanis held a large expanse north of the San Joaquin River; other evidence suggests that the term was taken from one regional tribelet and generalized to some of their neighbors. The other ambiguity involves Toltechi, a Yokuts group attributed by one consultant to a small area in the San Joaquin River Canyon (Kerchoff reservoir) that would otherwise seem to have been within Western Mono lands.
* Tulare Lake, Kern-Buenavista Lake Basin, Kaweah River delta: Classic ethnographic consultants remembered well the native groups of these flat valley regions, with two exceptions. First, the mission records list a group called Quiyamne, unknown to ethnographic consultants; their marriage ties suggest they were from the Famosa region and their name is reminiscent of the obscure Giamina Uto-Aztecans of Kroeber (1925:479). The other problem is contradictory evidence regarding the geography and identity of the Wolasi and Choinok Yokuts between the modern towns of Visalia and Tulare.
* San Joaquin River on the valley plain: triblet organization in this area had been almost completely destroyed through missionization and disease by the time of the gold rush. Remnant Chausila, Heuchi, Hoyima, and Pitcache people were living with foothill people in the years of classic ethnographic field research. Thus their tribelet locations are tentatively reconstructed from hints garnered by ethnographers, comments in Hispanic expedition diaries, and the traditional mission register analysis techniques of time sequence and marriage studies. Confident locational results have been obtained for all but the Chausila.
* Kings River drainage: survivors told classic ethnographiers the locations of the Wilmilche, Nutunuu, and Wechihit, in locations supported by early expedition commentaries. However, a mystery still remains about the groups at the edge of the Sierra foothills, adjacent to the Wechihit, to both the northwest and southeast. We tentatively model the Gashowu as originally inhabiting the plain west of Sanger and in the Fresno vicinity, following Kroeber (1925). On the southeast side, the Orange Grove inhabitants are still more problematic. Although we lack positive evidence, we suggest the possibility that the historical Chukamina were driven up into the Dunlap region from the plain in the Orange Grove region below.
* Western Plain from Merced River south to the Kings River Country: people of this area were entirely removed to the missions before 1820. Group names such as Quihueths, Cutocho, and Yyin, appear enough times in the mission records to suggest they were the major groups of the west side; however, a significant number of west-side people were merely identified as "Tulares" in the mission records. Thus the CDM regions in this area are best-guess representations of the original condition.

==Regions==
* [[COARSE GOLD REGION|Coarse Gold]]
* [[DAIRYLAND REGION|Dairyland]]
* [[FIREBAUGH REGION|Firebaugh]]
* [[FRIANT REGION|Friant]]
* [[HERNDON REGION|Herndon]]
* [[KERMAN REGION|Kerman]]
* [[LE GRAND REGION|Le Grand]]
* [[MADERA REGION|Madera]]
* [[NORTH FORK REGION|North Fork]]
* [[ORO LOMA REGION|Oro Loma]]
* [[RAYMOND REGION|Raymond]]
* [[SANTA RITA REGION|Santa Rita]]

==Bibliography==
Aginsky, B. W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1943
|''Culture Element Distributions, XXIV: Central Sierra''. University of California Anthropological Records 8(4):393-468. Berkeley.

|}

Arroyo de la Cuesta, Felipe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1810-1819
|Untitled Notebook containing Religious Texts in Indian Languages, compiled by the author for personal use between 1810 and 1819. BANC MSS C-C 60. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1821-1837
|''Lengua de California''. Notebook containing grammar and vocabularies of various California Indian group, recorded at several missions between 1821 and 1837. BANC MSS C-C 63b. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1822''-''1824''
|Libro de Gobierno del P. Fr. Felipe Arroyo con los Nombres de los Neofitos de los Tulares ya Gentiles baja Christianos, segun contan en el Libro de Bautismos … q.e en por donde ellos, esso es, los Yndios se entienden y distinguen unos de otros''.  Manuscript at the Catholic Diocesan Archives of Monterey, 485 Church Street, Monterey, California. Cited from microfilm copy in possession of Randall Milliken, Davis, California.

|}

Barrett, Samuel A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1908
|The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''6(2):333-368. Berkeley

|}

Beeler, Madison S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|Noptinte Yokuts. In Studies in American Indian Languages:11-76. Jesse Sawyer, ed. ''University of California Publications in Linguistics'' 65. Berkeley.

|}

Bolton, Herbert

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1935
|''In the South San Joaquin Ahead of Garces''. Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield, California.

|}

Callaghan, Catherine

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|Evidence for Yok-Utian. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 63:18-64.

|}

Castillo, Edward D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Cook, Sherburne F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 16, University of California Press, Berkeley. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1960
|Colonial expeditions to the interior of California, 1800-1820. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''16.6. University of California Press, Berkeley. . <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1962
|Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''20(5):151-214. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1976
|''The Conflict Between the California Indians and White Civilization''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Coues, Elliott. ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''On The Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garcés (Missionary Priest) in His Travels Through Sonora, Arizona, and California 1775- 1776''. 2 vols. Francis P. Harper, New York.

|}

Derby, George H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1933
|The Topographica Reports of Lieutenant George H. Derby <nowiki>[</nowiki>1849<nowiki>]</nowiki>. Francis F. Farquhar, ed. ''California Historical Society Publications ''6. San Francisco.

|}

Driver, Harold E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Culture Element Distributions, VI: Southern Sierra Nevada. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''1(2):53-154

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Technical document submitted to Caltrans District 6, Fresno by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis.

|}

Estudillo, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1895
|''Report of Mission Tule River Agency. In Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1894'', Reports of Agents in California, pp. 119-124. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Forbes, Jack D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1969
|''Native Americans of California and Nevada: A Handbook''. Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg, California.

|}

Frémont, John Charles

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1886
| Memoirs of my life : including in the narrative five journeys of western explorations during the years 1842, 1843-4, 1845-6-7, 1848-9,

|}

Gamble, Lynn Hunter

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1991
|Organization of Activities at the Historic Settlement of Helo<nowiki>’</nowiki>: A Chumash Political, Economic, and Religious Center. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

Gayton, Anna H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1925-1965
|colspan = "2"|''A. H. (Anne Hadwick) Gayton papers.''

|-
| 
|1930
|Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24(3):239-251.

|-
| 
|1936
|Estudillo among the Yokuts: 1819. In: ''Essays in anthropology presented to A. L. Kroeber in celebration of his sixtieth birthday'' June 11, 1936. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1945
|Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. ''American Anthropologist'' 47(3):409-426.

|-
| 
|1948
|Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24:361-420. Berkeley.

|}

Geary, G. J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1934
|''The Secularization of the California Missions (1810-1846).'' Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C.

|}

Gifford, Edward W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1918
|Clans and Moieties in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Anthropology'', 14(2):155-219. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1932
|The Northfork Mono. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 31(2):15-65. Berkeley.

|}

Goddard, Ives

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|The Classification of the Native Languages of North America. ''Handbook of North American Indians, ''Volume 17 (Languages). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Grunsky, Carl E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1898
|Irrigation Near Fresno, California. ''Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of the US Geological Survey No. 18.'' Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Hall, A. L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Ethnohistorical Studies of the Central Sierra Miwok: 1800-1900. Unpublished M.A. thesis in anthropology, San Francisco State University.

|}

Heizer, Robert F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|California Indian Linguistic Records: The Mission Indian Vocabularies of Alphonse Pinart. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''15(1):1-84. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1966
|''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1972
|''The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-1852 between the California Indians and the United States Government''. University of California Archaeological Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978
|''California''. Edited by W. C. Sturtevant. Handbook of North American Indians 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Hittell, T. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1897
|''History of California''. N. J. Stone, San Francisco, California.

|}

Holmes, Kenneth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1967
|''Ewing Young:master trapper''. Portland, Oregon: Binsford & Mort.

|}

Hoopes, Alban W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1932
|''Indian Affairs and Their Administration, with Special Reference to the Far West, 1849-1860''. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932.

|}

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William Abeloe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|''Historic Spots in California''. 3rd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

|}

Hurtado, Albert L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|''Indian Survival on the California Frontier''. Yale University Press, New Haven.

|}

Jackson, H. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1881
|''Century of Dishonor: A Sketch of the United States Government<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Dealings with Some of the Indian Tribes''. Harper and Brothers, New York.

|}

Johnson, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|Social Responses to Climate Change on the Chumash Indians of South Central California''. ''In ''The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action'', Roderick J. McIntosh, Joseph A. Tainter, and Susan Keech McIntosh, pp. 301-327. , Columbia University Press, New York.

|}

Kelsey, C. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1905-1906
|colspan = "2"|Some Numerals from the California Indian Languages. Collection of Manuscripts from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 424. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1971
|''Census of Non-reservation California Indians, 1905-1906''. Edited by Robert F. Heizer. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Kroeber, Alfred L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1869-1972
|colspan = "2"|A.L. Kroeber Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1904
|The languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco. ''University of California Publications on American Archaeology and Ethnology ''2(2):29-80.

|-
| 
|1907
|Shoshonean Dialects of California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 4(3):65 165).

|-
| 
|1925
|''Handbook of the Indians of California''. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington.

|-
| 
|1948
|Seven Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(1).

|-
| 
|1951
|A Mohave Historical Epic. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(2)

|-
| 
|1959
|Ethnographic Interpretations, 7-11. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 47(3):235-310.

|-
| 
|1963
|Yokuts dialect survey. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(3).

|-
| 
|1972
|More Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 27.

|}

Kunkel, Peter H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Lamb, Sydney M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1953-1957
|colspan = "2"|Chukchansi Yokuts: Informant Nancy Wyatt. Manuscript at the Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1958
|Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 24(2):95-100.

|}

Latta, Frank F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1949
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. 1st Edition (287 pages). Kern County Museum, Bakersfield, California.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. Second Edition, revised and enlarged (765 pages). Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

|}

Leupp, F. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|Indian Lands: Their Administration with Reference to Present and Future Use. ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. ''33 (3), 136-146.

|}

Levy, Richard S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Eastern Miwok''. ''In ''California'', edited Richard F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8 , William C. Sturtevant general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Lynch, John M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1951
|The Kocheyali and the Aiticha. Collection of Manuscripts of from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 422. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|}

Mayfield, Thomas J

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Indian summer: Traditional life among the Choinumne Indians of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Joaquin Valley''. Berkeley, Calif: Heyday Books.

|}

McKay, Scott

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1914
|Official Map of Fresno, California, Compiled from Official Records and Latest Surveys. Electronic Document, http://www.davidrumsey.com, accessed May 12, 2010.

|}

Merriam, C. Hart

1898-1938a The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

1898-1938b C. Hart Merriam papers relating to work with California Indians, 1850-1974. Bulk 1898-1938. History of Science and Technology Collection. (Microfilm: BANC FILM 1022; Originals: BANC MSS 80/18 C). The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1902
|''The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam''. Journal II for 1902. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Photocopies on file with the C. Hart Merriam Collection, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

|-
| 
|1904
|Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''Science'' 19:912-917.

|-
| 
|1930
|The Em-tim-bitch, a Shoshonean Tribe. ''American Anthropologist'' 31:136-137.

|-
| 
|1955
|''Studies in California Indians''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1967
|Ethnographic Notes on Central California Indian Tribes. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Reports'', No. 68(3). Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1968
|Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey ''74, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

|-
| 
|1969
|''Catalogue of the C. Hart Merriam Collection of Data Concerning California Tribes and Other American Indians''. Robert F. Heizer and staff, editors. Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Ethnographic and Ethnosynonymic Data from Central California Tribes''. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Milliken, Randall T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|Tribal Political Geography''. ''In ''Archaeological Test Excavations at Fourteen Sites along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California: Volume 2'', Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland,

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. In ''The Ohlone Past and Present'', edited by Lowell John Bean, pp. 165-182. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|}

Miller, Wick R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Numic Languages. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.31-50. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Mills, Elaine L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1985
|''The papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957. Northern and Central California''. White Plains, N.Y.: Kraus International Publications.

|}

Mithun, Marianne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|''The Languages of Native North America''. University Press, Cambridge, UK

|}

Munoz, Neva Jeanne Harkins

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|''Political Middlemanship and the Double Bind: James D. Savage and the Fresno River Reservation''. Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology at the University of California, Riverside.

|}

Nell Boulé, Mary

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|''Tubatulabal Tribe''. Marryant Publishing, Vashon, Washington

|}

Newman, Stanley S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1944
|Yokuts Language of Califirnia. ''Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology'' 2. New York.

|}

Palomares, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1808
|''Diary of Francisco Palomares''. Provincial State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Vol. I, pp.232-242. California State Achives, Sacramento.

|}

Perkins, W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1964
|''Three Years in California: William Perkins<nowiki>’</nowiki> Journal of Life at Sonora, 1849-1852.'' University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Phillips, George Harwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1975
|''Chiefs and Challengers: Indian resistance and Cooperation in Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1993
|''Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1769-1849''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1849-1852''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma

|-
| 
|2004
|''Bringing Them Under Subjection: California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Tejón Indian Reservation and Beyond, 1852-1864''

|}

Powell, J. W., and G. W. Ingalls

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1873-1874
|Report of Special Commissioners J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls. In ''Report of the Secretary of the Interior'', 1874. US House of Representatives, 43rd congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 157, pp. 2-31.

|}

Powell, John Wesley

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Linguistics. In Tribes of California, by Stephen Powers. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology ''3. Washington: US Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.

|-
| 
|1891
|Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. ''7th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1885-1886''. Washington, D.C.

|}

Powers, Stephen

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Tribes of California. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology'' 3. U.S. Geographic and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington D.C.

|}

Schenck, W. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography'' 25(2):123-146.

|}

Shipley, William F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|Native Languages of California. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Smith, Charles, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1968-1972
|colspan = "2"|Ethnographic and Ethnobotanaical Notes from approximately 12 Months Field work among the Tübatulabal, California. Manusccrpit in possession of the author as of 1978.

|-
| 
|1978
|Tubatulabal. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 437-445. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Smith, Jedediah S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|''The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-1827'', edited with an introduction by George R. Brooks. A. H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.

|}

Spier, Robert F. G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Foothill Yokuts''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 471-484. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978
|Monache''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 426-436. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Swanton, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indian Tribes of North America''. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Wallace, William J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Southern Valley Yokuts. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 448-461. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Waterman, Thomas Talbot

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 1885-1936
|Tubatulabal texts, vocabulary, and ethnographic notes. Ethnological Documents of the Department and Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Whistler, Kenneth and Victor Golla

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Proto-Yokuts Reconsidered. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 52:317-358.

|}

==REFERENCES CONSULTED==
Anderton, Alice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|The Language of the Kitanemuks of California. PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Anza, Juan Bautista de

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1930
|Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Diary of the Second Anza Expedition, 1775-1776. Pp. 1-200 in ''Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s California Expeditions'', Volume 3. Herbert Bolton, editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Baksh, Michael

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|''Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Investigations of the Silurian Valley and Greater Central Mojave Desert''. Tierra Environmental Services. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACA09-94-D-0019.

|}

Barras, Judy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Their Places Shall Know Them No More''. Sierra Printers, Bakersfield, Ca.

|}

Barrows, David P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''The Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

|}

Basgall, Mark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''A Brief Cultural History of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California''. Archaeological Curation Facility, Fort Irwin, California.

|}

Baumhoff, Martin A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1963
|Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''49(2):155-236. Berkeley.

|}

Bean, Lowell John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|''Mukat<nowiki>’</nowiki>s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978a
| Cahuilla. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 575-588. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
| Social Organization. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 673-682. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell J and Thomas C. Blackburn

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Kitanemuk. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 564-569. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell John and Mason, William M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Diaries and Accounts of the Romero Expeditions in Arizona and California, 1823-1826''. Ward Richie Press, Los Angeles.

|}

----

Bean, Lowell J and Charles R. Smith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978a
| Serrano. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 570-574. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
|Cupeño. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 588-591. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell and Sylvia Brakke Vane

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|''Allen-Warner Valley Energy System: Western Transmission System: Ethnographic and Historical Resources''. Report Submitted by Cultural Systems Research, Inc. to Southern California Edison Co. December 15, 1979. Cultural Systems Research, Inc, Menlo Park, CA.

|}

Beatty Bullfrog

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1905
|''Indian Pow Wow. Remnants of the Piute Tribe Meet at Pahrump''. Beatty Bullfrog <nowiki>[</nowiki>Beatty, Nevada<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1(27):9/23/1905:1

|}

Benedict, Ruth.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1924
|A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. ''American Anthropologist'' 26(3):366-392.

|}

Blackburn, Thomas

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Native California.. in ''Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective'', Lowel J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, eds., pp. 225-243.. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.

|}

California. Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1890
|''Records of California Men in the War of the Rebellion, 1861 to 1867, revised and compiled by Brig. Gen. Richard H. Orton, Adjutant-General of California''. California Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office, Sacramento.

|}

Cappannari, Philip

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Copies of Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1946-1948. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|}

Casebier, Dennis

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|Carleton<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Pah-Ute Campaign. ''Tales of the Mojave Road'', No.1, pp.1-57. Tales of the Mojave Road, Norco, California.

|}

Caughey, John W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indians of Southern California in 1852: The B.D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Commentary''. Huntington Library, San Marino.

|}

Coville, Frederick V.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1892
|The Panamint Indians of California. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 5:351-361.

|}

Davis, James T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1961
|Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Report ''54. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

----

Deloria, Vine and Richard W. Stoffle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense''. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

|}

d<nowiki>’</nowiki> Heureuse, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1863
|Photographic Views of the Mojave Route, Eldorado Canon and Fort Mojave, Photos 1-43. Picture Drawer, Bancroft Library, Berkeley.

|}

Dixon, Roland B. and Alfred L. Kroeber

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1903
|The Native Languages of California. ''American Anthropologist'' 5(1):1-26.

|}

Drover, Christopher E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northern Mohave Sink, San Bernardino County, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

|}

Dutcher, B. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1893
|Pinon Gathering Among the Panamint Indians. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 6:377-380.

|}

Eargle, Dolan H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|''The Earth is Our Mother: A Guide to The Indians of California, Their Locales and Historic Sites''. Trees Company Press, San Francisco

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|New Evidence on the Political Geography of the Antelope Valley and Western Mojave Desert at Spanish Contact. in ''Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and Vicinity'', Bruce Love and William H. DeWitt, eds., pp. 87-104. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.2. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Lancaster, Ca.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Ethnohistoric Overview of the Edwards Air Force Base Region and the Western Mojave Desert''. Prepared by Earle and Associates, Palmdale, California for Environmental Management Office, Air Force Fight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Earle and Associates, Palmdale,California .

|-
| 
|2004
|Native Population and Settlement in the Western Mojave Desert in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In ''The Human Journey and Ancient Life in California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference'', Mark W. Allen and Judyth Reed, eds., pp. 173-186. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|-
| 
|2005
|The Mojave River and the Central Mojave Desert: Native Settlement, Travel, and Exchange in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. ''Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology'', 25(1):1-37.

|}

Eerkens, Jelmer W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|Common Pool Resources, Buffer Zones, and Jointly Owned Territories: Hunter-Gatherer Land and Resource Tenure in Fort Irwin, Southeastern California. ''Human Ecology'' 27(2):297-318.

|}

Fages, Pedro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1936
|''A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California''. Original written in 1775. Herbert I. Priestley, translator and editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

----

Ferrus Garcia, Anna

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''1994 Vegetation Studies at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Ca''. Robert Niehous, Inc. Mojave Desert Ecology Project, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, Ca.

|}

Forde, Cyril Daryll

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1931
|Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 28 (4):83-278.

|}

Fouts, Margaret

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''A Teacher<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Life. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 219-221. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Subsistence . In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.64-97. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|date
|Some Notes on Ethnographic Subsistence Systems in Mojavean Environments in the Great Basin. ''Journal of Ethnobiology'' 15(1):99-117.

|-
| 
|1996
|Historical Perspectives on Timbisha Shoshone Land Management Practices, Death Valley, California. In ''Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology'', edited by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Lee A. Nessom, and Sylvia J. Scudder. Plenum Press, New York.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco, and Pauline Esteves

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|In the Field in Death Valley: Julian Steward<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Panamint Shoshone Fieldwork. In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 53-59. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco and the Historic Preservation Committee of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (Pauline Esteves, Grace Goad, Ed Esteves, Ken Watterson).

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Residence Without Reservation: Ethnographic Overview and Traditional Land Use Study, Timbisha Shoshone, Death Valley National Park, California (Phase I)''. Submitted to the National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Fowler, Don D. and Catherine S. Fowler (editors)

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|''Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Manuscripts of the Numic Peoples of Western North America, 1868-1880''. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 14, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Galvin, John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1965
|''A Record of Travels in Arizona and California 1775-1776''. Translated and edited by John Galvin. J. Howell Books, San Francisco.

|}

Garrett, Lewis.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|Postal History of San Bernardino County. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 39(4):1-77.

|}

Geertz, Clifford

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|"From the Native<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Point of View": On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. in ''Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology'', pp. 55-70. Basic Books, New York.

|}

----

Golla, Victor

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2007
|Linguistic Prehistory. In ''California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity''. Altamira Press, New York.

|}

Goss, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|The Yamparika- Shoshones, Comanches, or Utes- or Does It Matter? In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 74-84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Grayson, Donald K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''The Desert<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Past : A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin''. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

|}

Hall, Matt

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Inventory of Spring/Seep Locations in the East Mojave Desert Region. In ''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; Chester King and Dennis Casebier, eds., pp. 70-193. Prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Harrington, John P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''John P. Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: ''''Southern California. ''Washington, D.C''.'':Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Microfilm edition. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|}

Hodge, Frederick W., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1910
|''Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico'', Volume 2. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. Washington, D.C.

|}

Irwin, Charles N., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|The Shoshoni Indians of Inyo County, California : the Kerr Manuscript. Manuscript prepared by Mark Kerr, introductory preface by Charles N. Irwin. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico, and Eastern California Museum, Independence, California.

|}

Jackson, Donald and Mary Lee Spence.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|''The Expeditions of John Charles Fremont. Volume I: Travels From 1838 to 1844''. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

|}

Johnson, David H., Monroe D. Bryand and Alden H. Miller

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1948
|Vertebrate Animals of the Providence Mountains Area of California. ''University of California Publications in Zoology ''48(5):221-376.

|}

Johnston, Bernice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Gabrielino Indians''. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

|}

Kaldenberg, Russell L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|The Archaeology of Selected Springs and Playas on Fort Irwin and in Portions of the Avawatz Mountains. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 28 (3-4):1-102.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

|}

----

Kelly, Isabel T. ''continued''

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1934
|Southern Paiute Bands. ''American Anthropologist'' 36(4):548-560.

|-
| 
|1953
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. University of California, Archives No. 138.1m. Anthropology Documents 17-18.

|-
| 
|1964
|''Southern Paiute Ethnography''. Glen Canyon Series 21, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, 69. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T. and Catherine S. Fowler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Southern Paiute. In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Key, Harold

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|A Mojave Cremation. ''The Kiva'' 36:23-38.

|}

King, Chester and Dennis Casebier

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; with sections by Matthew C. Hall and Carol Rector; prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Knack, Martha

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|Ethnographic Overview. In ''A Cultural Resource Overview for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units'', by Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, Elizabeth von Till Warren ; Eric W. Ritter, general editor. Bureau of Land Management, Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, California.

|}

Kocher, A. E. and F. O. Youngs

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Soil Survey of the Palo Verde Area, California''. US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.

|}

Kroeber, Clifton and Bernard L. Fontana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Massacre on the Gila''. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

|}

Laird, Carobeth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Chemehuevis''. Malki Museum, Banning, California

|-
| 
|1984
|''Mirror and Pattern: George Laird<nowiki>’</nowiki>s World of Chemehuevi Mythology''. Malki Museum, Banning, California.

|}

Leland, Joy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Population In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.608-619. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Lerch, Michael K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Another Look at the Desert Mojave. Manuscript.

|}

Lockwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1872
|Report of Daniel W. Lockwood. Appendix A in ''Preliminary Report Concerning Explorations and Surveys Principally in Nevada and Arizona…1871'', edited by George M. Wheeler. Government Printing Office, Washington.

|}

Lyman, Leo

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|History of the Victor Valley. Manuscript, Archives, West Antelope Valley Historical Society, Lancaster, California.

|}

Manners, Robert A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1974
|''Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi: An Ethnohistorical Report''. Garland American Indian Ethnohistory Series.

|}

Mendenhall, W. C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|''Some Desert Watering Places in Southeastern California and Southwestern Nevada''. United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 224,

|}

Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1797-1855''. Mission San Fernando Rey de España, San Fernando, California.

|}

Mission San Gabriel Arcangel

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1773-1821''. Mission San Gabriel Arcangel, San Gabriel, California.

|}

Moapa Band

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|Information provided by Moapa Band on the history and current development of the Moapa reservation community.

|}

Mollhausen, Baldwin

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
|1969 <nowiki>[</nowiki>1858<nowiki>]</nowiki>''
|Diary of A Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific, Vol. 2''. Johnson Reprint, New York.

|}

Morris, Lucie.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Interviews of Pioneer Residents of Antelope Valley and Surrounding Areas, circa 1935- 1937. Typescript.

|}

Nelson, E. W., Jr.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1891
|The Panamint and Saline Valley (Cal.) Indians. ''American Anthropologist'' 4(4):371-372.

|}

Palóu, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Historical Memoirs of New California''. 4 Volumes. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Park, Willard Z., Edgar Siskin, Anne M. Cook, William T. Mulloy, Marvin K. Opler, Isabel T. Kelly, and Maurice L. Zigmond

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|Tribal Distribution in the Great Basin. ''American Anthropologist'' 40(4):622-638

|}

Parker, Patricia and Tom King

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Pauley, Joe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Personal communication regarding procurement of desert tortoises in late1920s by himself and others in Muroc region for the urban market.

|}

Rhode, David

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2002
|''Native Plants of Southern Nevada: An Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Roth, George

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|The Calloway Affair of 1880: Chemehuevi Adaptations and Chemehuevi-Mohave Relations. ''Journal of California Anthropology'' 4(2):273-286.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1927
|Central and North American Languages. ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' Volume 5, pp. 138-141. Encyclopedia Britannica Company, London and New York.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1930-1931
|The Southern Paiute Language. ''Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences'' 65(1-3). Boston.

|}

Schneider, Joan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1989
|The Archaeology of the Afton Canyon Site. ''San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly'' 36(1):1-161.

|}

Sebastian, Lynne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Protecting Traditional Cultural Properties Through the Section 106 Process''. CRM Vol. 16:22-26.

|}

Service, Elman R

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Primitive Social Organization''. Random House, New York.

|}

Settle, Glen and Dorene Settle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Antelope Valley Pioneers''. Rosamond: Kern-Antelope Historical Society, Inc.

|}

Shapiro, Judith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Kinship In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.620-627. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Stanley , J. Q. A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
|1866-1867
|''Report of J. Q. A. Stanley, Special Indian Agent, Los Angeles, Ca. to Charles Maltby, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, California, August 5, 1866''. Report of the Secretary of the Interior. Executive Documents. Thirty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, pp. 102-103.

|}

Steward, Julian H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Linguistic Distributions and Political Groups of the Great Basin Shoshoneans. ''American Anthropologist ''39:625-634.

|-
| 
|1938
|Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.

|-
| 
|1955
|The Great Basin Shoshonean Indians. in ''Theory of Cultural Change'', by Julian H. Steward, pp. 101-121

|-
| 
|1977
|The Foundations of Basin-Plateau Shoshonean Society. In ''Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation'', Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy, eds., pp. 366-406.

|}

Stewart, Kenneth M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|Mohave. in ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Vol. 10, Southwest, Alfonso Ortiz, ed., pp.55-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution

|}

Stewart, Omer C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1939
|The Northern Paiute Bands. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 2(3):127-149.

|-
| 
|1942
|Culture Element Distributions, XVIII: Ute-Southern Paiute. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 6(4):231-256. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1959
|Shoshone History and Social Organization. In ''Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of Americanists'', Vol. 2, pp. 132-142.

|}

Strong, William Duncan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|Aboriginal Society in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.

|}

Theodoratus, Dorothea, Geri Emberson, David White, Stephen W. Conkling, and Deborah McLean.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|''Death Valley National Park Cultural Affiliation Study''. LSA Associates. Submitted to Death Valley National Park, Contract No. 1443CX8130-96-003.

|}

Thomas, David Hurst, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Western Shoshone. In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, David G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|''The Mohave Desert Region, California: A Geographic, Geologic, and Hydrologic Reconnaissance''. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 578. United States Department of the Interior, USGS, United States Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, Richard and Kathryn Thompson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Pioneer of the Mojave: The Life and Times of Aaron G. Lane''. Desert Knolls Press, Apple Valley, California.

|}

Turner, Raymond M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Mojave Desertscrub. in ''Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico'', David E. Brown, ed., pp. 157-168. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

United States Decennial Census

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1880
|Population enumeration district enumeration sheets for Lookout and Resting Springs Precincts, Inyo County, California and Mountain Precinct, San Bernardino County, California. Tenth Decennial Census of the United States, State of California, Counties of Inyo and San Bernardino. Bureau of the Census, U.S, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

|}

Van Dyke, Dix

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Life on the Mojave River Valley: The Piutes of 1904. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 41. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Van Valkenburgh, R. F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Chemehuevi Notes. Indian Claims Commission Docket 88 330. In: ''American Indian Ethnohistory, California and Basin Plateau Indians, Paiute Indians II'', pp. 225 253. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

|}

Vernon, Charles Clark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1956
|A History of the San Gabriel Mountains. ''Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly'' 38(1): 39-60; 38(2): 141-166; 38(3): 263-296; 38(4): 373- 384.

|}

Voegelin, Erminie Wheeler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|''Tubatulabal Ethnography''. University of California Anthropological Records 2(1):1-84.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''Early Mines of the Southern Clark Mountains, the Northern Mescal Range and the Ivanpah Mountains. in Punctuated Chaos in the Northeastern Mojave Desert'', Robert E. and Jennifer Reynolds, ed., pp.67-72. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly 43(1-2): 1-155.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M., Gary L. Shumway, Russell D. Hartill

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Desert Fever: An Overview of Mining in the California Desert''. Living West Press, Canoga Park, California

|}

Walker, Clifford J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Back Door to California: The Story of the Mojave River Trail''. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Whipple, Lieut. A. W., Thomas Eubank, Esq., and Prof. Wm. W. Turner.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|Report Upon the Indian Tribes. ''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Vol. 3, Part 3. US 33d Congress, 1st Session. Senate. Ex doc no. 29, Senate executive document (United States. Congress. Senate) ; 33rd Congress, 2nd session. Senate Exec. Doc. No. 78. Washington, D.C.

|}

Whitley, David S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|History and Prehistory of the Coso Range: The Native American Past on the Western Edge of the Great Basin. In ''Coso Rock Art, A New Perspective'', Elva Younkin, ed., pp.29-68. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|}

Wilkie, Phillip and Harry W. Lawton

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Expedition of Capt. J. W. Davidson From Ft. Tejon to the Owens Valley in 1859''. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 8. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|}

Williamson, R. S., Lieut., Corps of Topographical Engineers.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route For a Railroad From the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Volume 5. Made under the direction of the Secretary of War in 1853-1854. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. Nicholson.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1936-1974. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|1938
|Kawaiisu Territory. In ''Tribal Distributions in the Great Basin'', by Willard Z. Park, et al., pp. 634-638. American Anthropologist 40(4).

|-
| 
|1941
|Ethnobotanical Studies Among California and Great Basin Shoshoneans. PhD Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

|-
| 
|1980
|''Kawaiisu Mythology: An Oral Tradition of South-Central California''. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 18. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|-
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

----

Zigmond, Maurice L. ''continued''

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Kawaiisu. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp. 398-411. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice, Curtis G. Booth, and Pamela Munro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu: A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts''. University of California Los Angeles, Institute of Linguistics. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

|}

Zeitelhack, June and Jan Zeitelhack La Barge

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Operations of the Pacific Coast Borax Company 1883-1907: Daggett, Marion, Borate, and the Borate-Daggett Railroad. in ''Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., pp.96-104. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

[[Category:Volume]][[Category:Volume 9]]

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:51:22Z

WikiSysop: /* Bibliography */

='''Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol9-cover.png|right|150px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==
The in-progress ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) brings together decades of research and mission record analysis into selected volumes that will eventually be part of a 15 volume print/wiki encyclopedia portraying the socio-political landscape of native California after first contact with the Spanish, between 1770 and 1830.

Volume 1 of the series presents an overview of the CDM model, explaining the process of ethnographic data analysis and regional mapping unit construction across all portions of California. Volumes 2-15 will eventually represent contextual overviews of each of the 14 analytical zones identified within California. Each zone has a group of independent, landholding regions (totaling 663) defined by mutual history, shared languages, and similar land-use patterns. (Table 1) An introduction to each volume will focus on multi-regional issues (overview of history, ethnography, and research techniques) followed by individual regional monographs (some complete, some unfinished) covering languages, environment, and early expedition, mission, historic, and ethnographic sources, as applicable. A comprehensive bibliography will conclude each volume.

Volume 9, entitled ''South San Joaquin Analytical Zone'', almost complete, includes the southern portion of the Yokuts language family area as well as the western Mono and Tubatalabal language areas. It contains 56 regions covering portions of Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties.

The CDM is also presented in a collaborative Wiki website (currently accessible through farwestern.com) which consists of several major elements—ACCESS data tables, GIS maps, and narrative text. In this format, the ethnographic data are available to scholars from academia, tribal communities, and agencies that can locate and organize data effectively, add new information as it becomes available, and generate feature articles that can include maps, pictures, or cross-references.

This series has been produced by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., with support from a number of district environmental branches within the California Department of Transportation.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="72%" align="center"
|+Table 1. Volume, Analytical Zone, and Languages Spoken.
|-
|align = "center"|VOLUME Number
|align = "center"|ANALYTICAL ZONE
|align = "center"|LANGUAGE
|align = "center"|NUMBER OF REGIONS

|-
|align = "center"|2
|align = "center"|Northwest
|align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok Athabascan Karok Takelman
|align = "center"|37

|-
|align = "center"|3
|align = "center"|North
|align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko Wintu and Nomlaki Yana
|align = "center"|48

|-
|align = "center"|4
|align = "center"|Northeast
|align = "center"|Modoc Mountain Maidu Numic Pit River Washoe
|align = "center"|28

|-
|align = "center"|5
|align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Lake Miwok Pomo Wappo Yuki
|align = "center"|59

|-
|align = "center"|6
|align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
|align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu Patwin Wintuan Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Northern Ohlone
|align = "center"|66

|-
|align = "center"|8
|align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok Delta Yokuts 
|align = "center"|54

|-
|align = "center"|9
|align = "center"|South San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Mono Numic Tubatulabal Yokuts
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|10
|align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Northern Chumash Esselen Ohlone Salinan
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|11
|align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
|align = "center"|Chumash 
|align = "center"|68

|-
|align = "center"|12
|align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
|align = "center"|Takic
|align = "center"|58

|-
|align = "center"|13
|align = "center"|Southeast
|align = "center"|Numic Takic
|align = "center"|45

|-
|align = "center"|14
|align = "center"|South
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|20

|-
|align = "center"|15
|align = "center"|Colorado River
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|13

|-
|align = "right" colspan="3"|Total
|align = "center"|663

|}

==Landholding Groups of the South San Joaquin Zone - Yokutsan, Tubatulabal, and Western Mono Speakers==

[[File:Vol9-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. South San Joaquin Analytical Zone with Regions.
]]The South San Joaquin zone includes the San Joaquin Valley plain from Buenavista-Kern Lake northward almost to the Merced River, as well as the contiguous western Sierra Nevada front. The CDM divides the zone into 56 year-round habitation regions (Figure 1). The Southern San Joaquin encompasses the ethnographic lands of the western Mono-speakers, the Tubatulabal speakers, and most Yokuts-speakers. Excluded from the zone are the lands of Delta Yokuts speakers from the Merced River northward to the Stockton vicinity. (They are addressed as part of the Delta-Northern San Joaquin Zone.)

This zone does not represent any distinct ethnographic socio-political area. It is rather a conveniently sized subarea of California for presenting an overview about ethnography, history, and problems in ethnogeographic reconstruction. The South San Joaquin zone is one of those portions of California where we must rely upon the clues imbedded in the Franciscan mission registers to build the ethnogeographic picture in the west, while relying upon the classic ethnographic literature for reconstructing ethnogeography in the east. Contextual ethnogeographic and historic information for understanding the details in the zone<nowiki>’</nowiki>s monographs are provided below. This zone study concludes with the combined bibliography for all of its constituent regional monographs.

===Linguistic Groups===
[[File:Vol9-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Regions by Language Group.]]Two language families—Yokutsan and Uto-Aztecan—are represented among the ethnographic groups of the South San Joaquin analytic zone. The Uto-Aztecan family is represented in the South San Joaquin zone by Mono of the Numic branch and by Tubatulabal, both in Sierra fothills. The Yokutsan family is represented by a number of closely related languages spoken throughout the lowlands, as well as in some Sierran foothills regions Figure 2.

====Uto-Aztecan Family Languages====
The Uto-Aztecan family has nine major branches spoken over a wide area from Idaho on the north to El Salvador on the south: Numic, Tubatulabal, Takic, Hopi, Tepiman, Taracahitan, Tubar, Corachol, and Aztecan (Goddard 1996:323). The four northern branches, as argued by Kroeber, form a distinct Shoshonean branch of the overall family; they are Hopic, Numic, Takic, and Tubatulabal. Linguists today refer to the former Shoshonean branch as Northern Uto-Aztecan (Miller 1986; Mithun 1999:540).

Mono (a language within the Numic subbranch) and Tubatulabal are the two ethnographic Uto-Aztecan languages of the South San Joaquin Zone. Mono was spoken by the Western Mono people along the west slope of the southern Sierra Nevada range from south of Mono Lake down to the Mount Whitney vicinity; it is precisely the same language as that spoken by the Owens Valley Paiute directly across the southern Sierra Nevada Range to the east. Farther south, Tubatulabal was the native language in the mountainous portion of the Kern River watershed at the time of western contact. Mithun (1999:541) provides a bibliography of linguistic studies of the Mono and Tubatulabal languages.

====Yokutsan Family Languages====
The Yokutsan language family includes a number of closely related Yokuts languages, all within the drainage of the San Joaquin River in California (Shipley 1979:82-84). The family is a member of the Penutian language stock. It has recently been suggested to be a branch of a Yok-Utian family within that stock, together with Miwokan and Ohlone-Costanoan (Callaghan 1997; Mithun 1999:309). The northern boundary of Yokutsan, where its speakers bordered the Plains Miwok, lay just north of Stockton (within the Delta-North San Joaquin zone). To the south, Yokutsan languages were spoken down the San Joaquin Valley to Buena Vista Lake at the foot of the Transverse Ranges. The eastern Yokutsan boundary varied. Where it contacted Sierra Miwok speakers, it was generally along the break between the plains and the Sierra Nevada foothills. South of the Fresno River, where it contacted Mono speakers, the border tended to be at higher elevations, in the yellow pine forest belt. On the west, the boundary between Yokutsan and Ohlone-Costanoan speakers was along the edge of the Coast Range foothills (Milliken 1994; cf. Kroeber 1925).

Three major branches within the Yokutsan language family are distinguished—Poso Creek, Buena Vista, and Nim-Yokuts. On the basis of comparative historical phonology and morphology, Whistler and Golla (1986) portray a complex division of ever-more-recent splits and expansions in Yokuts languages from south to north. They provide evidence that the Poso Creek language, on the one hand, and combined Buena Vista and Nim-Yokuts on the other hand, are two separate branches of the family. Nim-Yokuts, the most widespread of the three main branches, is itself split into Tule-Kaweah (of the southern Sierran foothills) and Northern Yokuts. Finally, Northern Yokuts itself is represented by the Delta, Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Kings River Yokuts languages. Mithun (1999:567-568) provides an overview of recent linguistic insights regarding Yokutsan, as well as a bibliography of relevant linguistic studies.

The South San Joaquin region includes all of the Yokutsan language areas except the Delta Yokuts, a language within the Nim-Yokuts branch.

===Western Contact and Disruption===
Change of traditional native life in the South San Joaquin vicinity was caused by both direct and indirect forces. The direct forces were Spanish expeditions, emigration to Coast Range missions (Figure 3), arrival of traders and gold miners in the late 1840s, arrival of settlers in the 1850s, and the removal of many groups to a series of reservations from the 1850s through the 1890s. Indirect impacts were the arrival of new diseases, new ideas, and new tools that reached groups ahead of direct contact.

====Spanish Period====
=====First Contact=====
[[File:Vol9-fig3.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 3. Degree of Mission-Induced Depopulation in the South San Joaquin Analytic Zone.]]The year 1771 marked the first Spanish expedition into the South San Joaquin vicinity. It was led by Pedro Fages, who came into the area from the south in search of deserters from the Spanish military. Herbert Bolton (1935), translater of the journal entries that indirectly describe that trip, reconstructed Fages<nowiki>’</nowiki> journey from San Diego up to Cajon Pass and Antelope Valley, then over Tejon Pass into the Buenavista Lake region. The trip seems to have occurred in winter, perhaps February 1771, because Fages was later able to provide the earliest description of a southern Yokuts winter village:

In their villages the natives live in the winter in very large squares, the families divided from each other, and outside they have very large houses in the form of hemisphere, where they keep their seeds and utensils <nowiki>[</nowiki>Fages 1772 in Bolton 1935:12<nowiki>]</nowiki>.

In 1776 Father F. Garces came into the southern San Joaquin Valley from the south as an unarmed evangelizer for Christianity. Garces probably entered the valley by way of Cottonwood Creek and Tejon Creek, and then went north to the Kern River in the present Bakersfield area. He learned that the Yokuts people of the Kern Lake and Bakersfield regions had been visited by Spanish deserters who abused their women; the tribal people executed them for committing these assaults. He also was told that one Spanish deserter was living happily in a nearby community, married to an Indian woman (Coues 1900:272-302).

=====Post-1800 Spanish Expeditions=====
No Spanish expeditions into the South San Joaquin are documented from the time of Garcés to 1805. Beginning that year, numerous groups entered the valley during the Spanish period. Whether led by soldiers or missionaries, these parties always included soldiers and always searched for baptized Indians who broke the territorial law by leaving their missions without permission. The expeditions included:

* 1805 Martin (in Cook 1960:243-244): Mission San Miguel to the Wowol villages on the south shore of Tulare Lake.
* 1806 Zalvidea (in Cook 1960:245-247): Mission Santa Barbara over San Rafael Mountains to Buenavista and Kern Lakes, then to the Kern River at present Bakersfield (Kern County), over Tejon Pass to Antelope Valley, Cajon Pass, and Mission San Gabriel.
* 1806 Moraga-Muñoz (in Cook 1960: 247-253): Mission San Juan Bautista east to the east side of the San Joaquin River (in Merced County), north as far as the Mokelumne River (San Joaquin County), then back south along the east side of the valley all the way to Kern Lake and over Tejon Pass (Kern County) to Mission San Gabriel.
* 1808 Palomares (in Cook 1960:256-257): From Mission San Fernando to the Antelope Valley (Los Angeles and Kern counties), to the hill country overlooking the southern San Joaquin Valley (Kern County), and back to Mission San Fernando.
* 1815 Ortega (in Cook 1960:267-68): From Mission San Miguel to the Kaweah River (through Kings and Tulare counties)
* 1815 Pico (in Cook 1960: 268-269): From Mission San Juan Bautista to the Kaweah River (through Merced, Fresno, and Kings counties).
* 1815 Pico-Ortega (in Cook 1960 269-271): Pico and Ortega joined forces at a distributary of the Kaweah River (Corcoran vicinity), then backtracked Pico<nowiki>’</nowiki>s route north (through Kings and Fresno counties), crossed the San Joaquin River, and continued north (in Madera County) almost to the Merced River, then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.
* 1816 Martinez (in Cook 1960:271-272): From Mission San Luis Obispo across the Temblor Range to the south end of Tulare Lake (Kern County), thence southeast to Goose Lake, and probably to the Bakersfield vicinity on the Kern River, back to Tulare Lake (all Kern County), then west back to Mission San Luis Obispo.
* 1819 Estudillo (in Gayton 1936): From Mission San Miguel to the south side of Tulare Lake and Goose Lake (Kern County), northeast to the White, Tule, and Kaweah rivers (Tulare County), to the north side of Tulare Lake and lower Kings River (Kings County), then north along Fresno Slough to the bend of the San Joaquin River (Fresno County) and Los Banos Creek (Merced County), then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.

=====Spanish Era (up through 1821) Mission Recruitment=====
Approximately 3,200 people moved to Franciscan missions in the Coast Ranges from the South San Joaquin zone. The preponderance of them (1,790; 56%) went during the Spanish era, through late 1821. Many, but not all, of the South San Joaquin Valley people to arrive at the missions before 1822 can be traced to groups from specific areas. Probably all in that early group were Yokuts speakers. Below is an overview of Spanish period Yokuts missionization, presented by county.

Merced County—More than 800 Yokuts people moved to the missions from Merced County between 1798 and 1821. The largest group was Nopchenches from the Santa Rita region, 111 people. Surprisingly, most members of the next largest single group—208 Janalamne/Tejeys—went to Mission Santa Clara, the remainder to Santa Cruz; they are tentatively associated with the Gustine area. The first Merced County people at the missions were the Chaneches of the Los Banos region, 106 people (most at Santa Cruz). The Notoals/Huocons of the Mud Slough region were split between missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista. From just east of the San Joaquin River, most of the Quithrathres of the Atwater region and Uthrocus of the El Nido region were at Mission San Juan Bautista by the end of 1821.

Fresno County—More than 500 people from western Fresno County were at the missions by the end of 1821. First came the Quihueths of the Oro Loma region, More than 100 people were absorbed into missions San Juan Bautista and Soledad before 1817. The Helm region people—hard to identify individually, but probably more than 90 people—went to Mission Soledad prior to 1818. Mendota people, the Cutochos, were at the missions before 1821, split between San Juan Bautista and Soledad. The other large Fresno County groups nearly entirely removed to the missions by that time were the Eyuslahuas and Copchas of the Firebaugh region. Remaining Fresno County groups at the end of the period lived eastward of the lowest portions of the San Joaquin Valley.

Madera County—Only 78 identifiable Yokuts people from areas centered in Madera County were at any mission before 1822. Most, 65, were Chausilas from the western Chausila Dairyland region. Another 11 were Heuchis from the Madera region. One was a Hoyima and one was from a poorly documented small group called Oatsin that may have been in the Sierra foothills.

Kings County—At least 82 Yokuts people from groups in Kings County were at the missions before 1822. The great majority (61; 74%) were Tachis; they were divided almost equally among missions Soledad, San Antonio, and San Miguel. Another 11 were Telesmecoyo people from the Dudley Ridge area on the west shore of Tulare Lake, three at Mission San Antonio, and eight at San Miguel; there should have been more, and it is likely that they also appeared at the missions under synonymous names that have not been identified with any specific San Joaquin Valley location. Another nine Chunuts from the Corcoran region were at the missions, four each at Soledad and San Miguel, plus one at San Antonio. One Nutunutu from the Hanford region had gone to Mission San Antonio.

Tulare County—Only eight people from groups centered in Tulare County had gone to the missions by the end of 1821. Six of them were Telamnes from Goshen/Visalia, at Mission San Miguel. Two others were Choinocs from the Tulare region, at Mission San Buenaventura.

Kern County—At least 243 Yokuts people from Kern County were at missions by the end of 1822. The great majority (198; 81%) went to San Miguel, where the Wowols of Alpaugh were the highest represented (103), followed by the Auyamnes of the Buttonwillow region (63). Also appearing in San Miguel registers were 14 Tulamnis from the Buenavista region and 11 Yaulmanis from Bakersfield. Mission San Luis Obispo had baptized 29 South San Joaquin people, the largest group being 14 Auyamnes from Buttonwillow, and the next largest being only seven Tulamnis from Buenavista. Buenavista also sent two people to Santa Barbara, three to San Fernando, and two to San Buenaventura. Ten Quiyamnes were distributed among San Miguel, San Luis Obispo, and San Fernando. Only four Kern Lake Hometwalis are identifiable in the pre-1822 records, two at Santa Barbara and one each at San Buenaventura and La Purisima.

In summary, by the end of 1821 the northwest portion of the South San Joaquin zone was empty of villages on the plains on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in northwest Fresno County and Merced County, as well as along the north-south flowing San Joaquin River in present Merced County and far western Madera County. Southeast and east of that area tribal life was still intact at the end of the year 1821.

One other caveat—the Quiyamne (Famoso region) and Auyamne (Buttonwillow), two Yokuts tribelets in the otherwise-intact area south of Tulare Lake, seem to have been destroyed as viable groups in wars with their neighbors prior to 1821.

====Mexican Period====
An independent Mexican government replaced Spain in control of the coastal missions and presidios over the winter of 1821-1822. More military expeditions entered the valley during the Mexican Period, in search of fugitive Christian neophytes and of native people who raided mission horse herds. North American fur trappers also began to enter the South San Joaquin regions during the Mexican period. Brief overviews are provided below regarding key expeditions.

=====Mexican Period San Joaquin Diaries=====
''1826 Pico (in Cook 1962:181-184)'': Pico went into the San Joaquin Valley to punish horse raiders and capture fugitive Christian Indians. He left Monterey on December 27, 1825. The raid took them into Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties. After discovering some fugitive Christian Indians in the Firebaugh area they went east to the Herndon vicinity, then north into Heuchi lands, in search of the Hoyima. They captured 40 people, and arrested seven of these as criminals. Next they traveled south to the Kings River, where they visited villages up and down the river. Returning north along the east side of Fresno Slough to the Mendota area, they split off a group to return to Monterey with their prisoners. Then Pico doubled back south along the west side of Fresno Slough to Tulare Lake, in an attempt to sneak up on the Tachi, who were harboring fugitive Christians. Unsuccessful in that attempt, the party swung around the east side of Tulare Lake lands, stopped to visit friendly Wowols, and returned westward. The party reached Mission San Miguel on January 25, 1826.

''1827 Jedediah Smith (1977)'': Jedediah Smith led a group of American trappers up the San Joaquin Valley in the late winter and early spring of 1827. His large party, complete with its own herd of horses, crossed the Tehachapi Range from Antelope Valley to Kern Lake over February 9-11. At the lake they secured as a guide an Indian man who spoke Spanish. Farther north in the Bakersfield region Smith reported, "Several Indians some of them having horses visited the encampment" (Smith 1977:136). Arriving at Tulare Lake, he saw a Wowol village "of two or three hundred inhabitants" (Smith 1977:139). He described the Kaweah River country as "populous" and specifically mentioned a large village of the "Wimmilche" people, after whom he named the current Kings River. The population picture changed when Smith moved north to the bend of the San Joaquin River, which "they called the Peticutry." From that point northward Smith found no villages in the flat San Joaquin Valley until he reached the Mokelumne River (Smith 1977:146).

''1828a Rodriguez (in Cook1962:184-185)'': From April 22 until May 5, Rodriguez was in the Merced and Madera county areas raiding the Chausila, Heuchi, and Hoyima. "I brought in 52 horses taken from the village called Joyima and, between Christians and heathen, 85 souls," Rodriguez reported (in Cook 1962:185).

''1828b Rodriguez (in Cook 1962:185-186)'': On his second 1828 trip, Rodriguez raided areas south of Tulare Lake. He entered the San Joaquin Valley from La Panza (east of Mission San Luis Obispo) and reached the Tulamni on the west side of Buenavista Lake on May 29. Upon being informed that Indian people in the mountains to the south had horses, he moved south and raided small villages in the Santiago Creek, San Emigdio, and Grapevine Creek regions (Santa Barbara CDM zone). Returning northward, he raided the "Carrizos" (probably Hometwali) and the Yaulmani of the Bakersfield region before arriving farther north at his allies the Wowol of the Alpaugh region at Tulare Lake. He then left the San Joaquin Valley in the direction of Mission San Miguel.

''1830<'': North American fur trappers entered California in the 1830s, for instance Ewing Young (in Holmes 1967). Any diaries they might have left should be examined for information on ethnogeography.

=====Mexican Era (1822-1846) Mission Recruitment=====
Some 1,460 South San Joaquin region people moved to the missions during the Mexican era. About 1,270 (87%) have been assigned to specific regions, all Yokuts-speaking. Of the remaining 190 who are merely from "the Tulares," some small number may have been Western Mono or Tubatulabal. Three-quarters of the 1,270 people identifiable to region were baptized in one or another of three years:

1822—288 people, most (124) from the San Joaquin River in Fresno and Madera counties or from Merced County (121). Most were remnants of the Merced County groups on and just east of the San Joaquin River (Nopchenche, Quithrathre, Uthrocos), but a significant new group were the Pitcache of the Kerman region.

1834—264 people, most from Kings or Tulare counties. They included Chunut, Tachi, and Wowol of Tulare Lake, as well as Choinoc of Tulare and Wechihit of Sanger. These people were probably survivors of the malaria epidemic of 1833.

1835—277 people, most from Kern, Kings, and Tulare counties. Most were from the same groups baptized the previous year, but they also included a few Tulamnis of Buenavista, Tajanishilac (Hometwali) of Kern Lake, Yualmani of Bakersfied, and Telamne of Goshen/Visalia.

Malaria struck the Central Valley in August 1833. The epidemic devastated tribal groups farther north in the Sacramento Valley (Cook 1955) and south of the bend of the San Joaquin River as far as Kern Lake.

=====Mission Closure and Horse Raiding, 1837-1845=====
The Franciscan missions were closed as land-holding communes between 1834 and 1836. Under the original Spanish law and subsequent Mexican law, mission Indians were to be given half of the mission lands and livestock (Geary 1934). But only a handful of Mission Indian individuals were given any land or livestock by the commissioners of the Mexican government. None of them were tribal people of the South San Joaquin zone.

Surviving Coast Range Chumash, Salinan, and Ohlone-Costanoans went to work on various Mexican ranchos to the south and west of the San Joaquin Valley, as did some of those Yokuts people who had been at the missions since the early 1820s or earlier. Some of the "New Christians" who had been baptized since 1822 also stayed to work on Coast Range ranches. But most of the New Christians from tribelets on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley returned to their old homelands.

Many of those who returned to the San Joaquin Valley joined their remnant valley relatives who had survived the malaria epidemic to take up the horse raiding life that they had practiced in the early 1820s, before they moved to the missions. To an unknown extent, they brought people from Sierra foothill groups along on some of the horse raids. Horse raiding in the South San Joaquin seems to have been centered in present Madera County.

''1845 John C. Fremont (1886)'': Fremont brought his third exploring expedition down the east side of the San Joaquin Valley from Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort in December 1845. His encounter with the "Chauchiles" is discussed in detail in the Raymond region monograph, with quotes from Latta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1949) extract of his memoirs. Freemont<nowiki>’</nowiki>s full works have not been seen by this author. They should be consulted and all relevant material for ethnogeography should be cited in appropriate CDM monographs.

====Early American Period====
On May 13, 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico over an incident along the Texas border. The military occupation government appointed John Sutter sub-Indian agent for the district of Sacramento and San Joaquin in the spring of 1847. He was granted power to advise the government and threaten Indians and settlers with future recriminations in cases of illegal behavior. There is no evidence that he interacted with any groups of the South San Joaquin zone.

Reports of gold discovery in the mountains east of Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort brought a small flood of Hispanic and Anglo Californians to the Sierra foothills in the spring of 1848. In the summer of 1848, Governor Mason toured the central mines and reported thousands of Indians panning for gold with pans or willow baskets (Hurtado 1988:104). Adventurer James D. Savage soon hired Indian people to conduct placer mining operations with their basketry equipment. Savage set up a series of trading posts to collect gold from Indian people of the present Mariposa and Madera county areas (Hall 1978:66-67; Hurtado 1988:112-115; Munoz 1980); his main ally was Jose Reyes, a Chausila headman from the present west-central Madera County area who had been baptized at Mission San Juan Bautista in 1837 (San Juan Bautista Baptism 4298).

The spring and summer of 1849 brought a huge influx of young foreign men to California. By late 1850, 10,000 miners were reportedly working the Stanislaus River watershed (Hall 1978:54). The famous gold-mining settlements of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas, Angels Camp, Sonora, Coulterville, and Mariposa all grew up within Sierra Miwok territory. North Americans, French, Mexicans, and Chileans joined the Anglo and Hispanic Californians at the mines in 1849 and 1850. Some Mission Indians from the coastal settlements took up entrepreneurial activities in the mining towns, as Perkins described, in late 1849 or 1850:

<blockquote>Mission Indians, with scarlet bandanas round their heads, a richly colored zarape over their shoulders, a pair of cotton drawers, and bare-footed, would push their way through the crowd, carrying pails of iced liquor on their heads, crying … agua fresca, cuatro reales <nowiki>[</nowiki>Perkins 1964:106<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Anglo Americans predominated in the mines by 1850. Most of them had little regard for the native Indian people, considered them racially inferior and a nuisance, to be removed in any way possible. They began to drive the native workers out, often with violence and brutality. After 1850 the local Indians "continued to live on the margins of mining camps and boomtowns" but were never again a large percentage of the labor force (Hurtado 1988:108).

=====Unratified Treaties, Mariposa Indian War, 1850-1852=====
California was admitted to the United States as a free state on September 9, 1850. The new governor of California reflected the attitude of the majority of the state<nowiki>’</nowiki>s citizens. On January 7, 1851, in his annual message to the state legislature, Governor Peter Burnett stated that a war of extermination would be waged "until the Indian race should become extinct" and that it was "beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert the inevitable destiny" (Hittell 1897:899). As North American whites settled the best lands of the San Joaquin Valley, the Indians were driven off. When they poached some of the immigrant property, they were hunted down and killed.

Friction between the local people and North Americans in the southern mining district in present Mariposa County sparked the native resistance called the Mariposa Indian War of 1851.The resistance began in the fall of 1850 and culminated with the defeat of the leading groups, the Chauchila and the Chukchansi Yokuts, in the spring of 1851. Their leaders signed a treaty with the US government on April 29, 1851. (See further discussion of this and other treaties in the next section below.) We present here a summary of that war<nowiki>’</nowiki>s events, which involved local tribes who were living at the time in the Raymond, Le Grand, Coarse Gold, and Nipinnawassee regions. (The sources used here are the 1997 and 2004 works by George Phillips, themselves based on a myriad of primary manuscripts):

* At the start of the Gold Rush the Chauchila seem to have been living in either the Le Grand or Raymond region, perhaps both. In 1849, James Savage, a widower from Illinois, established trading posts along the Merced, Mariposa, and Fresno rivers, cohabited with a number of Indian wives, and hired local Indians to pan gold dust for him.
* Late in 1850 some Indians from the region between the Merced and Fresno rivers attacked Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s northern trading post on the Merced River. As tensions continued to build, Savage attempted to help the local groups face the new reality of western conquest by taking a "Chowchilla" chief named Jose Juarez to see San Francisco in the fall. (Jose Juarez is not identifiable in any Franciscan mission records.) In San Francisco, Juarez boasted that the tribes were preparing to drive the whites from the mountains (Phillips 1997:42, 43).
* In late November 1850, a group of tribes gathered near Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post (near the later Savage Monument in the eastern Raymond region); Phillips lists the Potuyanthre Miwok, Nuchu Miwok, Chauchila Yokuts, and Pitkachi Yokuts. (It is hard to imagine that the Chuckchansi Yokuts were not there also.) Savage went to talk with them and urge them to avoid war, but his efforts were rejected. Then, on December 1, Indian agent Adam Johnston arrived in the area and went to talk to the Chauchila chiefs at Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River station. After Johnson distributed gifts, the Chauchila assured him they would not oppose the whites.
* On December 17, a combined group of Chauchila Yokuts, Chukchansi Yokuts, and Pohonichi Miwoks raided Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post, killed three men, and made off with goods and livestock. On the same day Savage noticed that Potuyanthre Indians living around his Mariposa post had withdrawn into the mountains and followed them to a camp in the higher mountains; they may have been diverting Savage away from the Fresno River attack (Phillips 1997:43, 44).
* On December 25, more than 100 Indians attacked a miners<nowiki>’</nowiki> camp and ferry in what may be the later Cassidys Bar area along the San Joaquin River, an area now flooded by Millerton Lake. One miner was killed and ten were wounded. Specific tribes were not mentioned, but just days before, the local sheriff had warned all miners to leave the San Joaquin River after he spoke with Pitkachi chief Tom-quit at his village (Phillips 1997:47).
* The Americans responded by sending out a posse of about 100 miners and settlers from various mining camps in the Mariposa district. A few days after January 7, 1851 they found the Heuchi, along with many Chauchilas and some Chukchansis, in a mountainous village of 60 or 70 huts; diaries indicate they traveled 50 miles, but that may not have been on a direct line. They burned the village and killed 30 people (Phillips 1997:49-52). This refuge may have been at Fresno Flats or farther east in the Bass Lake area.
* On January 17, 1851 the settler posse went out again, by way of Fine Gold Creek. They found the resisting Indians "on the north fork of the San Joaquin" (Phillips 1997:53), which, if true, put them deep into the Sierra and far above the snow line of the North Fork region. Phillips summarized: "At a nearby village resided elements of the Chauchila, Chukchansi, Gawia, Nukchu, Potoyanti, Pohonichi, and Yosemite. Numbering some five hundred fighting men, they were led by Chauchila chiefs José Rey and José Juarez" (Phillips 1997:53). (Chief Jose Rey is probably the individual baptized at San Juan Bautista in 1837 as a 19 year old Chauchila <nowiki>[</nowiki>SJB-B 4298<nowiki>]</nowiki>). Again, the native camp was burned and the Indians retreated.
* In February and early March 1851 miners and settlers were attacked over a wide area of the Sierra foothills, from the Stanislaus River south to the Kaweah River. Among places where whites were killed were the San Joaquin River in the Friant region and Fine Gold Gulch in the Coarse Gold region. The Chauchila were blamed for most of the raids (Phillips 1997:55, 71).

A group of three federal commissioners arrived in the Jamestown vicinity (Delta/North San Joaquin zone), north of the main disturbance area, on February 20, 1851. They had been directed by the United States Congress to make a series of treaties with local groups across the state. The purpose of the treaties was to get the tribes out of the mining and farming lands and onto lands that were not desired by the rapidly growing North American population. Under the treaties, three reservations were set up along the front edge of the foothills within the South San Joaquin zone.

* The federal treaty commissioners arrived in the San Joaquin Valley in February 1851, at the same time that state officials were organizing an official militia to suppress the Indians. The commissioners established Camp Fremont on the Little Mariposa River on March 8 and soon began talking with the adjacent Potoyanti (the Hunter Valley region) and Siyante (Catheys Valley region). The commissioners picked lands for their reservation north of the Merced River in the San Joaquin Valley. The Potoyanti, Siyante, and four local tribes of the upper Merced and Tuolumne rivers signed the first federal treaty (later called Treaty M<ref>The letter sequence for these treaties was not used in the field but was imposed years later in Washington D.C.</ref>) on March 19, 1851 (Phillips 2004:27).
* Beginning on March 19, 1851, companies from the newly organized Mariposa Battalion went into the mountains to bring in the many resisting groups. One of the companies followed Tenaya<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Yosemite group into Yosemite Valley in late March.
* While the militia was chasing the various groups, the commissioners moved south to the Fresno River, where they arrived on March 27.
* On April 9 some Indian women came in to the commissioners to say that the Chauchila would sign a treaty, but not until they had finished their mortuary ceremonies for Chief José Reyes, who had died of his earlier wounds. In mid-April a portion of the Mariposa Battalion headed towards the North Fork of the San Joaquin River by way of Coarse Gold Gulch, in search of the Chauchila. They found a deserted village and the remains of José Reye<nowiki>’</nowiki>s cremation. It turned out that the main group of Chauchila people had already gone down the San Joaquin River to the valley to meet with the commissioners (Phillips 1997:83-84).

Treaty N was signed on April 29, 1851 with tribelets of present southwest Mariposa County, central Madera County, and central Fresno County. The Chauchila, Heuchi, Chukchansi (all three Yokuts), Pohonichi, and Nuchu (both Sierra Miwok) all came out of the mountains to sign the treaty at a spot called Camp Barbour on the San Joaquin River (now the Friant vicinity of Fresno County). There they joined local tribes from along the San Joaquin and others who had been brought north from the Kings River. The Treaty N reservation territory, as described in the treaty text, was to be a very large stretch of plain along the base of the Sierra, from the Chowchilla River to the Kings River. In all, 16 tribes signed the treaty in three geographic groupings (Heizer 1972:71-81; Phillips 2004:27, 30). The Chauchila and Chukchansi were part of the northern geographic group, along with the Heuchi Yokuts, the Pohonichi Miwok, and the Nutchu Miwok, all of whom "acknowledge Nai-yak-qua as their principal chief" (Heizer 1972:72). (See the Madera region CDM monograph for more information about Nai-yak-qua of the Heuchi.) Also of note, none of the Chauchila or Chukchansi Treaty N signatories had a Spanish name; the Chauchila signatories were Po-ho-leel, E-keeno, Kay-o-ya, A-pem-shee, and Cho-no-hal-ma, while the Chukchansi were Co-tumsi, Ti-moh, Sa-wa-lai, A-chat-a-na, and Mi-e-wal (Heizer 1972:72-79).

The Mariposa War was nearly over with the signing of Treaty N in April 1851 by all of the resisting groups except the Yosemites (probably composite Bull Creek region and eastern Sierra Monos) and "Monos" of the North Fork region. The Yosemites were captured by mid-May, by which time the Monos were believed to have fled over the Sierra (Phillips 1997:1-99, 2004:25-34).

The commissioners continued south in May 1851. On May 13, at the Kings River, perhaps in the Kingston vicinity, the Tachi, Nutunutu, Wimilche, Telamni, Choinoc, Kaweah, and Yokod of the plains signed Treaty A along with the Entibich, Tuhucmache, Toineche, Holcuma, and Wukchumne of the foothills. Some of the hill groups were Mono speakers.

On May 30 more groups were brought together by the commissioners on the Kaweah River. There the Koyeti, Wolasi, Padwisha, and Wacksache signed Treaty B, along with some groups whose names are not definitely associated with those known ethnographically. Again, the groups included both Yokuts and Mono speakers.

On June 3, 1851, groups gathered on the White River signed Treay C. The groups included the Chunut, Wowol, Yalumne, and another segment of the Koyeti.

On June 10, 1851 groups from the far south end of the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding hill country, who had been gathered together at Tejon Creek, signed Treaty D. Those who are recognizable were the Texon (Kitenamuk), Castake (Castaic Chumash), San Imigdio (Chumash), Uvas (Chumash), Carises (Hometwali Yokuts), Buena Vista (Tulamni Yokuts), and Hol-mi-uh (Paleumne Yokuts). Less definite by location were the Holoclame, Sohonuts, and Tocia groups.

=====Valley and Sierra Indian Experience, 1852-1868=====
Edward F. Beale was appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California in March 1852. In October he proposed a series of temporary reservations with military posts. All Indians from the northern and central San Joaquin Valley and adjoining hills were to be brought to the Fresno River Farm, a small part of the Treaty N territory in present Madera County. The Fresno River Farm was activated that winter and maintained until 1860 (Hurtado 1988:142). Hurtado writes, "Indians from Tuolumne and Mariposa counties lived part of the year on the reservations and spent the rest of their time in their homelands" (1988:152).

The Fresno Indian Farm was closed in 1861. During the Civil War, a number of hostilities occurred between Indian people in the far north of California and the US military. However, other reservations were founded at Tule River and on Tejon Creek. Indian people of the South San Joaquin counties who did not stay on those reservations were subjected to many atrocities without recourse to legal protection.

=====Church-run Reservations in the Grant Administration=====
Ulysses Grant appointed army officers to run most of the reservations in the west at the outset of his first administration, in 1869. However, the US Congress passed a law in 1870 that forbade army officers from holding civil positions. Grant then turned to religious institutions, including the Methodists, Episcopalians, and the Friends, to run the reservations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1873 the Tule River Reservation, the only remaining reservation in the San Joaquin Valley, was moved from high quality valley lands up to less valuable lands in the dry foothills of Tulare County (Forbes 1969:65). Some Yokuts speakers from the old Fresno Indian Farm may have been moved there during the 1870s or earlier.

=====Indian Boarding Schools=====
The federal government began an aggressive policy of training Indians to assimilate into white culture during the 1870s and 1880s. Day schools for Indians were established in reservation areas of the state during the 1880s. Additionally, boarding schools were established to remove young Indians from the cultural influences of their parents. Boarding schools were established at Tule River in 1881, at Middletown in Lake County in 1885, at Hoopa Valley and Perris in 1893, and at Fort Bidwell in 1898 (Castillo 1978:116). The boarding schools were vocationally oriented, and young Indians from some schools were sent out as domestics to nearby white homes.

=====Dawes Act of 1887 and Jackson Rancheria in 1895=====
The Dawes Act, directing the breakup of communal Indian reservation tracts across the United States into small family-owned parcels, was passed by Congress in 1887. The Act was the result of general indignation regarding the situation of non-reservation California Indians stimulated by publication of Helen Hunt Jackson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s book ''Century of Dishonor'' (1881). Jackson Rancheria was one of 17 small "postage stamp" reservations or rancherias (14 in the southern California mission area), purchased in California during the 1890s under the Act.

=====Legal and Social Status Changes after 1900=====
By the beginning of the twentieth century, the economies of the Sierra foothill counties were shifting from mining to farming, ranching, and timber harvesting. Yokuts and Mono men who had survived to this period obtained jobs as laborers in these industries when they could. The women worked as field laborers and house servants. Indian people were still being treated badly by many whites, but laws and attitudes were beginning to change—slowly.

In 1905-1906 C. E. Kelsey, a lawyer from San Jose, carried out an investigation into the condition of landless Indians in California for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As a result, Congress authorized $100,000 to the Secretary of the Interior for land purchase and water development for landless California Indians in acts of June 21, 1906 and April 30, 1908. Dozens of tiny rancherias were purchased throughout California over the next few years under this act.

=====Education and Voting Rights Activities=====
From 1909 forward, California Indian people pressed their own claims for civil rights and land. Some of the cases were aided by an umbrella group called The Indian Board of Cooperation, led by a white protestant minister named Frederick G. Collet. One of their first actions was to press for improved Indian access to education. Major educational improvements occurred between 1915 and 1919, writes Jack Forbes (1969:73):

In 1915 only 316 Indian pupils were attending public school in California but by 1919 this number had increased to 2,199. In general, this was the result of a campaign carried out by Indians and the Indian Board of Cooperation and a new government policy of integrating Indians in public schools in areas such as California and Nevada where the native population was intermixed with white communities.

The Indian Board of Cooperation also aided a Lake County Pomo man, Ethan Anderson, in his court case to obtain the right to vote. Anderson won his case before the California Supreme Court in 1917, thereby essentially winning citizenship rights for all California Indians who did not live on reservations. Thus most California Indian people first became US citizens in 1917.

Recognition of Indian voting rights in 1917 pertained only to Indians living off of federal reservations. Full citizenship for all Native Americans was not recognized by Congress until an act of June 1924. However, a series of complex decisions since that time has limited Indian civil rights on federal reservation lands (see Forbes 1969:95-98).

===Classic and Recent Ethnographers===
Many of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s most famous field ethnographers worked in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The six whose works are most valuable—Anna Gayton, Edward W. Gifford, J. P. Harrington, A. L. Kroeber, Frank Latta, and C. Hart Merriam—are discussed individually below, followed by a paragraph on others who also contributed in the field, and a final paragraph mentioning those who have contributed more recent synthetic ethnogeographic studies.

====C. Hart Merriam (1855-1942)====
Merriam, a university-trained biologist and medical doctor, became first chief of the predecessor agency to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1886. In that capacity he worked in the field in California off-and-on between 1898 and 1910, keeping numerous notes about the Indian people that he met in his regular biologists field notebooks. In 1910 he received a life-time endowment from the Harriman Trust which allowed him to retire and conduct any research that he wanted. He chose to devote most of his attention to fieldwork with California Indians. Reflecting that change in circumstances, from 1910 forward he wrote his detailed ethnographic notes separately from his daily journals, the latter becoming merely diaries.

Merriam worked among Indian people in many areas of the South San Joaquin zone, all in or near the Sierra Nevada foothills, between 1902 and 1934. Most of his material pertinent to the local regions of the South San Joaquin zone have been published under editorship of Robert F. Heizer (Merriam 1967, 1977). These materials have been quoted in the completed CDM monographs. Detailed future research should rely, whenever possible, on Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s original field materials to best appreciate the context of their collection.

Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field dairy/journals are now in the Library of Congress (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938a<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His separate ethnographic journals and notes are at the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley, along with his extensive collection of photographs of Indian people (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938b<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His collection of North American Indian basketry is at the Anthropology Museum at the Department of Anthropology at UC Davis.

====Alfred L. Kroeber (1876-1960)====
A. L. Kroeber received the first doctorate in anthropology awarded at Columbia University in 1901 under Franz Boas. His first California field work took place a year earlier, when, as temporary curator of Indian artifacts at the Academy of Science in San Francisco, he interviewed Indian people in the Klamath River area of northwest California. With Ph.D. in hand, he joined the new Department of Anthropology at the University of California in 1902, where he became department head and taught until his retirement in 1946. The entire body of his field notes is in the Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley (Kroeber <nowiki>[</nowiki>1869-1972<nowiki>]</nowiki>).

Kroeber did quite a bit of field work in the South San Joaquin, much of it prior to 1910. In later years he wrote, "A summary of what I obtained as to tribal territories, place names, sites inhabited, and local resources went into my ''Handbook of the Indians of California'', chapter 32. But the great mass of primary data was too intricate and detailed to print in so general a work as that was, and much of the mass remains in my notebooks, or in incomplete handwritten extracts" (Kroeber 1963:178). Good references to his early informants, but little in the way of ethnogeography, is found in the posthumously published "Yokuts Dialect Survey" (Kroeber 1963).

====John P. Harrington (1884-1961)====
J. P. Harrington took a circuitous route to become a great linguist and ethnologist of California Indian people. Finishing undergraduate work at Stanford University in 1905, he went to Leipzig and then Berlin to pursue a Ph.D. But he dropped out and returned to become a high school teacher and work with elderly Chumash speakers between 1912 and 1914. He was hired as a permanent field ethnologist by the Bureau of American Ethnography in 1915 and worked for the Bureau until 1955. He published very little, but left behind more than one million pages of only moderately organized notes, mostly on language but also on mythology and geography, for native groups from Alaska to South America. His papers are housed at the Smithsonian Institution, although many are available through copy microfilm at a number of institutions across the United States (Mills 1986).

Between 1912 and 1940 Harrington made two significant trips into the South San Joaquin regions. In October 1914 he visited elderly Yokuts speakers at the Santa Rosa Rancheria and Tule River Reservation. Then he spent months at the Tejon Reservation among Chumash, Kitenamuk, Serrano, and Yokuts speakers during the late fall and winter of 1916-1917. Although these two visits represent a small portion of Harrington<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field time, they resulted in a rich and important body of material (Earle 2003).

====E. W. Gifford (1887-1959)====
Gifford was a colleague of Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s at the UC Berkeley Department of Anthropology. He made a number of important contributions to California ethnology, particularly in the areas of kinship systems and kinship terminology. This included an important ethnographic study of clans and moieties in the southern part of the state, carried out in 1918. Gifford was a remarkable scholar, particularly as he had no college degree—something of a rarity for a UC Berkeley faculty member.

Gifford worked among Sierran Miwok groups and the North Fork Mono. His monograph on the North Fork Mono is perhaps the most detailed ethnogeography of any central California people.

====Frank F. Latta (1892-1981)====
Frank Latta was an educator and self-trained field ethnographer of the Yokuts. He began interviewing his Yokuts neighbors soon after he moved to Visalia, Tulare County, in 1923. One of his important informants was Bill Wilson (Pahmit), a mixed Dumna-Kechayi-Pitkachi of Friant, Fresno County. The other was Yoimut, Chunut-Wowol who spent her life on the ranches of Tulare County. Yoimut may have been the best-informed of all Yokuts consultants. "She could read, write, and speak Spanish and English, as well as talk six Yokuts languages," wrote Latta (1949:224). Latta published two significantly different versions of his ''Handbook of Yokuts Indians'', first in 1949 and then an expanded version in 1977. The two should be studied and cited separately because the 1977 version re-arranged earlier text, added new conclusions, and modified the spellings of several words.

====Anna Gayton (1899-1977)====
Anna H. Gayton was the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in anthropology from UC Berkeley, in 1928, majoring under Kroeber and Lowie. She taught Decorative Art at Berkeley from 1948 to 1965. Gayton produced a spectacular amount of published material on Yokuts and Western Mono groups of the southern Sierra Nevada and adjacent eastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley based on field work done in 1925-1930. A series of articles and a detailed monograph embodying most of her field data were published in 1948. In addition to presenting her own field results, she performs knowledgeable critiques of contradictory and unclear material gathered by earlier ethnographers.

====Other Field Ethnographers====
Other people did work in the South San Joaquin zone who have contributed to our ethnogeographic monographs, such as linguist Stanley S. Newman (1905-1984) and Harold Driver (1907-1992), professor of Anthropology at Indiana University.

====More Recent Synthesizers====
The first researcher to study the systematic distribution of groups and populations in the South San Joaquin zone was Sherburne Cook(1955, 1976)), a Harvard-trained professor of physiology at Berkeley who detailed the population of California Indians using quantitative analysis. George Phillips, a University of Colorado historian, synthesized literature on the 1851 treaties (1975) and, more recently, data on the Tejón reservation (1997). William J. Wallace<nowiki>’</nowiki>s sections on the Yokuts in the Handbook of North American Indians, California, offer an unsystematic presentation from the classic literature.

===Organization of Landholding Groups===
Yokuts clearly had tribelets: Kroeber (1925); Kunkel (1962).

Western Mono were independent hamlets, but some were given regional names by Yokuts neighbors, names that have stuck. It is not clear if they really formed regional communities.

Tubatulabal seem to have been between tribelets and independent hamlet groups, but they had some sense of being in three loose communities.

===Conclusion: Mapping Approaches and Constraints===
Mapping approaches with the South San Joaquin zone varied with the nature of available evidence. To put simply, wherever the heartland of a particular group was identifiable through classic ethnography or an early diary, a node was established for that group. Upon initial application of nodes, the analytical zone could be divided into five areas, each with its own unique mapping problems and opportunities, in order of data quality:

* Sierra foothills: all areas of the zone, from the upper San Joaquin River south to the Kern River, had excellent field ethnographic work among people who still remembered the original tribal distributions. There are two exceptions: in Madera County, ethnographic consultants remembered that the Chuckchanis held a large expanse north of the San Joaquin River; other evidence suggests that the term was taken from one regional tribelet and generalized to some of their neighbors. The other ambiguity involves Toltechi, a Yokuts group attributed by one consultant to a small area in the San Joaquin River Canyon (Kerchoff reservoir) that would otherwise seem to have been within Western Mono lands.
* Tulare Lake, Kern-Buenavista Lake Basin, Kaweah River delta: Classic ethnographic consultants remembered well the native groups of these flat valley regions, with two exceptions. First, the mission records list a group called Quiyamne, unknown to ethnographic consultants; their marriage ties suggest they were from the Famosa region and their name is reminiscent of the obscure Giamina Uto-Aztecans of Kroeber (1925:479). The other problem is contradictory evidence regarding the geography and identity of the Wolasi and Choinok Yokuts between the modern towns of Visalia and Tulare.
* San Joaquin River on the valley plain: triblet organization in this area had been almost completely destroyed through missionization and disease by the time of the gold rush. Remnant Chausila, Heuchi, Hoyima, and Pitcache people were living with foothill people in the years of classic ethnographic field research. Thus their tribelet locations are tentatively reconstructed from hints garnered by ethnographers, comments in Hispanic expedition diaries, and the traditional mission register analysis techniques of time sequence and marriage studies. Confident locational results have been obtained for all but the Chausila.
* Kings River drainage: survivors told classic ethnographiers the locations of the Wilmilche, Nutunuu, and Wechihit, in locations supported by early expedition commentaries. However, a mystery still remains about the groups at the edge of the Sierra foothills, adjacent to the Wechihit, to both the northwest and southeast. We tentatively model the Gashowu as originally inhabiting the plain west of Sanger and in the Fresno vicinity, following Kroeber (1925). On the southeast side, the Orange Grove inhabitants are still more problematic. Although we lack positive evidence, we suggest the possibility that the historical Chukamina were driven up into the Dunlap region from the plain in the Orange Grove region below.
* Western Plain from Merced River south to the Kings River Country: people of this area were entirely removed to the missions before 1820. Group names such as Quihueths, Cutocho, and Yyin, appear enough times in the mission records to suggest they were the major groups of the west side; however, a significant number of west-side people were merely identified as "Tulares" in the mission records. Thus the CDM regions in this area are best-guess representations of the original condition.

==Regions==
* [[COARSE GOLD REGION|Coarse Gold]]
* [[DAIRYLAND REGION|Dairyland]]
* [[FIREBAUGH REGION|Firebaugh]]
* [[FRIANT REGION|Friant]]
* [[HERNDON REGION|Herndon]]
* [[KERMAN REGION|Kerman]]
* [[LE GRAND REGION|Le Grand]]
* [[MADERA REGION|Madera]]
* [[NORTH FORK REGION|North Fork]]
* [[ORO LOMA REGION|Oro Loma]]
* [[RAYMOND REGION|Raymond]]
* [[SANTA RITA REGION|Santa Rita]]

==Bibliography==
Aginsky, B. W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1943
|''Culture Element Distributions, XXIV: Central Sierra''. University of California Anthropological Records 8(4):393-468. Berkeley.

|}

Arroyo de la Cuesta, Felipe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1810-1819
|Untitled Notebook containing Religious Texts in Indian Languages, compiled by the author for personal use between 1810 and 1819. BANC MSS C-C 60. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1821-1837
|''Lengua de California''. Notebook containing grammar and vocabularies of various California Indian group, recorded at several missions between 1821 and 1837. BANC MSS C-C 63b. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1822''-''1824''
|Libro de Gobierno del P. Fr. Felipe Arroyo con los Nombres de los Neofitos de los Tulares ya Gentiles baja Christianos, segun contan en el Libro de Bautismos … q.e en por donde ellos, esso es, los Yndios se entienden y distinguen unos de otros''.  Manuscript at the Catholic Diocesan Archives of Monterey, 485 Church Street, Monterey, California. Cited from microfilm copy in possession of Randall Milliken, Davis, California.

|}

Barrett, Samuel A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1908
|The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''6(2):333-368. Berkeley

|}

Beeler, Madison S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|Noptinte Yokuts. In Studies in American Indian Languages:11-76. Jesse Sawyer, ed. ''University of California Publications in Linguistics'' 65. Berkeley.

|}

Bolton, Herbert

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1935
|''In the South San Joaquin Ahead of Garces''. Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield, California.

|}

Callaghan, Catherine

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|Evidence for Yok-Utian. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 63:18-64.

|}

Castillo, Edward D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Cook, Sherburne F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 16, University of California Press, Berkeley. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1960
|Colonial expeditions to the interior of California, 1800-1820. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''16.6. University of California Press, Berkeley. . <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1962
|Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''20(5):151-214. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1976
|''The Conflict Between the California Indians and White Civilization''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Coues, Elliott. ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''On The Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garcés (Missionary Priest) in His Travels Through Sonora, Arizona, and California 1775- 1776''. 2 vols. Francis P. Harper, New York.

|}

Derby, George H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1933
|The Topographica Reports of Lieutenant George H. Derby <nowiki>[</nowiki>1849<nowiki>]</nowiki>. Francis F. Farquhar, ed. ''California Historical Society Publications ''6. San Francisco.

|}

Driver, Harold E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Culture Element Distributions, VI: Southern Sierra Nevada. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''1(2):53-154

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Technical document submitted to Caltrans District 6, Fresno by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis.

|}

Estudillo, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1895
|''Report of Mission Tule River Agency. In Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1894'', Reports of Agents in California, pp. 119-124. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Forbes, Jack D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1969
|''Native Americans of California and Nevada: A Handbook''. Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg, California.

|}

Frémont, John Charles

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1886
| Memoirs of my life : including in the narrative five journeys of western explorations during the years 1842, 1843-4, 1845-6-7, 1848-9,

|}

Gamble, Lynn Hunter

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1991
|Organization of Activities at the Historic Settlement of Helo<nowiki>’</nowiki>: A Chumash Political, Economic, and Religious Center. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

Gayton, Anna H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1925-1965
|colspan = "2"|''A. H. (Anne Hadwick) Gayton papers.''

|-
| 
|1930
|Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24(3):239-251.

|-
| 
|1936
|Estudillo among the Yokuts: 1819. In: ''Essays in anthropology presented to A. L. Kroeber in celebration of his sixtieth birthday'' June 11, 1936. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1945
|Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. ''American Anthropologist'' 47(3):409-426.

|-
| 
|1948
|Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24:361-420. Berkeley.

|}

Geary, G. J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1934
|''The Secularization of the California Missions (1810-1846).'' Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C.

|}

Gifford, Edward W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1918
|Clans and Moieties in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Anthropology'', 14(2):155-219. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1932
|The Northfork Mono. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 31(2):15-65. Berkeley.

|}

Goddard, Ives

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|The Classification of the Native Languages of North America. ''Handbook of North American Indians, ''Volume 17 (Languages). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Grunsky, Carl E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1898
|Irrigation Near Fresno, California. ''Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of the US Geological Survey No. 18.'' Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Hall, A. L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Ethnohistorical Studies of the Central Sierra Miwok: 1800-1900. Unpublished M.A. thesis in anthropology, San Francisco State University.

|}

Heizer, Robert F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|California Indian Linguistic Records: The Mission Indian Vocabularies of Alphonse Pinart. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''15(1):1-84. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1966
|''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1972
|''The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-1852 between the California Indians and the United States Government''. University of California Archaeological Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978
|''California''. Edited by W. C. Sturtevant. Handbook of North American Indians 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Hittell, T. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1897
|''History of California''. N. J. Stone, San Francisco, California.

|}

Holmes, Kenneth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1967
|''Ewing Young:master trapper''. Portland, Oregon: Binsford & Mort.

|}

Hoopes, Alban W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1932
|''Indian Affairs and Their Administration, with Special Reference to the Far West, 1849-1860''. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932.

|}

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William Abeloe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|''Historic Spots in California''. 3rd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

|}

Hurtado, Albert L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|''Indian Survival on the California Frontier''. Yale University Press, New Haven.

|}

Jackson, H. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1881
|''Century of Dishonor: A Sketch of the United States Government<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Dealings with Some of the Indian Tribes''. Harper and Brothers, New York.

|}

Johnson, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|Social Responses to Climate Change on the Chumash Indians of South Central California''. ''In ''The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action'', Roderick J. McIntosh, Joseph A. Tainter, and Susan Keech McIntosh, pp. 301-327. , Columbia University Press, New York.

|}

Kelsey, C. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1905-1906
|colspan = "2"|Some Numerals from the California Indian Languages. Collection of Manuscripts from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 424. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1971
|''Census of Non-reservation California Indians, 1905-1906''. Edited by Robert F. Heizer. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Kroeber, Alfred L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1869-1972
|colspan = "2"|A.L. Kroeber Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1904
|The languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco. ''University of California Publications on American Archaeology and Ethnology ''2(2):29-80.

|-
| 
|1907
|Shoshonean Dialects of California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 4(3):65 165).

|-
| 
|1925
|''Handbook of the Indians of California''. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington.

|-
| 
|1948
|Seven Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(1).

|-
| 
|1951
|A Mohave Historical Epic. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(2)

|-
| 
|1959
|Ethnographic Interpretations, 7-11. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 47(3):235-310.

|-
| 
|1963
|Yokuts dialect survey. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(3).

|-
| 
|1972
|More Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 27.

|}

Kunkel, Peter H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Lamb, Sydney M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1953-1957
|colspan = "2"|Chukchansi Yokuts: Informant Nancy Wyatt. Manuscript at the Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1958
|Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 24(2):95-100.

|}

Latta, Frank F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1949
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. 1st Edition (287 pages). Kern County Museum, Bakersfield, California.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. Second Edition, revised and enlarged (765 pages). Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

|}

Leupp, F. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|Indian Lands: Their Administration with Reference to Present and Future Use. ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. ''33 (3), 136-146.

|}

Levy, Richard S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Eastern Miwok''. ''In ''California'', edited Richard F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8 , William C. Sturtevant general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Lynch, John M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1951
|The Kocheyali and the Aiticha. Collection of Manuscripts of from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 422. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|}

Mayfield, Thomas J

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Indian summer: Traditional life among the Choinumne Indians of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Joaquin Valley''. Berkeley, Calif: Heyday Books.

|}

McKay, Scott

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1914
|Official Map of Fresno, California, Compiled from Official Records and Latest Surveys. Electronic Document, http://www.davidrumsey.com, accessed May 12, 2010.

|}

Merriam, C. Hart

1898-1938a The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

1898-1938b C. Hart Merriam papers relating to work with California Indians, 1850-1974. Bulk 1898-1938. History of Science and Technology Collection. (Microfilm: BANC FILM 1022; Originals: BANC MSS 80/18 C). The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1902
|''The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam''. Journal II for 1902. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Photocopies on file with the C. Hart Merriam Collection, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

|-
| 
|1904
|Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''Science'' 19:912-917.

|-
| 
|1930
|The Em-tim-bitch, a Shoshonean Tribe. ''American Anthropologist'' 31:136-137.

|-
| 
|1955
|''Studies in California Indians''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1967
|Ethnographic Notes on Central California Indian Tribes. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Reports'', No. 68(3). Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1968
|Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey ''74, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

|-
| 
|1969
|''Catalogue of the C. Hart Merriam Collection of Data Concerning California Tribes and Other American Indians''. Robert F. Heizer and staff, editors. Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Ethnographic and Ethnosynonymic Data from Central California Tribes''. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

----

Milliken, Randall T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|Tribal Political Geography''. ''In ''Archaeological Test Excavations at Fourteen Sites along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California: Volume 2'', Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland,

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. In ''The Ohlone Past and Present'', edited by Lowell John Bean, pp. 165-182. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|}

Miller, Wick R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Numic Languages. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.31-50. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Mills, Elaine L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1985
|''The papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957. Northern and Central California''. White Plains, N.Y.: Kraus International Publications.

|}

Mithun, Marianne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|''The Languages of Native North America''. University Press, Cambridge, UK

|}

Munoz, Neva Jeanne Harkins

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|''Political Middlemanship and the Double Bind: James D. Savage and the Fresno River Reservation''. Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology at the University of California, Riverside.

|}

Nell Boulé, Mary

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|''Tubatulabal Tribe''. Marryant Publishing, Vashon, Washington

|}

Newman, Stanley S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1944
|Yokuts Language of Califirnia. ''Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology'' 2. New York.

|}

Palomares, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1808
|''Diary of Francisco Palomares''. Provincial State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Vol. I, pp.232-242. California State Achives, Sacramento.

|}

Perkins, W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1964
|''Three Years in California: William Perkins<nowiki>’</nowiki> Journal of Life at Sonora, 1849-1852.'' University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Phillips, George Harwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1975
|''Chiefs and Challengers: Indian resistance and Cooperation in Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1993
|''Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1769-1849''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1849-1852''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma

|-
| 
|2004
|''Bringing Them Under Subjection: California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Tejón Indian Reservation and Beyond, 1852-1864''

|}

Powell, J. W., and G. W. Ingalls

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1873-1874
|Report of Special Commissioners J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls. In ''Report of the Secretary of the Interior'', 1874. US House of Representatives, 43rd congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 157, pp. 2-31.

|}

----

Powell, John Wesley

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Linguistics. In Tribes of California, by Stephen Powers. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology ''3. Washington: US Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.

|-
| 
|1891
|Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. ''7th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1885-1886''. Washington, D.C.

|}

Powers, Stephen

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Tribes of California. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology'' 3. U.S. Geographic and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington D.C.

|}

Schenck, W. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography'' 25(2):123-146.

|}

Shipley, William F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|Native Languages of California. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Smith, Charles, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1968-1972
|colspan = "2"|Ethnographic and Ethnobotanaical Notes from approximately 12 Months Field work among the Tübatulabal, California. Manusccrpit in possession of the author as of 1978.

|-
| 
|1978
|Tubatulabal. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 437-445. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Smith, Jedediah S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|''The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-1827'', edited with an introduction by George R. Brooks. A. H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.

|}

Spier, Robert F. G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Foothill Yokuts''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 471-484. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978
|Monache''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 426-436. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Swanton, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indian Tribes of North America''. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Wallace, William J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Southern Valley Yokuts. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 448-461. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Waterman, Thomas Talbot

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1885-1936
|Tubatulabal texts, vocabulary, and ethnographic notes. Ethnological Documents of the Department and Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Whistler, Kenneth and Victor Golla

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Proto-Yokuts Reconsidered. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 52:317-358.

|}

==REFERENCES CONSULTED==
Anderton, Alice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|The Language of the Kitanemuks of California. PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Anza, Juan Bautista de

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1930
|Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Diary of the Second Anza Expedition, 1775-1776. Pp. 1-200 in ''Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s California Expeditions'', Volume 3. Herbert Bolton, editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Baksh, Michael

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|''Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Investigations of the Silurian Valley and Greater Central Mojave Desert''. Tierra Environmental Services. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACA09-94-D-0019.

|}

Barras, Judy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Their Places Shall Know Them No More''. Sierra Printers, Bakersfield, Ca.

|}

Barrows, David P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''The Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

|}

Basgall, Mark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''A Brief Cultural History of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California''. Archaeological Curation Facility, Fort Irwin, California.

|}

Baumhoff, Martin A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1963
|Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''49(2):155-236. Berkeley.

|}

Bean, Lowell John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|''Mukat<nowiki>’</nowiki>s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978a
| Cahuilla. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 575-588. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
| Social Organization. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 673-682. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell J and Thomas C. Blackburn

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Kitanemuk. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 564-569. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell John and Mason, William M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Diaries and Accounts of the Romero Expeditions in Arizona and California, 1823-1826''. Ward Richie Press, Los Angeles.

|}

----

Bean, Lowell J and Charles R. Smith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978a
| Serrano. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 570-574. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
|Cupeño. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 588-591. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell and Sylvia Brakke Vane

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|''Allen-Warner Valley Energy System: Western Transmission System: Ethnographic and Historical Resources''. Report Submitted by Cultural Systems Research, Inc. to Southern California Edison Co. December 15, 1979. Cultural Systems Research, Inc, Menlo Park, CA.

|}

Beatty Bullfrog

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1905
|''Indian Pow Wow. Remnants of the Piute Tribe Meet at Pahrump''. Beatty Bullfrog <nowiki>[</nowiki>Beatty, Nevada<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1(27):9/23/1905:1

|}

Benedict, Ruth.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1924
|A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. ''American Anthropologist'' 26(3):366-392.

|}

Blackburn, Thomas

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Native California.. in ''Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective'', Lowel J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, eds., pp. 225-243.. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.

|}

California. Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1890
|''Records of California Men in the War of the Rebellion, 1861 to 1867, revised and compiled by Brig. Gen. Richard H. Orton, Adjutant-General of California''. California Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office, Sacramento.

|}

Cappannari, Philip

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Copies of Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1946-1948. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|}

Casebier, Dennis

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|Carleton<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Pah-Ute Campaign. ''Tales of the Mojave Road'', No.1, pp.1-57. Tales of the Mojave Road, Norco, California.

|}

Caughey, John W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indians of Southern California in 1852: The B.D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Commentary''. Huntington Library, San Marino.

|}

Coville, Frederick V.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1892
|The Panamint Indians of California. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 5:351-361.

|}

Davis, James T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1961
|Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Report ''54. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

----

Deloria, Vine and Richard W. Stoffle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense''. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

|}

d<nowiki>’</nowiki> Heureuse, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1863
|Photographic Views of the Mojave Route, Eldorado Canon and Fort Mojave, Photos 1-43. Picture Drawer, Bancroft Library, Berkeley.

|}

Dixon, Roland B. and Alfred L. Kroeber

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1903
|The Native Languages of California. ''American Anthropologist'' 5(1):1-26.

|}

Drover, Christopher E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northern Mohave Sink, San Bernardino County, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

|}

Dutcher, B. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1893
|Pinon Gathering Among the Panamint Indians. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 6:377-380.

|}

Eargle, Dolan H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|''The Earth is Our Mother: A Guide to The Indians of California, Their Locales and Historic Sites''. Trees Company Press, San Francisco

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|New Evidence on the Political Geography of the Antelope Valley and Western Mojave Desert at Spanish Contact. in ''Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and Vicinity'', Bruce Love and William H. DeWitt, eds., pp. 87-104. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.2. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Lancaster, Ca.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Ethnohistoric Overview of the Edwards Air Force Base Region and the Western Mojave Desert''. Prepared by Earle and Associates, Palmdale, California for Environmental Management Office, Air Force Fight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Earle and Associates, Palmdale,California .

|-
| 
|2004
|Native Population and Settlement in the Western Mojave Desert in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In ''The Human Journey and Ancient Life in California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference'', Mark W. Allen and Judyth Reed, eds., pp. 173-186. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|-
| 
|2005
|The Mojave River and the Central Mojave Desert: Native Settlement, Travel, and Exchange in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. ''Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology'', 25(1):1-37.

|}

Eerkens, Jelmer W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|Common Pool Resources, Buffer Zones, and Jointly Owned Territories: Hunter-Gatherer Land and Resource Tenure in Fort Irwin, Southeastern California. ''Human Ecology'' 27(2):297-318.

|}

Fages, Pedro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1936
|''A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California''. Original written in 1775. Herbert I. Priestley, translator and editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

----

Ferrus Garcia, Anna

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''1994 Vegetation Studies at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Ca''. Robert Niehous, Inc. Mojave Desert Ecology Project, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, Ca.

|}

Forde, Cyril Daryll

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1931
|Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 28 (4):83-278.

|}

Fouts, Margaret

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''A Teacher<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Life. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 219-221. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Subsistence . In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.64-97. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|date
|Some Notes on Ethnographic Subsistence Systems in Mojavean Environments in the Great Basin. ''Journal of Ethnobiology'' 15(1):99-117.

|-
| 
|1996
|Historical Perspectives on Timbisha Shoshone Land Management Practices, Death Valley, California. In ''Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology'', edited by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Lee A. Nessom, and Sylvia J. Scudder. Plenum Press, New York.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco, and Pauline Esteves

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|In the Field in Death Valley: Julian Steward<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Panamint Shoshone Fieldwork. In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 53-59. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco and the Historic Preservation Committee of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (Pauline Esteves, Grace Goad, Ed Esteves, Ken Watterson).

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Residence Without Reservation: Ethnographic Overview and Traditional Land Use Study, Timbisha Shoshone, Death Valley National Park, California (Phase I)''. Submitted to the National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Fowler, Don D. and Catherine S. Fowler (editors)

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|''Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Manuscripts of the Numic Peoples of Western North America, 1868-1880''. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 14, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Galvin, John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1965
|''A Record of Travels in Arizona and California 1775-1776''. Translated and edited by John Galvin. J. Howell Books, San Francisco.

|}

Garrett, Lewis.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|Postal History of San Bernardino County. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 39(4):1-77.

|}

Geertz, Clifford

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|"From the Native<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Point of View": On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. in ''Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology'', pp. 55-70. Basic Books, New York.

|}

----

Golla, Victor

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2007
|Linguistic Prehistory. In ''California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity''. Altamira Press, New York.

|}

Goss, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|The Yamparika- Shoshones, Comanches, or Utes- or Does It Matter? In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 74-84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Grayson, Donald K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''The Desert<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Past : A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin''. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

|}

Hall, Matt

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Inventory of Spring/Seep Locations in the East Mojave Desert Region. In ''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; Chester King and Dennis Casebier, eds., pp. 70-193. Prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Harrington, John P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''John P. Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: ''''Southern California. ''Washington, D.C''.'':Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Microfilm edition. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|}

Hodge, Frederick W., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1910
|''Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico'', Volume 2. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. Washington, D.C.

|}

Irwin, Charles N., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|The Shoshoni Indians of Inyo County, California : the Kerr Manuscript. Manuscript prepared by Mark Kerr, introductory preface by Charles N. Irwin. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico, and Eastern California Museum, Independence, California.

|}

Jackson, Donald and Mary Lee Spence.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|''The Expeditions of John Charles Fremont. Volume I: Travels From 1838 to 1844''. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

|}

Johnson, David H., Monroe D. Bryand and Alden H. Miller

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1948
|Vertebrate Animals of the Providence Mountains Area of California. ''University of California Publications in Zoology ''48(5):221-376.

|}

Johnston, Bernice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Gabrielino Indians''. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

|}

Kaldenberg, Russell L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|The Archaeology of Selected Springs and Playas on Fort Irwin and in Portions of the Avawatz Mountains. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 28 (3-4):1-102.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

|}

----

Kelly, Isabel T. ''continued''

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1934
|Southern Paiute Bands. ''American Anthropologist'' 36(4):548-560.

|-
| 
|1953
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. University of California, Archives No. 138.1m. Anthropology Documents 17-18.

|-
| 
|1964
|''Southern Paiute Ethnography''. Glen Canyon Series 21, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, 69. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T. and Catherine S. Fowler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Southern Paiute. In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Key, Harold

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|A Mojave Cremation. ''The Kiva'' 36:23-38.

|}

King, Chester and Dennis Casebier

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; with sections by Matthew C. Hall and Carol Rector; prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Knack, Martha

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|Ethnographic Overview. In ''A Cultural Resource Overview for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units'', by Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, Elizabeth von Till Warren ; Eric W. Ritter, general editor. Bureau of Land Management, Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, California.

|}

Kocher, A. E. and F. O. Youngs

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Soil Survey of the Palo Verde Area, California''. US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.

|}

Kroeber, Clifton and Bernard L. Fontana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Massacre on the Gila''. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

|}

Laird, Carobeth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Chemehuevis''. Malki Museum, Banning, California

|-
| 
|1984
|''Mirror and Pattern: George Laird<nowiki>’</nowiki>s World of Chemehuevi Mythology''. Malki Museum, Banning, California.

|}

Leland, Joy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Population In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.608-619. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Lerch, Michael K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Another Look at the Desert Mojave. Manuscript.

|}

Lockwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1872
|Report of Daniel W. Lockwood. Appendix A in ''Preliminary Report Concerning Explorations and Surveys Principally in Nevada and Arizona…1871'', edited by George M. Wheeler. Government Printing Office, Washington.

|}

Lyman, Leo

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|History of the Victor Valley. Manuscript, Archives, West Antelope Valley Historical Society, Lancaster, California.

|}

Manners, Robert A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1974
|''Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi: An Ethnohistorical Report''. Garland American Indian Ethnohistory Series.

|}

Mendenhall, W. C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|''Some Desert Watering Places in Southeastern California and Southwestern Nevada''. United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 224,

|}

Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1797-1855''. Mission San Fernando Rey de España, San Fernando, California.

|}

Mission San Gabriel Arcangel

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1773-1821''. Mission San Gabriel Arcangel, San Gabriel, California.

|}

Moapa Band

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|Information provided by Moapa Band on the history and current development of the Moapa reservation community.

|}

Mollhausen, Baldwin

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
|1969 <nowiki>[</nowiki>1858<nowiki>]</nowiki>''
|Diary of A Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific, Vol. 2''. Johnson Reprint, New York.

|}

Morris, Lucie.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Interviews of Pioneer Residents of Antelope Valley and Surrounding Areas, circa 1935- 1937. Typescript.

|}

Nelson, E. W., Jr.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1891
|The Panamint and Saline Valley (Cal.) Indians. ''American Anthropologist'' 4(4):371-372.

|}

Palóu, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Historical Memoirs of New California''. 4 Volumes. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Park, Willard Z., Edgar Siskin, Anne M. Cook, William T. Mulloy, Marvin K. Opler, Isabel T. Kelly, and Maurice L. Zigmond

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|Tribal Distribution in the Great Basin. ''American Anthropologist'' 40(4):622-638

|}

Parker, Patricia and Tom King

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Pauley, Joe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Personal communication regarding procurement of desert tortoises in late1920s by himself and others in Muroc region for the urban market.

|}

Rhode, David

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2002
|''Native Plants of Southern Nevada: An Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Roth, George

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|The Calloway Affair of 1880: Chemehuevi Adaptations and Chemehuevi-Mohave Relations. ''Journal of California Anthropology'' 4(2):273-286.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1927
|Central and North American Languages. ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' Volume 5, pp. 138-141. Encyclopedia Britannica Company, London and New York.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1930-1931
|The Southern Paiute Language. ''Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences'' 65(1-3). Boston.

|}

Schneider, Joan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1989
|The Archaeology of the Afton Canyon Site. ''San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly'' 36(1):1-161.

|}

Sebastian, Lynne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Protecting Traditional Cultural Properties Through the Section 106 Process''. CRM Vol. 16:22-26.

|}

Service, Elman R

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Primitive Social Organization''. Random House, New York.

|}

Settle, Glen and Dorene Settle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Antelope Valley Pioneers''. Rosamond: Kern-Antelope Historical Society, Inc.

|}

Shapiro, Judith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Kinship In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.620-627. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Stanley , J. Q. A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
|1866-1867
|''Report of J. Q. A. Stanley, Special Indian Agent, Los Angeles, Ca. to Charles Maltby, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, California, August 5, 1866''. Report of the Secretary of the Interior. Executive Documents. Thirty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, pp. 102-103.

|}

Steward, Julian H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Linguistic Distributions and Political Groups of the Great Basin Shoshoneans. ''American Anthropologist ''39:625-634.

|-
| 
|1938
|Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.

|-
| 
|1955
|The Great Basin Shoshonean Indians. in ''Theory of Cultural Change'', by Julian H. Steward, pp. 101-121

|-
| 
|1977
|The Foundations of Basin-Plateau Shoshonean Society. In ''Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation'', Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy, eds., pp. 366-406.

|}

Stewart, Kenneth M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|Mohave. in ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Vol. 10, Southwest, Alfonso Ortiz, ed., pp.55-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution

|}

Stewart, Omer C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1939
|The Northern Paiute Bands. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 2(3):127-149.

|-
| 
|1942
|Culture Element Distributions, XVIII: Ute-Southern Paiute. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 6(4):231-256. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1959
|Shoshone History and Social Organization. In ''Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of Americanists'', Vol. 2, pp. 132-142.

|}

Strong, William Duncan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|Aboriginal Society in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.

|}

Theodoratus, Dorothea, Geri Emberson, David White, Stephen W. Conkling, and Deborah McLean.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|''Death Valley National Park Cultural Affiliation Study''. LSA Associates. Submitted to Death Valley National Park, Contract No. 1443CX8130-96-003.

|}

Thomas, David Hurst, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Western Shoshone. In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, David G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|''The Mohave Desert Region, California: A Geographic, Geologic, and Hydrologic Reconnaissance''. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 578. United States Department of the Interior, USGS, United States Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, Richard and Kathryn Thompson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Pioneer of the Mojave: The Life and Times of Aaron G. Lane''. Desert Knolls Press, Apple Valley, California.

|}

Turner, Raymond M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Mojave Desertscrub. in ''Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico'', David E. Brown, ed., pp. 157-168. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

United States Decennial Census

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1880
|Population enumeration district enumeration sheets for Lookout and Resting Springs Precincts, Inyo County, California and Mountain Precinct, San Bernardino County, California. Tenth Decennial Census of the United States, State of California, Counties of Inyo and San Bernardino. Bureau of the Census, U.S, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

|}

Van Dyke, Dix

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Life on the Mojave River Valley: The Piutes of 1904. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 41. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Van Valkenburgh, R. F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Chemehuevi Notes. Indian Claims Commission Docket 88 330. In: ''American Indian Ethnohistory, California and Basin Plateau Indians, Paiute Indians II'', pp. 225 253. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

|}

Vernon, Charles Clark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1956
|A History of the San Gabriel Mountains. ''Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly'' 38(1): 39-60; 38(2): 141-166; 38(3): 263-296; 38(4): 373- 384.

|}

Voegelin, Erminie Wheeler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|''Tubatulabal Ethnography''. University of California Anthropological Records 2(1):1-84.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''Early Mines of the Southern Clark Mountains, the Northern Mescal Range and the Ivanpah Mountains. in Punctuated Chaos in the Northeastern Mojave Desert'', Robert E. and Jennifer Reynolds, ed., pp.67-72. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly 43(1-2): 1-155.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M., Gary L. Shumway, Russell D. Hartill

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Desert Fever: An Overview of Mining in the California Desert''. Living West Press, Canoga Park, California

|}

Walker, Clifford J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Back Door to California: The Story of the Mojave River Trail''. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Whipple, Lieut. A. W., Thomas Eubank, Esq., and Prof. Wm. W. Turner.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|Report Upon the Indian Tribes. ''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Vol. 3, Part 3. US 33d Congress, 1st Session. Senate. Ex doc no. 29, Senate executive document (United States. Congress. Senate) ; 33rd Congress, 2nd session. Senate Exec. Doc. No. 78. Washington, D.C.

|}

Whitley, David S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|History and Prehistory of the Coso Range: The Native American Past on the Western Edge of the Great Basin. In ''Coso Rock Art, A New Perspective'', Elva Younkin, ed., pp.29-68. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|}

Wilkie, Phillip and Harry W. Lawton

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Expedition of Capt. J. W. Davidson From Ft. Tejon to the Owens Valley in 1859''. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 8. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|}

Williamson, R. S., Lieut., Corps of Topographical Engineers.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route For a Railroad From the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Volume 5. Made under the direction of the Secretary of War in 1853-1854. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. Nicholson.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1936-1974. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|1938
|Kawaiisu Territory. In ''Tribal Distributions in the Great Basin'', by Willard Z. Park, et al., pp. 634-638. American Anthropologist 40(4).

|-
| 
|1941
|Ethnobotanical Studies Among California and Great Basin Shoshoneans. PhD Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

|-
| 
|1980
|''Kawaiisu Mythology: An Oral Tradition of South-Central California''. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 18. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|-
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

----

Zigmond, Maurice L. ''continued''

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Kawaiisu. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp. 398-411. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice, Curtis G. Booth, and Pamela Munro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu: A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts''. University of California Los Angeles, Institute of Linguistics. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

|}

Zeitelhack, June and Jan Zeitelhack La Barge

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Operations of the Pacific Coast Borax Company 1883-1907: Daggett, Marion, Borate, and the Borate-Daggett Railroad. in ''Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., pp.96-104. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

[[Category:Volume]][[Category:Volume 9]]

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:45:39Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

='''Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol9-cover.png|right|150px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==
The in-progress ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) brings together decades of research and mission record analysis into selected volumes that will eventually be part of a 15 volume print/wiki encyclopedia portraying the socio-political landscape of native California after first contact with the Spanish, between 1770 and 1830.

Volume 1 of the series presents an overview of the CDM model, explaining the process of ethnographic data analysis and regional mapping unit construction across all portions of California. Volumes 2-15 will eventually represent contextual overviews of each of the 14 analytical zones identified within California. Each zone has a group of independent, landholding regions (totaling 663) defined by mutual history, shared languages, and similar land-use patterns. (Table 1) An introduction to each volume will focus on multi-regional issues (overview of history, ethnography, and research techniques) followed by individual regional monographs (some complete, some unfinished) covering languages, environment, and early expedition, mission, historic, and ethnographic sources, as applicable. A comprehensive bibliography will conclude each volume.

Volume 9, entitled ''South San Joaquin Analytical Zone'', almost complete, includes the southern portion of the Yokuts language family area as well as the western Mono and Tubatalabal language areas. It contains 56 regions covering portions of Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties.

The CDM is also presented in a collaborative Wiki website (currently accessible through farwestern.com) which consists of several major elements—ACCESS data tables, GIS maps, and narrative text. In this format, the ethnographic data are available to scholars from academia, tribal communities, and agencies that can locate and organize data effectively, add new information as it becomes available, and generate feature articles that can include maps, pictures, or cross-references.

This series has been produced by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., with support from a number of district environmental branches within the California Department of Transportation.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="72%" align="center"
|+Table 1. Volume, Analytical Zone, and Languages Spoken.
|-
|align = "center"|VOLUME Number
|align = "center"|ANALYTICAL ZONE
|align = "center"|LANGUAGE
|align = "center"|NUMBER OF REGIONS

|-
|align = "center"|2
|align = "center"|Northwest
|align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok Athabascan Karok Takelman
|align = "center"|37

|-
|align = "center"|3
|align = "center"|North
|align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko Wintu and Nomlaki Yana
|align = "center"|48

|-
|align = "center"|4
|align = "center"|Northeast
|align = "center"|Modoc Mountain Maidu Numic Pit River Washoe
|align = "center"|28

|-
|align = "center"|5
|align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Lake Miwok Pomo Wappo Yuki
|align = "center"|59

|-
|align = "center"|6
|align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
|align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu Patwin Wintuan Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Northern Ohlone
|align = "center"|66

|-
|align = "center"|8
|align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok Delta Yokuts 
|align = "center"|54

|-
|align = "center"|9
|align = "center"|South San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Mono Numic Tubatulabal Yokuts
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|10
|align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Northern Chumash Esselen Ohlone Salinan
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|11
|align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
|align = "center"|Chumash 
|align = "center"|68

|-
|align = "center"|12
|align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
|align = "center"|Takic
|align = "center"|58

|-
|align = "center"|13
|align = "center"|Southeast
|align = "center"|Numic Takic
|align = "center"|45

|-
|align = "center"|14
|align = "center"|South
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|20

|-
|align = "center"|15
|align = "center"|Colorado River
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|13

|-
|align = "right" colspan="3"|Total
|align = "center"|663

|}

==Landholding Groups of the South San Joaquin Zone - Yokutsan, Tubatulabal, and Western Mono Speakers==

[[File:Vol9-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. South San Joaquin Analytical Zone with Regions.
]]The South San Joaquin zone includes the San Joaquin Valley plain from Buenavista-Kern Lake northward almost to the Merced River, as well as the contiguous western Sierra Nevada front. The CDM divides the zone into 56 year-round habitation regions (Figure 1). The Southern San Joaquin encompasses the ethnographic lands of the western Mono-speakers, the Tubatulabal speakers, and most Yokuts-speakers. Excluded from the zone are the lands of Delta Yokuts speakers from the Merced River northward to the Stockton vicinity. (They are addressed as part of the Delta-Northern San Joaquin Zone.)

This zone does not represent any distinct ethnographic socio-political area. It is rather a conveniently sized subarea of California for presenting an overview about ethnography, history, and problems in ethnogeographic reconstruction. The South San Joaquin zone is one of those portions of California where we must rely upon the clues imbedded in the Franciscan mission registers to build the ethnogeographic picture in the west, while relying upon the classic ethnographic literature for reconstructing ethnogeography in the east. Contextual ethnogeographic and historic information for understanding the details in the zone<nowiki>’</nowiki>s monographs are provided below. This zone study concludes with the combined bibliography for all of its constituent regional monographs.

===Linguistic Groups===
[[File:Vol9-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Regions by Language Group.]]Two language families—Yokutsan and Uto-Aztecan—are represented among the ethnographic groups of the South San Joaquin analytic zone. The Uto-Aztecan family is represented in the South San Joaquin zone by Mono of the Numic branch and by Tubatulabal, both in Sierra fothills. The Yokutsan family is represented by a number of closely related languages spoken throughout the lowlands, as well as in some Sierran foothills regions Figure 2.

====Uto-Aztecan Family Languages====
The Uto-Aztecan family has nine major branches spoken over a wide area from Idaho on the north to El Salvador on the south: Numic, Tubatulabal, Takic, Hopi, Tepiman, Taracahitan, Tubar, Corachol, and Aztecan (Goddard 1996:323). The four northern branches, as argued by Kroeber, form a distinct Shoshonean branch of the overall family; they are Hopic, Numic, Takic, and Tubatulabal. Linguists today refer to the former Shoshonean branch as Northern Uto-Aztecan (Miller 1986; Mithun 1999:540).

Mono (a language within the Numic subbranch) and Tubatulabal are the two ethnographic Uto-Aztecan languages of the South San Joaquin Zone. Mono was spoken by the Western Mono people along the west slope of the southern Sierra Nevada range from south of Mono Lake down to the Mount Whitney vicinity; it is precisely the same language as that spoken by the Owens Valley Paiute directly across the southern Sierra Nevada Range to the east. Farther south, Tubatulabal was the native language in the mountainous portion of the Kern River watershed at the time of western contact. Mithun (1999:541) provides a bibliography of linguistic studies of the Mono and Tubatulabal languages.

====Yokutsan Family Languages====
The Yokutsan language family includes a number of closely related Yokuts languages, all within the drainage of the San Joaquin River in California (Shipley 1979:82-84). The family is a member of the Penutian language stock. It has recently been suggested to be a branch of a Yok-Utian family within that stock, together with Miwokan and Ohlone-Costanoan (Callaghan 1997; Mithun 1999:309). The northern boundary of Yokutsan, where its speakers bordered the Plains Miwok, lay just north of Stockton (within the Delta-North San Joaquin zone). To the south, Yokutsan languages were spoken down the San Joaquin Valley to Buena Vista Lake at the foot of the Transverse Ranges. The eastern Yokutsan boundary varied. Where it contacted Sierra Miwok speakers, it was generally along the break between the plains and the Sierra Nevada foothills. South of the Fresno River, where it contacted Mono speakers, the border tended to be at higher elevations, in the yellow pine forest belt. On the west, the boundary between Yokutsan and Ohlone-Costanoan speakers was along the edge of the Coast Range foothills (Milliken 1994; cf. Kroeber 1925).

Three major branches within the Yokutsan language family are distinguished—Poso Creek, Buena Vista, and Nim-Yokuts. On the basis of comparative historical phonology and morphology, Whistler and Golla (1986) portray a complex division of ever-more-recent splits and expansions in Yokuts languages from south to north. They provide evidence that the Poso Creek language, on the one hand, and combined Buena Vista and Nim-Yokuts on the other hand, are two separate branches of the family. Nim-Yokuts, the most widespread of the three main branches, is itself split into Tule-Kaweah (of the southern Sierran foothills) and Northern Yokuts. Finally, Northern Yokuts itself is represented by the Delta, Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Kings River Yokuts languages. Mithun (1999:567-568) provides an overview of recent linguistic insights regarding Yokutsan, as well as a bibliography of relevant linguistic studies.

The South San Joaquin region includes all of the Yokutsan language areas except the Delta Yokuts, a language within the Nim-Yokuts branch.

===Western Contact and Disruption===
Change of traditional native life in the South San Joaquin vicinity was caused by both direct and indirect forces. The direct forces were Spanish expeditions, emigration to Coast Range missions (Figure 3), arrival of traders and gold miners in the late 1840s, arrival of settlers in the 1850s, and the removal of many groups to a series of reservations from the 1850s through the 1890s. Indirect impacts were the arrival of new diseases, new ideas, and new tools that reached groups ahead of direct contact.

====Spanish Period====
=====First Contact=====
[[File:Vol9-fig3.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 3. Degree of Mission-Induced Depopulation in the South San Joaquin Analytic Zone.]]The year 1771 marked the first Spanish expedition into the South San Joaquin vicinity. It was led by Pedro Fages, who came into the area from the south in search of deserters from the Spanish military. Herbert Bolton (1935), translater of the journal entries that indirectly describe that trip, reconstructed Fages<nowiki>’</nowiki> journey from San Diego up to Cajon Pass and Antelope Valley, then over Tejon Pass into the Buenavista Lake region. The trip seems to have occurred in winter, perhaps February 1771, because Fages was later able to provide the earliest description of a southern Yokuts winter village:

In their villages the natives live in the winter in very large squares, the families divided from each other, and outside they have very large houses in the form of hemisphere, where they keep their seeds and utensils <nowiki>[</nowiki>Fages 1772 in Bolton 1935:12<nowiki>]</nowiki>.

In 1776 Father F. Garces came into the southern San Joaquin Valley from the south as an unarmed evangelizer for Christianity. Garces probably entered the valley by way of Cottonwood Creek and Tejon Creek, and then went north to the Kern River in the present Bakersfield area. He learned that the Yokuts people of the Kern Lake and Bakersfield regions had been visited by Spanish deserters who abused their women; the tribal people executed them for committing these assaults. He also was told that one Spanish deserter was living happily in a nearby community, married to an Indian woman (Coues 1900:272-302).

=====Post-1800 Spanish Expeditions=====
No Spanish expeditions into the South San Joaquin are documented from the time of Garcés to 1805. Beginning that year, numerous groups entered the valley during the Spanish period. Whether led by soldiers or missionaries, these parties always included soldiers and always searched for baptized Indians who broke the territorial law by leaving their missions without permission. The expeditions included:

* 1805 Martin (in Cook 1960:243-244): Mission San Miguel to the Wowol villages on the south shore of Tulare Lake.
* 1806 Zalvidea (in Cook 1960:245-247): Mission Santa Barbara over San Rafael Mountains to Buenavista and Kern Lakes, then to the Kern River at present Bakersfield (Kern County), over Tejon Pass to Antelope Valley, Cajon Pass, and Mission San Gabriel.
* 1806 Moraga-Muñoz (in Cook 1960: 247-253): Mission San Juan Bautista east to the east side of the San Joaquin River (in Merced County), north as far as the Mokelumne River (San Joaquin County), then back south along the east side of the valley all the way to Kern Lake and over Tejon Pass (Kern County) to Mission San Gabriel.
* 1808 Palomares (in Cook 1960:256-257): From Mission San Fernando to the Antelope Valley (Los Angeles and Kern counties), to the hill country overlooking the southern San Joaquin Valley (Kern County), and back to Mission San Fernando.
* 1815 Ortega (in Cook 1960:267-68): From Mission San Miguel to the Kaweah River (through Kings and Tulare counties)
* 1815 Pico (in Cook 1960: 268-269): From Mission San Juan Bautista to the Kaweah River (through Merced, Fresno, and Kings counties).
* 1815 Pico-Ortega (in Cook 1960 269-271): Pico and Ortega joined forces at a distributary of the Kaweah River (Corcoran vicinity), then backtracked Pico<nowiki>’</nowiki>s route north (through Kings and Fresno counties), crossed the San Joaquin River, and continued north (in Madera County) almost to the Merced River, then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.
* 1816 Martinez (in Cook 1960:271-272): From Mission San Luis Obispo across the Temblor Range to the south end of Tulare Lake (Kern County), thence southeast to Goose Lake, and probably to the Bakersfield vicinity on the Kern River, back to Tulare Lake (all Kern County), then west back to Mission San Luis Obispo.
* 1819 Estudillo (in Gayton 1936): From Mission San Miguel to the south side of Tulare Lake and Goose Lake (Kern County), northeast to the White, Tule, and Kaweah rivers (Tulare County), to the north side of Tulare Lake and lower Kings River (Kings County), then north along Fresno Slough to the bend of the San Joaquin River (Fresno County) and Los Banos Creek (Merced County), then west to Mission San Juan Bautista.

=====Spanish Era (up through 1821) Mission Recruitment=====
Approximately 3,200 people moved to Franciscan missions in the Coast Ranges from the South San Joaquin zone. The preponderance of them (1,790; 56%) went during the Spanish era, through late 1821. Many, but not all, of the South San Joaquin Valley people to arrive at the missions before 1822 can be traced to groups from specific areas. Probably all in that early group were Yokuts speakers. Below is an overview of Spanish period Yokuts missionization, presented by county.

Merced County—More than 800 Yokuts people moved to the missions from Merced County between 1798 and 1821. The largest group was Nopchenches from the Santa Rita region, 111 people. Surprisingly, most members of the next largest single group—208 Janalamne/Tejeys—went to Mission Santa Clara, the remainder to Santa Cruz; they are tentatively associated with the Gustine area. The first Merced County people at the missions were the Chaneches of the Los Banos region, 106 people (most at Santa Cruz). The Notoals/Huocons of the Mud Slough region were split between missions Santa Cruz and San Juan Bautista. From just east of the San Joaquin River, most of the Quithrathres of the Atwater region and Uthrocus of the El Nido region were at Mission San Juan Bautista by the end of 1821.

Fresno County—More than 500 people from western Fresno County were at the missions by the end of 1821. First came the Quihueths of the Oro Loma region, More than 100 people were absorbed into missions San Juan Bautista and Soledad before 1817. The Helm region people—hard to identify individually, but probably more than 90 people—went to Mission Soledad prior to 1818. Mendota people, the Cutochos, were at the missions before 1821, split between San Juan Bautista and Soledad. The other large Fresno County groups nearly entirely removed to the missions by that time were the Eyuslahuas and Copchas of the Firebaugh region. Remaining Fresno County groups at the end of the period lived eastward of the lowest portions of the San Joaquin Valley.

Madera County—Only 78 identifiable Yokuts people from areas centered in Madera County were at any mission before 1822. Most, 65, were Chausilas from the western Chausila Dairyland region. Another 11 were Heuchis from the Madera region. One was a Hoyima and one was from a poorly documented small group called Oatsin that may have been in the Sierra foothills.

Kings County—At least 82 Yokuts people from groups in Kings County were at the missions before 1822. The great majority (61; 74%) were Tachis; they were divided almost equally among missions Soledad, San Antonio, and San Miguel. Another 11 were Telesmecoyo people from the Dudley Ridge area on the west shore of Tulare Lake, three at Mission San Antonio, and eight at San Miguel; there should have been more, and it is likely that they also appeared at the missions under synonymous names that have not been identified with any specific San Joaquin Valley location. Another nine Chunuts from the Corcoran region were at the missions, four each at Soledad and San Miguel, plus one at San Antonio. One Nutunutu from the Hanford region had gone to Mission San Antonio.

Tulare County—Only eight people from groups centered in Tulare County had gone to the missions by the end of 1821. Six of them were Telamnes from Goshen/Visalia, at Mission San Miguel. Two others were Choinocs from the Tulare region, at Mission San Buenaventura.

Kern County—At least 243 Yokuts people from Kern County were at missions by the end of 1822. The great majority (198; 81%) went to San Miguel, where the Wowols of Alpaugh were the highest represented (103), followed by the Auyamnes of the Buttonwillow region (63). Also appearing in San Miguel registers were 14 Tulamnis from the Buenavista region and 11 Yaulmanis from Bakersfield. Mission San Luis Obispo had baptized 29 South San Joaquin people, the largest group being 14 Auyamnes from Buttonwillow, and the next largest being only seven Tulamnis from Buenavista. Buenavista also sent two people to Santa Barbara, three to San Fernando, and two to San Buenaventura. Ten Quiyamnes were distributed among San Miguel, San Luis Obispo, and San Fernando. Only four Kern Lake Hometwalis are identifiable in the pre-1822 records, two at Santa Barbara and one each at San Buenaventura and La Purisima.

In summary, by the end of 1821 the northwest portion of the South San Joaquin zone was empty of villages on the plains on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in northwest Fresno County and Merced County, as well as along the north-south flowing San Joaquin River in present Merced County and far western Madera County. Southeast and east of that area tribal life was still intact at the end of the year 1821.

One other caveat—the Quiyamne (Famoso region) and Auyamne (Buttonwillow), two Yokuts tribelets in the otherwise-intact area south of Tulare Lake, seem to have been destroyed as viable groups in wars with their neighbors prior to 1821.

====Mexican Period====
An independent Mexican government replaced Spain in control of the coastal missions and presidios over the winter of 1821-1822. More military expeditions entered the valley during the Mexican Period, in search of fugitive Christian neophytes and of native people who raided mission horse herds. North American fur trappers also began to enter the South San Joaquin regions during the Mexican period. Brief overviews are provided below regarding key expeditions.

=====Mexican Period San Joaquin Diaries=====
''1826 Pico (in Cook 1962:181-184)'': Pico went into the San Joaquin Valley to punish horse raiders and capture fugitive Christian Indians. He left Monterey on December 27, 1825. The raid took them into Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties. After discovering some fugitive Christian Indians in the Firebaugh area they went east to the Herndon vicinity, then north into Heuchi lands, in search of the Hoyima. They captured 40 people, and arrested seven of these as criminals. Next they traveled south to the Kings River, where they visited villages up and down the river. Returning north along the east side of Fresno Slough to the Mendota area, they split off a group to return to Monterey with their prisoners. Then Pico doubled back south along the west side of Fresno Slough to Tulare Lake, in an attempt to sneak up on the Tachi, who were harboring fugitive Christians. Unsuccessful in that attempt, the party swung around the east side of Tulare Lake lands, stopped to visit friendly Wowols, and returned westward. The party reached Mission San Miguel on January 25, 1826.

''1827 Jedediah Smith (1977)'': Jedediah Smith led a group of American trappers up the San Joaquin Valley in the late winter and early spring of 1827. His large party, complete with its own herd of horses, crossed the Tehachapi Range from Antelope Valley to Kern Lake over February 9-11. At the lake they secured as a guide an Indian man who spoke Spanish. Farther north in the Bakersfield region Smith reported, "Several Indians some of them having horses visited the encampment" (Smith 1977:136). Arriving at Tulare Lake, he saw a Wowol village "of two or three hundred inhabitants" (Smith 1977:139). He described the Kaweah River country as "populous" and specifically mentioned a large village of the "Wimmilche" people, after whom he named the current Kings River. The population picture changed when Smith moved north to the bend of the San Joaquin River, which "they called the Peticutry." From that point northward Smith found no villages in the flat San Joaquin Valley until he reached the Mokelumne River (Smith 1977:146).

''1828a Rodriguez (in Cook1962:184-185)'': From April 22 until May 5, Rodriguez was in the Merced and Madera county areas raiding the Chausila, Heuchi, and Hoyima. "I brought in 52 horses taken from the village called Joyima and, between Christians and heathen, 85 souls," Rodriguez reported (in Cook 1962:185).

''1828b Rodriguez (in Cook 1962:185-186)'': On his second 1828 trip, Rodriguez raided areas south of Tulare Lake. He entered the San Joaquin Valley from La Panza (east of Mission San Luis Obispo) and reached the Tulamni on the west side of Buenavista Lake on May 29. Upon being informed that Indian people in the mountains to the south had horses, he moved south and raided small villages in the Santiago Creek, San Emigdio, and Grapevine Creek regions (Santa Barbara CDM zone). Returning northward, he raided the "Carrizos" (probably Hometwali) and the Yaulmani of the Bakersfield region before arriving farther north at his allies the Wowol of the Alpaugh region at Tulare Lake. He then left the San Joaquin Valley in the direction of Mission San Miguel.

''1830<'': North American fur trappers entered California in the 1830s, for instance Ewing Young (in Holmes 1967). Any diaries they might have left should be examined for information on ethnogeography.

=====Mexican Era (1822-1846) Mission Recruitment=====
Some 1,460 South San Joaquin region people moved to the missions during the Mexican era. About 1,270 (87%) have been assigned to specific regions, all Yokuts-speaking. Of the remaining 190 who are merely from "the Tulares," some small number may have been Western Mono or Tubatulabal. Three-quarters of the 1,270 people identifiable to region were baptized in one or another of three years:

1822—288 people, most (124) from the San Joaquin River in Fresno and Madera counties or from Merced County (121). Most were remnants of the Merced County groups on and just east of the San Joaquin River (Nopchenche, Quithrathre, Uthrocos), but a significant new group were the Pitcache of the Kerman region.

1834—264 people, most from Kings or Tulare counties. They included Chunut, Tachi, and Wowol of Tulare Lake, as well as Choinoc of Tulare and Wechihit of Sanger. These people were probably survivors of the malaria epidemic of 1833.

1835—277 people, most from Kern, Kings, and Tulare counties. Most were from the same groups baptized the previous year, but they also included a few Tulamnis of Buenavista, Tajanishilac (Hometwali) of Kern Lake, Yualmani of Bakersfied, and Telamne of Goshen/Visalia.

Malaria struck the Central Valley in August 1833. The epidemic devastated tribal groups farther north in the Sacramento Valley (Cook 1955) and south of the bend of the San Joaquin River as far as Kern Lake.

=====Mission Closure and Horse Raiding, 1837-1845=====
The Franciscan missions were closed as land-holding communes between 1834 and 1836. Under the original Spanish law and subsequent Mexican law, mission Indians were to be given half of the mission lands and livestock (Geary 1934). But only a handful of Mission Indian individuals were given any land or livestock by the commissioners of the Mexican government. None of them were tribal people of the South San Joaquin zone.

Surviving Coast Range Chumash, Salinan, and Ohlone-Costanoans went to work on various Mexican ranchos to the south and west of the San Joaquin Valley, as did some of those Yokuts people who had been at the missions since the early 1820s or earlier. Some of the "New Christians" who had been baptized since 1822 also stayed to work on Coast Range ranches. But most of the New Christians from tribelets on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley returned to their old homelands.

Many of those who returned to the San Joaquin Valley joined their remnant valley relatives who had survived the malaria epidemic to take up the horse raiding life that they had practiced in the early 1820s, before they moved to the missions. To an unknown extent, they brought people from Sierra foothill groups along on some of the horse raids. Horse raiding in the South San Joaquin seems to have been centered in present Madera County.

''1845 John C. Fremont (1886)'': Fremont brought his third exploring expedition down the east side of the San Joaquin Valley from Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort in December 1845. His encounter with the "Chauchiles" is discussed in detail in the Raymond region monograph, with quotes from Latta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1949) extract of his memoirs. Freemont<nowiki>’</nowiki>s full works have not been seen by this author. They should be consulted and all relevant material for ethnogeography should be cited in appropriate CDM monographs.

====Early American Period====
On May 13, 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico over an incident along the Texas border. The military occupation government appointed John Sutter sub-Indian agent for the district of Sacramento and San Joaquin in the spring of 1847. He was granted power to advise the government and threaten Indians and settlers with future recriminations in cases of illegal behavior. There is no evidence that he interacted with any groups of the South San Joaquin zone.

Reports of gold discovery in the mountains east of Sutter<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fort brought a small flood of Hispanic and Anglo Californians to the Sierra foothills in the spring of 1848. In the summer of 1848, Governor Mason toured the central mines and reported thousands of Indians panning for gold with pans or willow baskets (Hurtado 1988:104). Adventurer James D. Savage soon hired Indian people to conduct placer mining operations with their basketry equipment. Savage set up a series of trading posts to collect gold from Indian people of the present Mariposa and Madera county areas (Hall 1978:66-67; Hurtado 1988:112-115; Munoz 1980); his main ally was Jose Reyes, a Chausila headman from the present west-central Madera County area who had been baptized at Mission San Juan Bautista in 1837 (San Juan Bautista Baptism 4298).

The spring and summer of 1849 brought a huge influx of young foreign men to California. By late 1850, 10,000 miners were reportedly working the Stanislaus River watershed (Hall 1978:54). The famous gold-mining settlements of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas, Angels Camp, Sonora, Coulterville, and Mariposa all grew up within Sierra Miwok territory. North Americans, French, Mexicans, and Chileans joined the Anglo and Hispanic Californians at the mines in 1849 and 1850. Some Mission Indians from the coastal settlements took up entrepreneurial activities in the mining towns, as Perkins described, in late 1849 or 1850:

<blockquote>Mission Indians, with scarlet bandanas round their heads, a richly colored zarape over their shoulders, a pair of cotton drawers, and bare-footed, would push their way through the crowd, carrying pails of iced liquor on their heads, crying … agua fresca, cuatro reales <nowiki>[</nowiki>Perkins 1964:106<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Anglo Americans predominated in the mines by 1850. Most of them had little regard for the native Indian people, considered them racially inferior and a nuisance, to be removed in any way possible. They began to drive the native workers out, often with violence and brutality. After 1850 the local Indians "continued to live on the margins of mining camps and boomtowns" but were never again a large percentage of the labor force (Hurtado 1988:108).

=====Unratified Treaties, Mariposa Indian War, 1850-1852=====
California was admitted to the United States as a free state on September 9, 1850. The new governor of California reflected the attitude of the majority of the state<nowiki>’</nowiki>s citizens. On January 7, 1851, in his annual message to the state legislature, Governor Peter Burnett stated that a war of extermination would be waged "until the Indian race should become extinct" and that it was "beyond the power and wisdom of man to avert the inevitable destiny" (Hittell 1897:899). As North American whites settled the best lands of the San Joaquin Valley, the Indians were driven off. When they poached some of the immigrant property, they were hunted down and killed.

Friction between the local people and North Americans in the southern mining district in present Mariposa County sparked the native resistance called the Mariposa Indian War of 1851.The resistance began in the fall of 1850 and culminated with the defeat of the leading groups, the Chauchila and the Chukchansi Yokuts, in the spring of 1851. Their leaders signed a treaty with the US government on April 29, 1851. (See further discussion of this and other treaties in the next section below.) We present here a summary of that war<nowiki>’</nowiki>s events, which involved local tribes who were living at the time in the Raymond, Le Grand, Coarse Gold, and Nipinnawassee regions. (The sources used here are the 1997 and 2004 works by George Phillips, themselves based on a myriad of primary manuscripts):

* At the start of the Gold Rush the Chauchila seem to have been living in either the Le Grand or Raymond region, perhaps both. In 1849, James Savage, a widower from Illinois, established trading posts along the Merced, Mariposa, and Fresno rivers, cohabited with a number of Indian wives, and hired local Indians to pan gold dust for him.
* Late in 1850 some Indians from the region between the Merced and Fresno rivers attacked Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s northern trading post on the Merced River. As tensions continued to build, Savage attempted to help the local groups face the new reality of western conquest by taking a "Chowchilla" chief named Jose Juarez to see San Francisco in the fall. (Jose Juarez is not identifiable in any Franciscan mission records.) In San Francisco, Juarez boasted that the tribes were preparing to drive the whites from the mountains (Phillips 1997:42, 43).
* In late November 1850, a group of tribes gathered near Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post (near the later Savage Monument in the eastern Raymond region); Phillips lists the Potuyanthre Miwok, Nuchu Miwok, Chauchila Yokuts, and Pitkachi Yokuts. (It is hard to imagine that the Chuckchansi Yokuts were not there also.) Savage went to talk with them and urge them to avoid war, but his efforts were rejected. Then, on December 1, Indian agent Adam Johnston arrived in the area and went to talk to the Chauchila chiefs at Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River station. After Johnson distributed gifts, the Chauchila assured him they would not oppose the whites.
* On December 17, a combined group of Chauchila Yokuts, Chukchansi Yokuts, and Pohonichi Miwoks raided Savage<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Fresno River post, killed three men, and made off with goods and livestock. On the same day Savage noticed that Potuyanthre Indians living around his Mariposa post had withdrawn into the mountains and followed them to a camp in the higher mountains; they may have been diverting Savage away from the Fresno River attack (Phillips 1997:43, 44).
* On December 25, more than 100 Indians attacked a miners<nowiki>’</nowiki> camp and ferry in what may be the later Cassidys Bar area along the San Joaquin River, an area now flooded by Millerton Lake. One miner was killed and ten were wounded. Specific tribes were not mentioned, but just days before, the local sheriff had warned all miners to leave the San Joaquin River after he spoke with Pitkachi chief Tom-quit at his village (Phillips 1997:47).
* The Americans responded by sending out a posse of about 100 miners and settlers from various mining camps in the Mariposa district. A few days after January 7, 1851 they found the Heuchi, along with many Chauchilas and some Chukchansis, in a mountainous village of 60 or 70 huts; diaries indicate they traveled 50 miles, but that may not have been on a direct line. They burned the village and killed 30 people (Phillips 1997:49-52). This refuge may have been at Fresno Flats or farther east in the Bass Lake area.
* On January 17, 1851 the settler posse went out again, by way of Fine Gold Creek. They found the resisting Indians "on the north fork of the San Joaquin" (Phillips 1997:53), which, if true, put them deep into the Sierra and far above the snow line of the North Fork region. Phillips summarized: "At a nearby village resided elements of the Chauchila, Chukchansi, Gawia, Nukchu, Potoyanti, Pohonichi, and Yosemite. Numbering some five hundred fighting men, they were led by Chauchila chiefs José Rey and José Juarez" (Phillips 1997:53). (Chief Jose Rey is probably the individual baptized at San Juan Bautista in 1837 as a 19 year old Chauchila <nowiki>[</nowiki>SJB-B 4298<nowiki>]</nowiki>). Again, the native camp was burned and the Indians retreated.
* In February and early March 1851 miners and settlers were attacked over a wide area of the Sierra foothills, from the Stanislaus River south to the Kaweah River. Among places where whites were killed were the San Joaquin River in the Friant region and Fine Gold Gulch in the Coarse Gold region. The Chauchila were blamed for most of the raids (Phillips 1997:55, 71).

A group of three federal commissioners arrived in the Jamestown vicinity (Delta/North San Joaquin zone), north of the main disturbance area, on February 20, 1851. They had been directed by the United States Congress to make a series of treaties with local groups across the state. The purpose of the treaties was to get the tribes out of the mining and farming lands and onto lands that were not desired by the rapidly growing North American population. Under the treaties, three reservations were set up along the front edge of the foothills within the South San Joaquin zone.

* The federal treaty commissioners arrived in the San Joaquin Valley in February 1851, at the same time that state officials were organizing an official militia to suppress the Indians. The commissioners established Camp Fremont on the Little Mariposa River on March 8 and soon began talking with the adjacent Potoyanti (the Hunter Valley region) and Siyante (Catheys Valley region). The commissioners picked lands for their reservation north of the Merced River in the San Joaquin Valley. The Potoyanti, Siyante, and four local tribes of the upper Merced and Tuolumne rivers signed the first federal treaty (later called Treaty M<ref>The letter sequence for these treaties was not used in the field but was imposed years later in Washington D.C.</ref>) on March 19, 1851 (Phillips 2004:27).
* Beginning on March 19, 1851, companies from the newly organized Mariposa Battalion went into the mountains to bring in the many resisting groups. One of the companies followed Tenaya<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Yosemite group into Yosemite Valley in late March.
* While the militia was chasing the various groups, the commissioners moved south to the Fresno River, where they arrived on March 27.
* On April 9 some Indian women came in to the commissioners to say that the Chauchila would sign a treaty, but not until they had finished their mortuary ceremonies for Chief José Reyes, who had died of his earlier wounds. In mid-April a portion of the Mariposa Battalion headed towards the North Fork of the San Joaquin River by way of Coarse Gold Gulch, in search of the Chauchila. They found a deserted village and the remains of José Reye<nowiki>’</nowiki>s cremation. It turned out that the main group of Chauchila people had already gone down the San Joaquin River to the valley to meet with the commissioners (Phillips 1997:83-84).

Treaty N was signed on April 29, 1851 with tribelets of present southwest Mariposa County, central Madera County, and central Fresno County. The Chauchila, Heuchi, Chukchansi (all three Yokuts), Pohonichi, and Nuchu (both Sierra Miwok) all came out of the mountains to sign the treaty at a spot called Camp Barbour on the San Joaquin River (now the Friant vicinity of Fresno County). There they joined local tribes from along the San Joaquin and others who had been brought north from the Kings River. The Treaty N reservation territory, as described in the treaty text, was to be a very large stretch of plain along the base of the Sierra, from the Chowchilla River to the Kings River. In all, 16 tribes signed the treaty in three geographic groupings (Heizer 1972:71-81; Phillips 2004:27, 30). The Chauchila and Chukchansi were part of the northern geographic group, along with the Heuchi Yokuts, the Pohonichi Miwok, and the Nutchu Miwok, all of whom "acknowledge Nai-yak-qua as their principal chief" (Heizer 1972:72). (See the Madera region CDM monograph for more information about Nai-yak-qua of the Heuchi.) Also of note, none of the Chauchila or Chukchansi Treaty N signatories had a Spanish name; the Chauchila signatories were Po-ho-leel, E-keeno, Kay-o-ya, A-pem-shee, and Cho-no-hal-ma, while the Chukchansi were Co-tumsi, Ti-moh, Sa-wa-lai, A-chat-a-na, and Mi-e-wal (Heizer 1972:72-79).

The Mariposa War was nearly over with the signing of Treaty N in April 1851 by all of the resisting groups except the Yosemites (probably composite Bull Creek region and eastern Sierra Monos) and "Monos" of the North Fork region. The Yosemites were captured by mid-May, by which time the Monos were believed to have fled over the Sierra (Phillips 1997:1-99, 2004:25-34).

The commissioners continued south in May 1851. On May 13, at the Kings River, perhaps in the Kingston vicinity, the Tachi, Nutunutu, Wimilche, Telamni, Choinoc, Kaweah, and Yokod of the plains signed Treaty A along with the Entibich, Tuhucmache, Toineche, Holcuma, and Wukchumne of the foothills. Some of the hill groups were Mono speakers.

On May 30 more groups were brought together by the commissioners on the Kaweah River. There the Koyeti, Wolasi, Padwisha, and Wacksache signed Treaty B, along with some groups whose names are not definitely associated with those known ethnographically. Again, the groups included both Yokuts and Mono speakers.

On June 3, 1851, groups gathered on the White River signed Treay C. The groups included the Chunut, Wowol, Yalumne, and another segment of the Koyeti.

On June 10, 1851 groups from the far south end of the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding hill country, who had been gathered together at Tejon Creek, signed Treaty D. Those who are recognizable were the Texon (Kitenamuk), Castake (Castaic Chumash), San Imigdio (Chumash), Uvas (Chumash), Carises (Hometwali Yokuts), Buena Vista (Tulamni Yokuts), and Hol-mi-uh (Paleumne Yokuts). Less definite by location were the Holoclame, Sohonuts, and Tocia groups.

=====Valley and Sierra Indian Experience, 1852-1868=====
Edward F. Beale was appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California in March 1852. In October he proposed a series of temporary reservations with military posts. All Indians from the northern and central San Joaquin Valley and adjoining hills were to be brought to the Fresno River Farm, a small part of the Treaty N territory in present Madera County. The Fresno River Farm was activated that winter and maintained until 1860 (Hurtado 1988:142). Hurtado writes, "Indians from Tuolumne and Mariposa counties lived part of the year on the reservations and spent the rest of their time in their homelands" (1988:152).

The Fresno Indian Farm was closed in 1861. During the Civil War, a number of hostilities occurred between Indian people in the far north of California and the US military. However, other reservations were founded at Tule River and on Tejon Creek. Indian people of the South San Joaquin counties who did not stay on those reservations were subjected to many atrocities without recourse to legal protection.

=====Church-run Reservations in the Grant Administration=====
Ulysses Grant appointed army officers to run most of the reservations in the west at the outset of his first administration, in 1869. However, the US Congress passed a law in 1870 that forbade army officers from holding civil positions. Grant then turned to religious institutions, including the Methodists, Episcopalians, and the Friends, to run the reservations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In 1873 the Tule River Reservation, the only remaining reservation in the San Joaquin Valley, was moved from high quality valley lands up to less valuable lands in the dry foothills of Tulare County (Forbes 1969:65). Some Yokuts speakers from the old Fresno Indian Farm may have been moved there during the 1870s or earlier.

=====Indian Boarding Schools=====
The federal government began an aggressive policy of training Indians to assimilate into white culture during the 1870s and 1880s. Day schools for Indians were established in reservation areas of the state during the 1880s. Additionally, boarding schools were established to remove young Indians from the cultural influences of their parents. Boarding schools were established at Tule River in 1881, at Middletown in Lake County in 1885, at Hoopa Valley and Perris in 1893, and at Fort Bidwell in 1898 (Castillo 1978:116). The boarding schools were vocationally oriented, and young Indians from some schools were sent out as domestics to nearby white homes.

=====Dawes Act of 1887 and Jackson Rancheria in 1895=====
The Dawes Act, directing the breakup of communal Indian reservation tracts across the United States into small family-owned parcels, was passed by Congress in 1887. The Act was the result of general indignation regarding the situation of non-reservation California Indians stimulated by publication of Helen Hunt Jackson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s book ''Century of Dishonor'' (1881). Jackson Rancheria was one of 17 small "postage stamp" reservations or rancherias (14 in the southern California mission area), purchased in California during the 1890s under the Act.

=====Legal and Social Status Changes after 1900=====
By the beginning of the twentieth century, the economies of the Sierra foothill counties were shifting from mining to farming, ranching, and timber harvesting. Yokuts and Mono men who had survived to this period obtained jobs as laborers in these industries when they could. The women worked as field laborers and house servants. Indian people were still being treated badly by many whites, but laws and attitudes were beginning to change—slowly.

In 1905-1906 C. E. Kelsey, a lawyer from San Jose, carried out an investigation into the condition of landless Indians in California for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As a result, Congress authorized $100,000 to the Secretary of the Interior for land purchase and water development for landless California Indians in acts of June 21, 1906 and April 30, 1908. Dozens of tiny rancherias were purchased throughout California over the next few years under this act.

=====Education and Voting Rights Activities=====
From 1909 forward, California Indian people pressed their own claims for civil rights and land. Some of the cases were aided by an umbrella group called The Indian Board of Cooperation, led by a white protestant minister named Frederick G. Collet. One of their first actions was to press for improved Indian access to education. Major educational improvements occurred between 1915 and 1919, writes Jack Forbes (1969:73):

In 1915 only 316 Indian pupils were attending public school in California but by 1919 this number had increased to 2,199. In general, this was the result of a campaign carried out by Indians and the Indian Board of Cooperation and a new government policy of integrating Indians in public schools in areas such as California and Nevada where the native population was intermixed with white communities.

The Indian Board of Cooperation also aided a Lake County Pomo man, Ethan Anderson, in his court case to obtain the right to vote. Anderson won his case before the California Supreme Court in 1917, thereby essentially winning citizenship rights for all California Indians who did not live on reservations. Thus most California Indian people first became US citizens in 1917.

Recognition of Indian voting rights in 1917 pertained only to Indians living off of federal reservations. Full citizenship for all Native Americans was not recognized by Congress until an act of June 1924. However, a series of complex decisions since that time has limited Indian civil rights on federal reservation lands (see Forbes 1969:95-98).

===Classic and Recent Ethnographers===
Many of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s most famous field ethnographers worked in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The six whose works are most valuable—Anna Gayton, Edward W. Gifford, J. P. Harrington, A. L. Kroeber, Frank Latta, and C. Hart Merriam—are discussed individually below, followed by a paragraph on others who also contributed in the field, and a final paragraph mentioning those who have contributed more recent synthetic ethnogeographic studies.

====C. Hart Merriam (1855-1942)====
Merriam, a university-trained biologist and medical doctor, became first chief of the predecessor agency to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1886. In that capacity he worked in the field in California off-and-on between 1898 and 1910, keeping numerous notes about the Indian people that he met in his regular biologists field notebooks. In 1910 he received a life-time endowment from the Harriman Trust which allowed him to retire and conduct any research that he wanted. He chose to devote most of his attention to fieldwork with California Indians. Reflecting that change in circumstances, from 1910 forward he wrote his detailed ethnographic notes separately from his daily journals, the latter becoming merely diaries.

Merriam worked among Indian people in many areas of the South San Joaquin zone, all in or near the Sierra Nevada foothills, between 1902 and 1934. Most of his material pertinent to the local regions of the South San Joaquin zone have been published under editorship of Robert F. Heizer (Merriam 1967, 1977). These materials have been quoted in the completed CDM monographs. Detailed future research should rely, whenever possible, on Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s original field materials to best appreciate the context of their collection.

Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field dairy/journals are now in the Library of Congress (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938a<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His separate ethnographic journals and notes are at the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley, along with his extensive collection of photographs of Indian people (Merriam <nowiki>[</nowiki>1898-1938b<nowiki>]</nowiki>). His collection of North American Indian basketry is at the Anthropology Museum at the Department of Anthropology at UC Davis.

====Alfred L. Kroeber (1876-1960)====
A. L. Kroeber received the first doctorate in anthropology awarded at Columbia University in 1901 under Franz Boas. His first California field work took place a year earlier, when, as temporary curator of Indian artifacts at the Academy of Science in San Francisco, he interviewed Indian people in the Klamath River area of northwest California. With Ph.D. in hand, he joined the new Department of Anthropology at the University of California in 1902, where he became department head and taught until his retirement in 1946. The entire body of his field notes is in the Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley (Kroeber <nowiki>[</nowiki>1869-1972<nowiki>]</nowiki>).

Kroeber did quite a bit of field work in the South San Joaquin, much of it prior to 1910. In later years he wrote, "A summary of what I obtained as to tribal territories, place names, sites inhabited, and local resources went into my ''Handbook of the Indians of California'', chapter 32. But the great mass of primary data was too intricate and detailed to print in so general a work as that was, and much of the mass remains in my notebooks, or in incomplete handwritten extracts" (Kroeber 1963:178). Good references to his early informants, but little in the way of ethnogeography, is found in the posthumously published "Yokuts Dialect Survey" (Kroeber 1963).

====John P. Harrington (1884-1961)====
J. P. Harrington took a circuitous route to become a great linguist and ethnologist of California Indian people. Finishing undergraduate work at Stanford University in 1905, he went to Leipzig and then Berlin to pursue a Ph.D. But he dropped out and returned to become a high school teacher and work with elderly Chumash speakers between 1912 and 1914. He was hired as a permanent field ethnologist by the Bureau of American Ethnography in 1915 and worked for the Bureau until 1955. He published very little, but left behind more than one million pages of only moderately organized notes, mostly on language but also on mythology and geography, for native groups from Alaska to South America. His papers are housed at the Smithsonian Institution, although many are available through copy microfilm at a number of institutions across the United States (Mills 1986).

Between 1912 and 1940 Harrington made two significant trips into the South San Joaquin regions. In October 1914 he visited elderly Yokuts speakers at the Santa Rosa Rancheria and Tule River Reservation. Then he spent months at the Tejon Reservation among Chumash, Kitenamuk, Serrano, and Yokuts speakers during the late fall and winter of 1916-1917. Although these two visits represent a small portion of Harrington<nowiki>’</nowiki>s field time, they resulted in a rich and important body of material (Earle 2003).

====E. W. Gifford (1887-1959)====
Gifford was a colleague of Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s at the UC Berkeley Department of Anthropology. He made a number of important contributions to California ethnology, particularly in the areas of kinship systems and kinship terminology. This included an important ethnographic study of clans and moieties in the southern part of the state, carried out in 1918. Gifford was a remarkable scholar, particularly as he had no college degree—something of a rarity for a UC Berkeley faculty member.

Gifford worked among Sierran Miwok groups and the North Fork Mono. His monograph on the North Fork Mono is perhaps the most detailed ethnogeography of any central California people.

====Frank F. Latta (1892-1981)====
Frank Latta was an educator and self-trained field ethnographer of the Yokuts. He began interviewing his Yokuts neighbors soon after he moved to Visalia, Tulare County, in 1923. One of his important informants was Bill Wilson (Pahmit), a mixed Dumna-Kechayi-Pitkachi of Friant, Fresno County. The other was Yoimut, Chunut-Wowol who spent her life on the ranches of Tulare County. Yoimut may have been the best-informed of all Yokuts consultants. "She could read, write, and speak Spanish and English, as well as talk six Yokuts languages," wrote Latta (1949:224). Latta published two significantly different versions of his ''Handbook of Yokuts Indians'', first in 1949 and then an expanded version in 1977. The two should be studied and cited separately because the 1977 version re-arranged earlier text, added new conclusions, and modified the spellings of several words.

====Anna Gayton (1899-1977)====
Anna H. Gayton was the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in anthropology from UC Berkeley, in 1928, majoring under Kroeber and Lowie. She taught Decorative Art at Berkeley from 1948 to 1965. Gayton produced a spectacular amount of published material on Yokuts and Western Mono groups of the southern Sierra Nevada and adjacent eastern portions of the San Joaquin Valley based on field work done in 1925-1930. A series of articles and a detailed monograph embodying most of her field data were published in 1948. In addition to presenting her own field results, she performs knowledgeable critiques of contradictory and unclear material gathered by earlier ethnographers.

====Other Field Ethnographers====
Other people did work in the South San Joaquin zone who have contributed to our ethnogeographic monographs, such as linguist Stanley S. Newman (1905-1984) and Harold Driver (1907-1992), professor of Anthropology at Indiana University.

====More Recent Synthesizers====
The first researcher to study the systematic distribution of groups and populations in the South San Joaquin zone was Sherburne Cook(1955, 1976)), a Harvard-trained professor of physiology at Berkeley who detailed the population of California Indians using quantitative analysis. George Phillips, a University of Colorado historian, synthesized literature on the 1851 treaties (1975) and, more recently, data on the Tejón reservation (1997). William J. Wallace<nowiki>’</nowiki>s sections on the Yokuts in the Handbook of North American Indians, California, offer an unsystematic presentation from the classic literature.

===Organization of Landholding Groups===
Yokuts clearly had tribelets: Kroeber (1925); Kunkel (1962).

Western Mono were independent hamlets, but some were given regional names by Yokuts neighbors, names that have stuck. It is not clear if they really formed regional communities.

Tubatulabal seem to have been between tribelets and independent hamlet groups, but they had some sense of being in three loose communities.

===Conclusion: Mapping Approaches and Constraints===
Mapping approaches with the South San Joaquin zone varied with the nature of available evidence. To put simply, wherever the heartland of a particular group was identifiable through classic ethnography or an early diary, a node was established for that group. Upon initial application of nodes, the analytical zone could be divided into five areas, each with its own unique mapping problems and opportunities, in order of data quality:

* Sierra foothills: all areas of the zone, from the upper San Joaquin River south to the Kern River, had excellent field ethnographic work among people who still remembered the original tribal distributions. There are two exceptions: in Madera County, ethnographic consultants remembered that the Chuckchanis held a large expanse north of the San Joaquin River; other evidence suggests that the term was taken from one regional tribelet and generalized to some of their neighbors. The other ambiguity involves Toltechi, a Yokuts group attributed by one consultant to a small area in the San Joaquin River Canyon (Kerchoff reservoir) that would otherwise seem to have been within Western Mono lands.
* Tulare Lake, Kern-Buenavista Lake Basin, Kaweah River delta: Classic ethnographic consultants remembered well the native groups of these flat valley regions, with two exceptions. First, the mission records list a group called Quiyamne, unknown to ethnographic consultants; their marriage ties suggest they were from the Famosa region and their name is reminiscent of the obscure Giamina Uto-Aztecans of Kroeber (1925:479). The other problem is contradictory evidence regarding the geography and identity of the Wolasi and Choinok Yokuts between the modern towns of Visalia and Tulare.
* San Joaquin River on the valley plain: triblet organization in this area had been almost completely destroyed through missionization and disease by the time of the gold rush. Remnant Chausila, Heuchi, Hoyima, and Pitcache people were living with foothill people in the years of classic ethnographic field research. Thus their tribelet locations are tentatively reconstructed from hints garnered by ethnographers, comments in Hispanic expedition diaries, and the traditional mission register analysis techniques of time sequence and marriage studies. Confident locational results have been obtained for all but the Chausila.
* Kings River drainage: survivors told classic ethnographiers the locations of the Wilmilche, Nutunuu, and Wechihit, in locations supported by early expedition commentaries. However, a mystery still remains about the groups at the edge of the Sierra foothills, adjacent to the Wechihit, to both the northwest and southeast. We tentatively model the Gashowu as originally inhabiting the plain west of Sanger and in the Fresno vicinity, following Kroeber (1925). On the southeast side, the Orange Grove inhabitants are still more problematic. Although we lack positive evidence, we suggest the possibility that the historical Chukamina were driven up into the Dunlap region from the plain in the Orange Grove region below.
* Western Plain from Merced River south to the Kings River Country: people of this area were entirely removed to the missions before 1820. Group names such as Quihueths, Cutocho, and Yyin, appear enough times in the mission records to suggest they were the major groups of the west side; however, a significant number of west-side people were merely identified as "Tulares" in the mission records. Thus the CDM regions in this area are best-guess representations of the original condition.

==Regions==
* [[COARSE GOLD REGION|Coarse Gold]]
* [[DAIRYLAND REGION|Dairyland]]
* [[FIREBAUGH REGION|Firebaugh]]
* [[FRIANT REGION|Friant]]
* [[HERNDON REGION|Herndon]]
* [[KERMAN REGION|Kerman]]
* [[LE GRAND REGION|Le Grand]]
* [[MADERA REGION|Madera]]
* [[NORTH FORK REGION|North Fork]]
* [[ORO LOMA REGION|Oro Loma]]
* [[RAYMOND REGION|Raymond]]
* [[SANTA RITA REGION|Santa Rita]]

==Bibliography==
Aginsky, B. W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1943
|''Culture Element Distributions, XXIV: Central Sierra''. University of California Anthropological Records 8(4):393-468. Berkeley.

|}

Arroyo de la Cuesta, Felipe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1810-1819
|Untitled Notebook containing Religious Texts in Indian Languages, compiled by the author for personal use between 1810 and 1819. BANC MSS C-C 60. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 1821-1837
|''Lengua de California''. Notebook containing grammar and vocabularies of various California Indian group, recorded at several missions between 1821 and 1837. BANC MSS C-C 63b. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 1822''-''1824''
|Libro de Gobierno del P. Fr. Felipe Arroyo con los Nombres de los Neofitos de los Tulares ya Gentiles baja Christianos, segun contan en el Libro de Bautismos … q.e en por donde ellos, esso es, los Yndios se entienden y distinguen unos de otros''.  Manuscript at the Catholic Diocesan Archives of Monterey, 485 Church Street, Monterey, California. Cited from microfilm copy in possession of Randall Milliken, Davis, California.

|}

Barrett, Samuel A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1908
|The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''6(2):333-368. Berkeley

|}

Beeler, Madison S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|Noptinte Yokuts. In Studies in American Indian Languages:11-76. Jesse Sawyer, ed. ''University of California Publications in Linguistics'' 65. Berkeley.

|}

Bolton, Herbert

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1935
|''In the South San Joaquin Ahead of Garces''. Kern County Historical Society, Bakersfield, California.

|}

Callaghan, Catherine

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|Evidence for Yok-Utian. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 63:18-64.

|}

Castillo, Edward D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Cook, Sherburne F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 16, University of California Press, Berkeley. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1960
|Colonial expeditions to the interior of California, 1800-1820. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''16.6. University of California Press, Berkeley. . <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1962
|Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''20(5):151-214. Berkeley.

|}

----

Cook, Sherburne F. ''continued''

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Conflict Between the California Indians and White Civilization''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Coues, Elliott. ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''On The Trail of a Spanish Pioneer: The Diary and Itinerary of Francisco Garcés (Missionary Priest) in His Travels Through Sonora, Arizona, and California 1775- 1776''. 2 vols. Francis P. Harper, New York.

|}

Derby, George H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1933
|The Topographica Reports of Lieutenant George H. Derby <nowiki>[</nowiki>1849<nowiki>]</nowiki>. Francis F. Farquhar, ed. ''California Historical Society Publications ''6. San Francisco.

|}

Driver, Harold E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Culture Element Distributions, VI: Southern Sierra Nevada. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''1(2):53-154

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Technical document submitted to Caltrans District 6, Fresno by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis.

|}

Estudillo, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1895
|''Report of Mission Tule River Agency. In Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1894'', Reports of Agents in California, pp. 119-124. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Forbes, Jack D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1969
|''Native Americans of California and Nevada: A Handbook''. Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg, California.

|}

Frémont, John Charles

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1886
| Memoirs of my life : including in the narrative five journeys of western explorations during the years 1842, 1843-4, 1845-6-7, 1848-9,

|}

Gamble, Lynn Hunter

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1991
|Organization of Activities at the Historic Settlement of Helo<nowiki>’</nowiki>: A Chumash Political, Economic, and Religious Center. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

Gayton, Anna H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1925-1965
|colspan = "2"|''A. H. (Anne Hadwick) Gayton papers.''

|-
| 
|1930
|Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24(3):239-251.

|-
| 
|1936
|Estudillo among the Yokuts: 1819. In: ''Essays in anthropology presented to A. L. Kroeber in celebration of his sixtieth birthday'' June 11, 1936. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1945
|Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. ''American Anthropologist'' 47(3):409-426.

|-
| 
|1948
|Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''24:361-420. Berkeley.

|}

----

Geary, G. J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1934
|''The Secularization of the California Missions (1810-1846).'' Catholic University Press, Washington, D.C.

|}

Gifford, Edward W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1918
|Clans and Moieties in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Anthropology'', 14(2):155-219. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1932
|The Northfork Mono. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 31(2):15-65. Berkeley.

|}

Goddard, Ives

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|The Classification of the Native Languages of North America. ''Handbook of North American Indians, ''Volume 17 (Languages). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Grunsky, Carl E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1898
|Irrigation Near Fresno, California. ''Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of the US Geological Survey No. 18.'' Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Hall, A. L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Ethnohistorical Studies of the Central Sierra Miwok: 1800-1900. Unpublished M.A. thesis in anthropology, San Francisco State University.

|}

Heizer, Robert F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|California Indian Linguistic Records: The Mission Indian Vocabularies of Alphonse Pinart. ''University of California Anthropological Records ''15(1):1-84. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1966
|''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1972
|''The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-1852 between the California Indians and the United States Government''. University of California Archaeological Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978
|''California''. Edited by W. C. Sturtevant. Handbook of North American Indians 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Hittell, T. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1897
|''History of California''. N. J. Stone, San Francisco, California.

|}

Holmes, Kenneth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1967
|''Ewing Young:master trapper''. Portland, Oregon: Binsford & Mort.

|}

Hoopes, Alban W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1932
|''Indian Affairs and Their Administration, with Special Reference to the Far West, 1849-1860''. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932.

|}

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William Abeloe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|''Historic Spots in California''. 3rd ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

|}

Hurtado, Albert L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|''Indian Survival on the California Frontier''. Yale University Press, New Haven.

|}

----

Jackson, H. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1881
|''Century of Dishonor: A Sketch of the United States Government<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Dealings with Some of the Indian Tribes''. Harper and Brothers, New York.

|}

Johnson, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|Social Responses to Climate Change on the Chumash Indians of South Central California''. ''In ''The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action'', Roderick J. McIntosh, Joseph A. Tainter, and Susan Keech McIntosh, pp. 301-327. , Columbia University Press, New York.

|}

Kelsey, C. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1905-1906
|colspan = "2"|Some Numerals from the California Indian Languages. Collection of Manuscripts from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 424. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1971
|''Census of Non-reservation California Indians, 1905-1906''. Edited by Robert F. Heizer. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Kroeber, Alfred L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1869-1972
|colspan = "2"|A.L. Kroeber Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1904
|The languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco. ''University of California Publications on American Archaeology and Ethnology ''2(2):29-80.

|-
| 
|1907
|Shoshonean Dialects of California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 4(3):65 165).

|-
| 
|1925
|''Handbook of the Indians of California''. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington.

|-
| 
|1948
|Seven Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(1).

|-
| 
|1951
|A Mohave Historical Epic. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(2)

|-
| 
|1959
|Ethnographic Interpretations, 7-11. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 47(3):235-310.

|-
| 
|1963
|Yokuts dialect survey. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(3).

|-
| 
|1972
|More Mohave Myths. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 27.

|}

Kunkel, Peter H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Lamb, Sydney M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1953-1957
|colspan = "2"|Chukchansi Yokuts: Informant Nancy Wyatt. Manuscript at the Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1958
|Linguistic Prehistory in the Great Basin. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 24(2):95-100.

|}

Latta, Frank F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1949
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. 1st Edition (287 pages). Kern County Museum, Bakersfield, California.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Handbook of Yokuts Indians''. Second Edition, revised and enlarged (765 pages). Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.

|}

Leupp, F. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|Indian Lands: Their Administration with Reference to Present and Future Use. ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. ''33 (3), 136-146.

|}

Levy, Richard S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Eastern Miwok''. ''In ''California'', edited Richard F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8 , William C. Sturtevant general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Lynch, John M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1951
|The Kocheyali and the Aiticha. Collection of Manuscripts of from the Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, No. 422. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

|}

Mayfield, Thomas J

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Indian summer: Traditional life among the Choinumne Indians of California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Joaquin Valley''. Berkeley, Calif: Heyday Books.

|}

McKay, Scott

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1914
|Official Map of Fresno, California, Compiled from Official Records and Latest Surveys. Electronic Document, http://www.davidrumsey.com, accessed May 12, 2010.

|}

Merriam, C. Hart

1898-1938a The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

1898-1938b C. Hart Merriam papers relating to work with California Indians, 1850-1974. Bulk 1898-1938. History of Science and Technology Collection. (Microfilm: BANC FILM 1022; Originals: BANC MSS 80/18 C). The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1902
|''The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam''. Journal II for 1902. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Photocopies on file with the C. Hart Merriam Collection, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

|-
| 
|1904
|Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''Science'' 19:912-917.

|-
| 
|1930
|The Em-tim-bitch, a Shoshonean Tribe. ''American Anthropologist'' 31:136-137.

|-
| 
|1955
|''Studies in California Indians''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1967
|Ethnographic Notes on Central California Indian Tribes. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Reports'', No. 68(3). Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1968
|Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey ''74, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

|-
| 
|1969
|''Catalogue of the C. Hart Merriam Collection of Data Concerning California Tribes and Other American Indians''. Robert F. Heizer and staff, editors. Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1977
|''Ethnographic and Ethnosynonymic Data from Central California Tribes''. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

----

Milliken, Randall T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|Tribal Political Geography''. ''In ''Archaeological Test Excavations at Fourteen Sites along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California: Volume 2'', Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland,

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. In ''The Ohlone Past and Present'', edited by Lowell John Bean, pp. 165-182. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|}

Miller, Wick R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Numic Languages. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.31-50. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Mills, Elaine L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1985
|''The papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907-1957. Northern and Central California''. White Plains, N.Y.: Kraus International Publications.

|}

Mithun, Marianne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|''The Languages of Native North America''. University Press, Cambridge, UK

|}

Munoz, Neva Jeanne Harkins

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|''Political Middlemanship and the Double Bind: James D. Savage and the Fresno River Reservation''. Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology at the University of California, Riverside.

|}

Nell Boulé, Mary

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|''Tubatulabal Tribe''. Marryant Publishing, Vashon, Washington

|}

Newman, Stanley S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1944
|Yokuts Language of Califirnia. ''Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology'' 2. New York.

|}

Palomares, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1808
|''Diary of Francisco Palomares''. Provincial State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Vol. I, pp.232-242. California State Achives, Sacramento.

|}

Perkins, W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1964
|''Three Years in California: William Perkins<nowiki>’</nowiki> Journal of Life at Sonora, 1849-1852.'' University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Phillips, George Harwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1975
|''Chiefs and Challengers: Indian resistance and Cooperation in Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1993
|''Indians and Intruders in Central California, 1769-1849''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Indians and Indian Agents: The Origins of the Reservation System in California, 1849-1852''. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma

|-
| 
|2004
|''Bringing Them Under Subjection: California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Tejón Indian Reservation and Beyond, 1852-1864''

|}

Powell, J. W., and G. W. Ingalls

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1873-1874
|Report of Special Commissioners J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls. In ''Report of the Secretary of the Interior'', 1874. US House of Representatives, 43rd congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 157, pp. 2-31.

|}

----

Powell, John Wesley

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Linguistics. In Tribes of California, by Stephen Powers. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology ''3. Washington: US Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.

|-
| 
|1891
|Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. ''7th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1885-1886''. Washington, D.C.

|}

Powers, Stephen

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1877
|Tribes of California. ''Contributions to North American Ethnology'' 3. U.S. Geographic and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington D.C.

|}

Schenck, W. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography'' 25(2):123-146.

|}

Shipley, William F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|Native Languages of California. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Volume 8 (California). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Smith, Charles, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1968-1972
|colspan = "2"|Ethnographic and Ethnobotanaical Notes from approximately 12 Months Field work among the Tübatulabal, California. Manusccrpit in possession of the author as of 1978.

|-
| 
|1978
|Tubatulabal. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 437-445. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Smith, Jedediah S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|''The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-1827'', edited with an introduction by George R. Brooks. A. H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.

|}

Spier, Robert F. G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Foothill Yokuts''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 471-484. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978
|Monache''. ''In ''California'', Robert F. Heizer, pp. 426-436. Handbook of North American Indians 8, William C. Sturtevant. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Swanton, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indian Tribes of North America''. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

|}

Wallace, William J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Southern Valley Yokuts. In ''California'' (ed. R. F. Heizer), pp. 448-461. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Waterman, Thomas Talbot

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1885-1936
|Tubatulabal texts, vocabulary, and ethnographic notes. Ethnological Documents of the Department and Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|}

Whistler, Kenneth and Victor Golla

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Proto-Yokuts Reconsidered. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'' 52:317-358.

|}

==REFERENCES CONSULTED==
Anderton, Alice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1988
|The Language of the Kitanemuks of California. PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

Anza, Juan Bautista de

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1930
|Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Diary of the Second Anza Expedition, 1775-1776. Pp. 1-200 in ''Anza<nowiki>’</nowiki>s California Expeditions'', Volume 3. Herbert Bolton, editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Baksh, Michael

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1997
|''Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Investigations of the Silurian Valley and Greater Central Mojave Desert''. Tierra Environmental Services. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACA09-94-D-0019.

|}

Barras, Judy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Their Places Shall Know Them No More''. Sierra Printers, Bakersfield, Ca.

|}

Barrows, David P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1900
|''The Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

|}

Basgall, Mark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''A Brief Cultural History of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California''. Archaeological Curation Facility, Fort Irwin, California.

|}

Baumhoff, Martin A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1963
|Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology ''49(2):155-236. Berkeley.

|}

Bean, Lowell John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|''Mukat<nowiki>’</nowiki>s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978a
| Cahuilla. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 575-588. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
| Social Organization. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 673-682. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell J and Thomas C. Blackburn

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Kitanemuk. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 564-569. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell John and Mason, William M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Diaries and Accounts of the Romero Expeditions in Arizona and California, 1823-1826''. Ward Richie Press, Los Angeles.

|}

----

Bean, Lowell J and Charles R. Smith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978a
| Serrano. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 570-574. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1978b
|Cupeño. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 588-591. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bean, Lowell and Sylvia Brakke Vane

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|''Allen-Warner Valley Energy System: Western Transmission System: Ethnographic and Historical Resources''. Report Submitted by Cultural Systems Research, Inc. to Southern California Edison Co. December 15, 1979. Cultural Systems Research, Inc, Menlo Park, CA.

|}

Beatty Bullfrog

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1905
|''Indian Pow Wow. Remnants of the Piute Tribe Meet at Pahrump''. Beatty Bullfrog <nowiki>[</nowiki>Beatty, Nevada<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1(27):9/23/1905:1

|}

Benedict, Ruth.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1924
|A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. ''American Anthropologist'' 26(3):366-392.

|}

Blackburn, Thomas

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Native California.. in ''Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective'', Lowel J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, eds., pp. 225-243.. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.

|}

California. Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1890
|''Records of California Men in the War of the Rebellion, 1861 to 1867, revised and compiled by Brig. Gen. Richard H. Orton, Adjutant-General of California''. California Adjutant General<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Office, Sacramento.

|}

Cappannari, Philip

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Copies of Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1946-1948. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|}

Casebier, Dennis

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|Carleton<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Pah-Ute Campaign. ''Tales of the Mojave Road'', No.1, pp.1-57. Tales of the Mojave Road, Norco, California.

|}

Caughey, John W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1952
|''The Indians of Southern California in 1852: The B.D. Wilson Report and a Selection of Contemporary Commentary''. Huntington Library, San Marino.

|}

Coville, Frederick V.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1892
|The Panamint Indians of California. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 5:351-361.

|}

Davis, James T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1961
|Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Report ''54. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

----

Deloria, Vine and Richard W. Stoffle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Native American Sacred Sites and the Department of Defense''. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

|}

d<nowiki>’</nowiki> Heureuse, R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1863
|Photographic Views of the Mojave Route, Eldorado Canon and Fort Mojave, Photos 1-43. Picture Drawer, Bancroft Library, Berkeley.

|}

Dixon, Roland B. and Alfred L. Kroeber

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1903
|The Native Languages of California. ''American Anthropologist'' 5(1):1-26.

|}

Drover, Christopher E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1979
|The Late Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Northern Mohave Sink, San Bernardino County, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

|}

Dutcher, B. H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1893
|Pinon Gathering Among the Panamint Indians. ''American Anthropologist'', o.s., 6:377-380.

|}

Eargle, Dolan H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2000
|''The Earth is Our Mother: A Guide to The Indians of California, Their Locales and Historic Sites''. Trees Company Press, San Francisco

|}

Earle, David D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|New Evidence on the Political Geography of the Antelope Valley and Western Mojave Desert at Spanish Contact. in ''Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Antelope Valley and Vicinity'', Bruce Love and William H. DeWitt, eds., pp. 87-104. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.2. Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Lancaster, Ca.

|-
| 
|1997
|''Ethnohistoric Overview of the Edwards Air Force Base Region and the Western Mojave Desert''. Prepared by Earle and Associates, Palmdale, California for Environmental Management Office, Air Force Fight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|''Overview of the Buena Vista Lake Region Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory''. Earle and Associates, Palmdale,California .

|-
| 
|2004
|Native Population and Settlement in the Western Mojave Desert in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. In ''The Human Journey and Ancient Life in California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Deserts: Proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference'', Mark W. Allen and Judyth Reed, eds., pp. 173-186. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|-
| 
|2005
|The Mojave River and the Central Mojave Desert: Native Settlement, Travel, and Exchange in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. ''Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology'', 25(1):1-37.

|}

Eerkens, Jelmer W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|Common Pool Resources, Buffer Zones, and Jointly Owned Territories: Hunter-Gatherer Land and Resource Tenure in Fort Irwin, Southeastern California. ''Human Ecology'' 27(2):297-318.

|}

Fages, Pedro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1936
|''A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California''. Original written in 1775. Herbert I. Priestley, translator and editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

----

Ferrus Garcia, Anna

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''1994 Vegetation Studies at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Ca''. Robert Niehous, Inc. Mojave Desert Ecology Project, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, Ca.

|}

Forde, Cyril Daryll

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1931
|Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 28 (4):83-278.

|}

Fouts, Margaret

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''A Teacher<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Life. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 219-221. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Subsistence . In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.64-97. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|date
|Some Notes on Ethnographic Subsistence Systems in Mojavean Environments in the Great Basin. ''Journal of Ethnobiology'' 15(1):99-117.

|-
| 
|1996
|Historical Perspectives on Timbisha Shoshone Land Management Practices, Death Valley, California. In ''Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology'', edited by Elizabeth J. Reitz, Lee A. Nessom, and Sylvia J. Scudder. Plenum Press, New York.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco, and Pauline Esteves

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|In the Field in Death Valley: Julian Steward<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Panamint Shoshone Fieldwork. In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 53-59. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Fowler, Catherine S. , Molly Dufort, Mary K. Rusco and the Historic Preservation Committee of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (Pauline Esteves, Grace Goad, Ed Esteves, Ken Watterson).

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Residence Without Reservation: Ethnographic Overview and Traditional Land Use Study, Timbisha Shoshone, Death Valley National Park, California (Phase I)''. Submitted to the National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Fowler, Don D. and Catherine S. Fowler (editors)

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1971
|''Anthropology of the Numa: John Wesley Powell<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Manuscripts of the Numic Peoples of Western North America, 1868-1880''. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 14, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

|}

Galvin, John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1965
|''A Record of Travels in Arizona and California 1775-1776''. Translated and edited by John Galvin. J. Howell Books, San Francisco.

|}

Garrett, Lewis.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1992
|Postal History of San Bernardino County. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 39(4):1-77.

|}

Geertz, Clifford

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|"From the Native<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Point of View": On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. in ''Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology'', pp. 55-70. Basic Books, New York.

|}

----

Golla, Victor

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2007
|Linguistic Prehistory. In ''California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity''. Altamira Press, New York.

|}

Goss, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|The Yamparika- Shoshones, Comanches, or Utes- or Does It Matter? In ''Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist'', edited by Richard O. Clemmer, L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, pp. 74-84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Grayson, Donald K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''The Desert<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Past : A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin''. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

|}

Hall, Matt

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Inventory of Spring/Seep Locations in the East Mojave Desert Region. In ''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; Chester King and Dennis Casebier, eds., pp. 70-193. Prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Harrington, John P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''John P. Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: ''''Southern California. ''Washington, D.C''.'':Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Microfilm edition. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|}

Hodge, Frederick W., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1910
|''Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico'', Volume 2. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. Washington, D.C.

|}

Irwin, Charles N., ed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|The Shoshoni Indians of Inyo County, California : the Kerr Manuscript. Manuscript prepared by Mark Kerr, introductory preface by Charles N. Irwin. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico, and Eastern California Museum, Independence, California.

|}

Jackson, Donald and Mary Lee Spence.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|''The Expeditions of John Charles Fremont. Volume I: Travels From 1838 to 1844''. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

|}

Johnson, David H., Monroe D. Bryand and Alden H. Miller

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1948
|Vertebrate Animals of the Providence Mountains Area of California. ''University of California Publications in Zoology ''48(5):221-376.

|}

Johnston, Bernice

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Gabrielino Indians''. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

|}

Kaldenberg, Russell L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|The Archaeology of Selected Springs and Playas on Fort Irwin and in Portions of the Avawatz Mountains. ''San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly'' 28 (3-4):1-102.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

|}

----

Kelly, Isabel T. ''continued''

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1934
|Southern Paiute Bands. ''American Anthropologist'' 36(4):548-560.

|-
| 
|1953
|Notebooks of Las Vegas Band, Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi field notes. University of California, Archives No. 138.1m. Anthropology Documents 17-18.

|-
| 
|1964
|''Southern Paiute Ethnography''. Glen Canyon Series 21, University of Utah Anthropological Papers, 69. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

|}

Kelly, Isabel T. and Catherine S. Fowler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Southern Paiute. In ''Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 11, Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.368-397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Key, Harold

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|A Mojave Cremation. ''The Kiva'' 36:23-38.

|}

King, Chester and Dennis Casebier

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region''; with sections by Matthew C. Hall and Carol Rector; prepared for the US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Program. Riverside, California: The Program.

|}

Knack, Martha

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1980
|Ethnographic Overview. In ''A Cultural Resource Overview for the Amargosa-Mojave Basin Planning Units'', by Claude N. Warren, Martha Knack, Elizabeth von Till Warren ; Eric W. Ritter, general editor. Bureau of Land Management, Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, California.

|}

Kocher, A. E. and F. O. Youngs

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Soil Survey of the Palo Verde Area, California''. US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.

|}

Kroeber, Clifton and Bernard L. Fontana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Massacre on the Gila''. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

|}

Laird, Carobeth

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Chemehuevis''. Malki Museum, Banning, California

|-
| 
|1984
|''Mirror and Pattern: George Laird<nowiki>’</nowiki>s World of Chemehuevi Mythology''. Malki Museum, Banning, California.

|}

Leland, Joy

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Population In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.608-619. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Lerch, Michael K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Another Look at the Desert Mojave. Manuscript.

|}

Lockwood

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1872
|Report of Daniel W. Lockwood. Appendix A in ''Preliminary Report Concerning Explorations and Surveys Principally in Nevada and Arizona…1871'', edited by George M. Wheeler. Government Printing Office, Washington.

|}

Lyman, Leo

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|History of the Victor Valley. Manuscript, Archives, West Antelope Valley Historical Society, Lancaster, California.

|}

Manners, Robert A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1974
|''Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi: An Ethnohistorical Report''. Garland American Indian Ethnohistory Series.

|}

Mendenhall, W. C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1909
|''Some Desert Watering Places in Southeastern California and Southwestern Nevada''. United States Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 224,

|}

Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1797-1855''. Mission San Fernando Rey de España, San Fernando, California.

|}

Mission San Gabriel Arcangel

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|''Book I of Baptisms, 1773-1821''. Mission San Gabriel Arcangel, San Gabriel, California.

|}

Moapa Band

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2003
|Information provided by Moapa Band on the history and current development of the Moapa reservation community.

|}

Mollhausen, Baldwin

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
|1969 <nowiki>[</nowiki>1858<nowiki>]</nowiki>''
|Diary of A Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific, Vol. 2''. Johnson Reprint, New York.

|}

Morris, Lucie.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Interviews of Pioneer Residents of Antelope Valley and Surrounding Areas, circa 1935- 1937. Typescript.

|}

Nelson, E. W., Jr.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1891
|The Panamint and Saline Valley (Cal.) Indians. ''American Anthropologist'' 4(4):371-372.

|}

Palóu, Francisco

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|''Historical Memoirs of New California''. 4 Volumes. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

|}

Park, Willard Z., Edgar Siskin, Anne M. Cook, William T. Mulloy, Marvin K. Opler, Isabel T. Kelly, and Maurice L. Zigmond

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|Tribal Distribution in the Great Basin. ''American Anthropologist'' 40(4):622-638

|}

Parker, Patricia and Tom King

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1990
|Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

|}

Pauley, Joe

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Personal communication regarding procurement of desert tortoises in late1920s by himself and others in Muroc region for the urban market.

|}

Rhode, David

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2002
|''Native Plants of Southern Nevada: An Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

Roth, George

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|The Calloway Affair of 1880: Chemehuevi Adaptations and Chemehuevi-Mohave Relations. ''Journal of California Anthropology'' 4(2):273-286.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1927
|Central and North American Languages. ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' Volume 5, pp. 138-141. Encyclopedia Britannica Company, London and New York.

|}

Sapir, Edward

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
| 1930-1931
|The Southern Paiute Language. ''Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences'' 65(1-3). Boston.

|}

Schneider, Joan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1989
|The Archaeology of the Afton Canyon Site. ''San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly'' 36(1):1-161.

|}

Sebastian, Lynne

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1993
|''Protecting Traditional Cultural Properties Through the Section 106 Process''. CRM Vol. 16:22-26.

|}

Service, Elman R

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|''Primitive Social Organization''. Random House, New York.

|}

Settle, Glen and Dorene Settle

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1984
|''Antelope Valley Pioneers''. Rosamond: Kern-Antelope Historical Society, Inc.

|}

Shapiro, Judith

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Kinship In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.620-627. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Stanley , J. Q. A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="12%"
|1866-1867
|''Report of J. Q. A. Stanley, Special Indian Agent, Los Angeles, Ca. to Charles Maltby, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, California, August 5, 1866''. Report of the Secretary of the Interior. Executive Documents. Thirty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, pp. 102-103.

|}

Steward, Julian H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|Linguistic Distributions and Political Groups of the Great Basin Shoshoneans. ''American Anthropologist ''39:625-634.

|-
| 
|1938
|Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120.

|-
| 
|1955
|The Great Basin Shoshonean Indians. in ''Theory of Cultural Change'', by Julian H. Steward, pp. 101-121

|-
| 
|1977
|The Foundations of Basin-Plateau Shoshonean Society. In ''Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation'', Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy, eds., pp. 366-406.

|}

Stewart, Kenneth M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|Mohave. in ''Handbook of North American Indians'', Vol. 10, Southwest, Alfonso Ortiz, ed., pp.55-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution

|}

Stewart, Omer C.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1939
|The Northern Paiute Bands. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 2(3):127-149.

|-
| 
|1942
|Culture Element Distributions, XVIII: Ute-Southern Paiute. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 6(4):231-256. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1959
|Shoshone History and Social Organization. In ''Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of Americanists'', Vol. 2, pp. 132-142.

|}

Strong, William Duncan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|Aboriginal Society in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.

|}

Theodoratus, Dorothea, Geri Emberson, David White, Stephen W. Conkling, and Deborah McLean.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|''Death Valley National Park Cultural Affiliation Study''. LSA Associates. Submitted to Death Valley National Park, Contract No. 1443CX8130-96-003.

|}

Thomas, David Hurst, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Western Shoshone. In ''Handbook of North American Indians'': Vol. 11, Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp.262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, David G.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|''The Mohave Desert Region, California: A Geographic, Geologic, and Hydrologic Reconnaissance''. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 578. United States Department of the Interior, USGS, United States Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|}

Thompson, Richard and Kathryn Thompson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1995
|''Pioneer of the Mojave: The Life and Times of Aaron G. Lane''. Desert Knolls Press, Apple Valley, California.

|}

Turner, Raymond M.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1994
|Mojave Desertscrub. in ''Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico'', David E. Brown, ed., pp. 157-168. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

United States Decennial Census

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1880
|Population enumeration district enumeration sheets for Lookout and Resting Springs Precincts, Inyo County, California and Mountain Precinct, San Bernardino County, California. Tenth Decennial Census of the United States, State of California, Counties of Inyo and San Bernardino. Bureau of the Census, U.S, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

|}

Van Dyke, Dix

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Life on the Mojave River Valley: The Piutes of 1904. in Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., p. 41. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Van Valkenburgh, R. F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Chemehuevi Notes. Indian Claims Commission Docket 88 330. In: ''American Indian Ethnohistory, California and Basin Plateau Indians, Paiute Indians II'', pp. 225 253. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

|}

Vernon, Charles Clark

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1956
|A History of the San Gabriel Mountains. ''Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly'' 38(1): 39-60; 38(2): 141-166; 38(3): 263-296; 38(4): 373- 384.

|}

Voegelin, Erminie Wheeler

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1938
|''Tubatulabal Ethnography''. University of California Anthropological Records 2(1):1-84.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1996
|''Early Mines of the Southern Clark Mountains, the Northern Mescal Range and the Ivanpah Mountains. in Punctuated Chaos in the Northeastern Mojave Desert'', Robert E. and Jennifer Reynolds, ed., pp.67-72. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly 43(1-2): 1-155.

|}

Vredenburgh, Larry M., Gary L. Shumway, Russell D. Hartill

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Desert Fever: An Overview of Mining in the California Desert''. Living West Press, Canoga Park, California

|}

Walker, Clifford J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Back Door to California: The Story of the Mojave River Trail''. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

Whipple, Lieut. A. W., Thomas Eubank, Esq., and Prof. Wm. W. Turner.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|Report Upon the Indian Tribes. ''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Vol. 3, Part 3. US 33d Congress, 1st Session. Senate. Ex doc no. 29, Senate executive document (United States. Congress. Senate) ; 33rd Congress, 2nd session. Senate Exec. Doc. No. 78. Washington, D.C.

|}

Whitley, David S.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1998
|History and Prehistory of the Coso Range: The Native American Past on the Western Edge of the Great Basin. In ''Coso Rock Art, A New Perspective'', Elva Younkin, ed., pp.29-68. Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.

|}

Wilkie, Phillip and Harry W. Lawton

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''The Expedition of Capt. J. W. Davidson From Ft. Tejon to the Owens Valley in 1859''. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 8. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|}

Williamson, R. S., Lieut., Corps of Topographical Engineers.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1856
|''Reports of Explorations and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route For a Railroad From the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean''. Volume 5. Made under the direction of the Secretary of War in 1853-1854. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. Nicholson.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|n.d.
|Ethnographic Field Notes, Kawaiisu, ca. 1936-1974. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

|-
| 
|1938
|Kawaiisu Territory. In ''Tribal Distributions in the Great Basin'', by Willard Z. Park, et al., pp. 634-638. American Anthropologist 40(4).

|-
| 
|1941
|Ethnobotanical Studies Among California and Great Basin Shoshoneans. PhD Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

|-
| 
|1980
|''Kawaiisu Mythology: An Oral Tradition of South-Central California''. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 18. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico

|-
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu Ethnobotany''. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

|}

----

Zigmond, Maurice L. ''continued''

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|Kawaiisu. In ''Great Basin'', edited by Warren L. d<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, pp. 398-411. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Zigmond, Maurice, Curtis G. Booth, and Pamela Munro

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''Kawaiisu: A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts''. University of California Los Angeles, Institute of Linguistics. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

|}

Zeitelhack, June and Jan Zeitelhack La Barge

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Operations of the Pacific Coast Borax Company 1883-1907: Daggett, Marion, Borate, and the Borate-Daggett Railroad. in ''Once Upon a Desert: A Bicentennial Project'', Patricia Jernigan Keeling, ed., pp.96-104. Mojave River Valley Museum Association, Barstow, California.

|}

[[Category:Volume]][[Category:Volume 9]]

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:37:58Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:37:04Z

WikiSysop: /* Mexican Era (1822-1846) Mission Recruitment */

File:Vol9-fig3.png

2010-06-21T18:35:25Z

WikiSysop: Degree of Mission-Induced Depopulation in the South San Joaquin Analytic Zone.

Degree of Mission-Induced Depopulation in the South San Joaquin Analytic Zone.

File:Vol9-fig2.png

2010-06-21T18:34:23Z

WikiSysop: Community Distribution Model Regions by Language Group.

Community Distribution Model Regions by Language Group.

File:Vol9-fig1.png

2010-06-21T18:33:19Z

WikiSysop: South San Joaquin Analytical Zone with Regions.

South San Joaquin Analytical Zone with Regions.

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:32:01Z

WikiSysop: /* LANDHOLDING GROUPS OF THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN ZONE — YOKUTSAN, TUBATULABAL, AND WESTERN MONO SPEAKERS */

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:18:14Z

WikiSysop: /* Abstract */

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:15:44Z

WikiSysop: /* Abstract */

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:14:30Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:00:49Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T18:00:34Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

='''Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol9-cover.png|right|200px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==

VOLUME 1

2010-06-21T18:00:12Z

WikiSysop:

='''Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol1-cover.png|right|250px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==
The ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) reconstructs California Indian community ethnogeography at the time of Spanish settlement. The CDM package currently includes: (1) a GIS map layer portraying 663 independent landholding communities/year-round habitation regions; (2) a group of monographs documenting ethnogeographic information and sources for the regions; and (3) a mission register database tracking the vital statistics of individuals who moved to Franciscan missions from approximately 420 of the 663 native regions. The digital map and text are dynamic, designed to be used, updated, and revised by academic scholars, tribal scholars, government agency planners, and culture history interpreters.

Most of the CDM mapping regions—especially those across most of central California—represent the lands of true territorial sedentary village-communities or tribelets. Some other regions represent distinct clusters of loosely affiliated villages, sedentary in Northwest California but with extensive seasonal population shifts in areas east of the Sierra and in the dry inner Coast Ranges. Mapping regions in parts of southern California are merely arbitrary divisions applied for purposes of local vicinity analysis to portions of extensive open networks of small, inter-marrying village-groups. Confidence in the accuracy of the regions and their boundaries varies greatly due to differences in the richness of existing data and to differences in scholarly interpretations of those data.

The database, narratives, and regional boundaries are presented in a GIS application and Wiki format. This will allow future scholars to reconsider regional boundaries, to expand or annotate existing monographs, and to contribute new monographs for the currently unfinished areas.

==Introduction==
The ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) is a digital atlas and wiki encyclopedia that models the socio-political landscape of native California at the time of first contact with the Spanish, a rolling moment from the 1770s to the 1830s. The CDM atlas portrays a model distribution of 663 community ''regions'' (inferred or known village communities or tribelets) across California on a GIS digital map layer, divided into 14 ''analytical zones'' that combine regions on the basis of mutual histories, shared language, and similar land-use patterns. The associated encyclopedia consists of "wiki" monographs that gather together archival information for each of the community regions (i.e., presented within a collaborative website that allows for creation and controlled editing of interlinked web pages). An additional key element, a Mission Register database, provides locational information for the CDM regions from which the people were entirely removed to the Franciscan missions between 1770 and 1835. These separate elements together form the CDM (Figure 1).

The CDM Project is being developed by Dr. Randall Milliken for use by academic scholars, tribal scholars, government agency planners, and culture history interpreters. It brings together decades of research and mission record analysis. It has been produced by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. with support from a number of district environmental branches within the California Department of Transportation. As of spring 2010, monographs have been prepared for more than 80 of the regions, primarily in the San Francisco Bay area, the Sacramento Valley, and the San Joaquin Valley. Our future goal is to place the CDM within an academic setting so that the GIS map and wiki monographs will be available for further development—expansions, modifications, and annotations—by scholars knowledgeable about the contact-period ethnogeography of every local area of California.

===Project Purpose===
[[File:Vol1-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Creating the Community Distribution Model.]]California Indians at the time of Euro-American contact lived out their lives in local communities of a few score to a few hundred individuals. They interacted with their immediate neighbors on all sides, regardless of language differences, through reciprocal trading, participation in ceremonial events, and occasional hostilities. Early twentieth-century ethnographers documented such groups with some precision in areas of California that had avoided most of the initial negative impact of western expansion. A.L. Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" to characterize those groups that consisted of inter-married families that defended fixed territorial boundaries. However, the term "tribelet" pertained only to some regional groups (e.g., Pomo, Yokuts, Modoc, and Pit River), but not to more loosely organized ceremonial regions (e.g., Yurok). Nor is it clear that the term "tribelet" can be used for the mountains and deserts east and south of Los Angeles, where early twentieth-century field studies suggest that small villages formed around specific patrilocal lineages that intermarried in complex patterns on the land that precluded formation of multi-village socio-political identity.

No statewide "tribelet" map has ever been constructed for contact-period ethnographic California. Robert Heizer commented on that fact in his 1966 mapping project entitled ''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes'', a study that introduced the only composite statewide map of local groups based upon C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s many field notes, and compared against A.L. Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1925 map of the language groups of California. At the time, Heizer (1966:9) wrote:

<blockquote>Kroeber estimates that California held between 500 and 600 … <nowiki>’</nowiki>independent and separate definable groups.<nowiki>’</nowiki> It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets. Such a task is far too complex and time-consuming to be attempted here.</blockquote>

The digital process used in the CDM makes it easier than ever before to create a statewide map of contact-period California ethnogeography:

* We are not committed to a published, static, one-size map.
* It is especially valuable for mapping communities mentioned in mission records that can only be located indirectly and tentatively by date of baptism and marriage ties.
* The digital map can be modified as scholars examine the implications of one or another interpretation of the archival record for a given local area; i.e., the network placement of groups in relation to one mission may need to be redesigned when the inferred pattern is compared with those developed for the communities of adjacent missions.

===Assessing the Regional Model===
[[File:Vol1-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Analytical Zones within California.]]The specific regions draw attention to the local nature of everyday life in pre-European times and allow us a comparative perspective on the level of ethnographic knowledge. Many of the regions do approximate the year-round use-areas of tribelets or loose regional communities. In other cases a model region may inadvertently split the territory of some "real" past groups, or present the areas of separate groups as though they were one. There is no doubt, however, that pre-European California people lived out most of their lives within regions of the size presented by the CDM model, and that they interacted with neighbors in contiguous regions and knew much less about more distant groups.

It is a down side of this "cubby hole" approach that some readers will fail to read caveats presented here and believe that the regional boundaries are all precisely documented local group borders. But that problem is less serious than the tyranny of "language group as tribe" that informs the understanding of the public and some scholars today. The upside of the model presented here lies in its exposure of the variation in quality of ethnographic information from one region to the next and in its flexibility for adding new information about regions and their possible boundaries through in-depth local studies. In the future, thorough studies of one region, or a group of contiguous regions, might be the subject of entire academic symposia or doctoral dissertations.

==Ethnographic Landholding Groups in California==
The groups of California Indians portrayed on historic tribal maps of the United States—Cahuilla, Chumash, Pomo, Washoe, and dozens of others—are actually language groups, delineated and named by western scholars. Landholding groups in California at the time of European contact were local communities—people closely bound by blood, marriage, and proximity of residence. Anthropologist A.L. Kroeber introduced the term "tribelet" in 1932 for the type of territorial multi-family landholding community that prevailed across most of California. At the end of his career Kroeber considered the tribelet to be one of four landholding group types, the other three being: (1) small, ceremonially linked village clusters of northwest California; (2) small, single-lineage villages in the southern desert; and (3) high-population Colorado River multi-village tribes (Kroeber 1955, 1962; see also Bean 1978; Gifford 1926; Heizer 1966). While these general categories are maintained here, we have used broader terminology to identify them and have assigned groups to slightly different categories than identified by Kroeber (1955, 1962).

* ''Tribelets''
::Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Ohlone, Achomawi, Rumsen Costanoan; some Patwin, Pomo, and Yokuts; perhaps Plains Miwok and Nomlaki.

* ''Loose Regional Communities ''(includes Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s ceremonially linked villages)
::Washoe, Hupa, Karok, Yurok

* ''Completely Unbounded Networks of Small, Single-Lineage Villages''
::Uto-Aztecan, Ipai/Tipai; perhaps Sierra Miwok, Hill Nisenan, Hill Northwest Maidu, Yana

* ''Ambiguously Bounded Regions of Large Sedentary Villages''
::Sacramento Valley (Patwin and Maidu), Santa Barbara Channel (Coastal and Island Chumash), and Colorado River (Cocopa, Mohave, Yuma)

===The Tribelet===
Local tribelets had fixed territories, a single head person, and a large enough population (200 or more people) to have been at least 50% endogamous. They varied in number and relative size of villages. Most Patwin, Pomo, Valley Nisenan, Valley Northwest Maidu, and Yokuts tribelets seem to have had capital villages and outlying suburbs (Kunkel 1962). Some Patwin, Pomo, and Yokuts tribelets, and all Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok, and San Francisco Bay area Ohlone tribelets had multiple villages of relatively even size (Milliken 1995:20-24), as perhaps did the Plains Miwok (Bennyhoff 1977) and the Nomlaki (Kroeber 1932:373).

Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" for multi-family political communities that held most of the California landscape. He summarized his thinking about the tribelet and lineage as follows in a 1955 monograph:

<blockquote>The tribelet was first called the "village community" in the ethnological literature, to distinguish it from the village as a mere physical settlement; and its size was underestimated at only around 100 members. Later, I deliberately coined the name tribelet to designate it as a sovereign though miniature political unit, which was land-owning and maintained its frontiers against unauthorized trespass. At the average of 250-300, there would have been a full 500 tribelets in the later American state of California (Kroeber 1955:307-308).</blockquote>

Kroeber (1962:34-36) described three case studies of California tribelets to illustrate local variation in tribelet size and population density:

#Pomo-speaking tribelets of the North Coast Ranges averaged 240 persons in territories about ten miles by ten miles in size, for a population density of 2.4 persons per square mile.
#Yokuts-speaking tribelets of the San Joaquin Valley averaged 350 members each in territories about four times larger, with a suggested population density of 1.4 persons per square mile.
#Achomawi-speaking tribelets of northeast California contained about 275 persons and held such large territories that their populations were only 0.5 persons per square mile (when both their restricted winter territories and expanded summer territories are included).

===Loose Regional Communities===
Loose regional communities are clusters of family groups that shared numerous short-term villages within tribelet-sized regions that lacked defended boundaries and central leadership. The loose regional community model is well illustrated by the Washoe language group (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:485). Among the Washoe, daily life and the yearly life cycle revolved around two levels of community—the local village level and the regional multi-village level. The local village community, the basic unit of social organization, was a group of closely related households that shared the same winter camp and identified with a single local leader. The Washoe themselves referred to this local village community level as "the bunch." A local community populated one winter village that generally consisted of a cluster of two to ten houses. While the local community did not spend the entire year together in that single village, it did consider itself the basic cooperative unit for communal hunts, defense, and group ceremonial expression year-round. Membership in "bunches" was fluid, as individuals and families often shifted residence temporarily or permanently "to the households of other relatives in the same or a distant community" (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:483).

The Washoe regional community included all the local communities within a region approximately 10-15 miles in diameter. An example regional community included the four local communities of the Woodfords-Markleeville area of Alpine County, California. Together the four local communities formed the "dwellers in the corner where rivers flow away out" regional community (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:468). Constituent local communities united into regional communities "by identification with place and by loose ties of kinship and constituted a population of hundreds of persons with whom there was some degree of familiarity and mutual trust" (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:484). The regional community, as a cluster of local communities, had a number of headmen, but in ethnographic times it seldom acted as a single political unit.

In Northwest California the speakers of Hupa, Karok, and Yurok lived in numerous small villages along major rivers. Nuclear families were stratified between the wealthy and the poor. Extended family lineage affiliation did not seem to be important. Nor did groups of hamlets cluster into local landholding tribelets under centralized political authority. However, there was some regional organization at the ceremonial level:

<blockquote>There were practiced a series of "world-renewal" rituals, each made separately and with a fair measure of differentiation, at designated spots, and supported by the inhabitants of a recognized tract surrounding the sacred spots. Both in extent and in population these tracts resemble tribelets <nowiki>[</nowiki>Kroeber 1955:311<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

===Unbounded Networks of Small Single-Lineage Villages===
A third form of land use was based upon small, semi-sedentary villages of 40-100 inhabitants that intermarried with near neighbors in overlapping spheres of outreach that extended for great distances, without establishing any tribelet-sized regions. Such land-use patterns were clearly present among many Uto-Aztecan groups of southern California, probably among the Ipai/Tipai of San Diego County, and perhaps among the Sierra Miwok, Hill Nisenan, Hill Northwest Maidu, and Yana. In all these areas, evidence is either lacking or contradictory for fixed territorial tribelets. Populations lived in numerous small villages, many with their own ceremonial dance houses, scattered along ridges and in favorable valleys. The marriage networks of such communities overlapped with one another. Under this form of organization, each local village was politically independent, but each was so small that it was completely exogamous to near neighbors, much smaller than the 10-15-mile-diameter areas of classic Yokuts or Pomo tribelets. The independence of each local village community is upheld in the classic works of Kroeber (1925) and Strong (1929) for southern California as a whole, as well as a later study by Bean (1972) for the Cahuilla. Villages had complex intermarriage patterns driven by moiety considerations among the Uto-Aztecans (Bean 1972; Strong 1929). However, blanket terms were not applied to distinct multi-village communities because distinct multi-village regions do not seem to have existed:

<blockquote>The California lineage group was what the name implies, a line of male kinsmen who were autonomous in a territory sufficient to support them. They took their wives from and married their daughters into other lineages. The bonds of kinship might be transcended if one lineage became reduced and took refuge with another. A desert or infertile habitat, necessitating a spread of population, tended to preserve political organization on the lineage basis. Contrarily, in habitats rich in food, it is presumed that several lineages tended to coalesce into permanent village—that is tribelets <nowiki>[</nowiki>Kroeber 1955:308<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

===Ambiguously Bounded Regions of Large Sedentary Villages===
The last of the four land-use regions are the two areas of California where there were closely spaced, large permanent villages, each seemingly independent of the other, but so close together that they must have shared hinterlands in different ways than the classic Yokuts or Pomo tribelets. These two areas were the central Sacramento Valley (Patwin and Maidu) and the Santa Barbara Channel (Coastal and Island Chumash).

Similarly, tribelet-level regional differentiation seems to have been absent along the Colorado River, including southern California. Groups of 2,000 to 3,000 farming people (Cocopa, Mohave, Yuma) held tracts of riverine lands far more extensive than any of the small lineage or tribelet areas elsewhere in California. During the Spanish era in the southwest these groups were capable of mobilizing under a central leadership to make war upon one another. Yet, "it is possible that even these tribes were conglomerations of earlier tribelets," Kroeber (1955:310) suggested.

===Summary for Land-Use Types===
These different land-using groups are one aspect to be considered when delineating regional boundaries. There is the contrast between sedentary groups with fixed boundaries (tribelets) and mobile groups with fluid boundaries (loose regional communities). Then there are small, single-lineage villages with overlapping outreach areas (single-lineage villages), in contrast to closely spaced, independent villages with shared hinterlands (ambiguously bounded large villages).

We discuss how these landholding groups were used to create regional boundaries in [[VOLUME 1#BUILDING THE COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION MODEL|Section 1.5]].

==Franciscan Mission Registers and Ethnogeography==
This chapter describes the use of Franciscan mission records of baptism, marriage, and burial for reconstructing the local-level ethnogeographic tribal landscape. These mission records are the only systematic source for such reconstructions for a large portion of California. By the 1830s all tribal people of the San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles basin, the South Coast Ranges, the Delta, and the western side of the San Joaquin Valley—more than 50,000 people—had left their lands and moved to the missions. The mission records contain the only information regarding the original home groups of the vast majority of those people. And because the missionaries were obliged to document basic information about each individual that they baptized, the mission registers provide a systematic and nearly comprehensive tally of native groups for much of California.

Of the 663 CDM mapping regions identified in California, 420 are in areas that were completely or partially disrupted by the Franciscan mission system. Unfortunately, the mission record data on native homelands is uneven and often opaque for most of those areas. Missionaries did write down the names of thousands of communities that they called "rancherias," but they seldom clarified whether they were referring to a specific village, on the one hand, or a regional multi-village group on the other. Nor did they often provide explicit clues regarding the locations of the communities they listed. This chapter describes the techniques that have been developed over time to overcome these and other weaknesses in the mission register ethnogeographic information.

===Rancherias in the Mission Register===
[[File:Vol1-fig4.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 3. Father Serra<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Leather-bound, Mission Carmel Libro de Confirmaciones. Diocese of Monterey Chancery Archives, Monterey.
]][[File:Vol1-fig5.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 4. Record of the First Baptism Performed by Father Serra, listed in Mission San Carlos Borromeo<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Libro de Bautismos. Bernardino de Jesus of the Rumsen Tribe, Born in the Achista Rancheria.]]When the Spanish missionaries arrived in California, they brought with them leather-bound books within which they were enjoined by church and state to record key information about each of their Indian converts (Figure 3). At baptism, each individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name, newly bestowed Spanish name, and inferred age was transcribed in a dated entry next to a unique sequential baptismal identification number (Figure 4). Beyond basic date, name, age, and "serial number," individual missionaries varied in what they wrote about baptized individuals. The vast majority of missionaries provided names of the baptized person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home community. Confirmations, marriages, and deaths were also recorded, each in their own dedicated books. Stella Clemence, one of C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s assistants, extracted lists of the named rancherias for most missions just prior to 1920, published under the editorship of Robert Heizer (Merriam 1955, 1968, 1970).

Alternate spellings of rancheria names by different priests are a major problem as they can be quite extreme. This issue can be aided by bringing together the mission register information for nuclear and extended families so that names spelled out by different priests over many years can be seen at one time. In central California, for example, approximately 4,000 distinctly spelled rancheria names are listed in the registers of baptism, burial, and marriage of the 11 Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano south to San Miguel). These can be reduced to 1,300 names when alternative spellings of specific rancheria names are recognized. The processes of re-sorting mission register information by family group and of tracking "standardized" rancheria names in specific mission register entries will be documented in subsequent sections of this chapter.

A problem in understanding the socio-political meaning of the many rancheria names is that of synonymy. Some missionaries labeled groups by the name of the group<nowiki>’</nowiki>s headman, others labeled them by the name of their largest village, and still others named them by some directional or regional term. One missionary might label a group by a word used by its neighbors of a different language, while another might name the same group by a label that it called itself; this was common among groups that sent people to more than one mission. Through study of extended family groups, some synonymous rancheria names become apparent.

Another problem in interpreting the socio-political landscape from mission register information is that of scale. It has been mentioned that the word "rancheria" means "community." From the earliest days of exploration in California, Spanish diarists used the term in describing specific villages, or clusters of grass houses, inhabited by the tribal people they encountered. That usage corresponds to the modern Spanish-English dictionary definition of rancheria as "a collection of huts, like a hamlet" (Velásquez 1974:551). But the English term "community" can also mean a group of people who share a number of villages within a fixed territory, and the Spanish term "rancheria" came to be used that way in California as well (Milliken 1987:59, 1995:21, 233). Both in military diaries and in the mission records, the term "rancheria" may signify either a specific village or the community of shared identity that utilizes one or more specific villages. This conflation of two meanings partially explains why some rancheria names appear only five or six times in all the mission registers, while others appear hundreds of times.

In sum, some rancheria names in mission records refer to mobile bands, others represent specific sedentary villages, and still others represent the names of multi-village regions. The process that has developed over time to overcome problems of scale and synonymy in the mission registers, to track individuals as members of identifiable communities (distinct single village or multi-village groups), and to choose "standard" names for those groups, will be discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

===Pioneering Mission Register Studies===
[[File:Vol1-fig6.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 5. Map showing the Progressive Collapse of Autonomous Tribal Areas during the Years 1790 to 1806.]][[File:Vol1-fig7.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 6. Marriage Ties Between the Chupcan and Their Nearest Neighbors Based on Baptisms of Married Couples at Mission San Francisco and Mission San Jose, 1795-1811.
]]Ethnogeographies in the mission outreach areas of California now universally rely on mission register data. In this section we review the development of those kinds of studies from the 1850s forward. Beginning with Alexander Taylor in the 1860s, scholars interested in California ethnogeography have mined the mission records in search group names, then mapped ostensible home locations on the ground. Egbert Schenack referred to mission records in his 1926 study of the groups of the California Delta. Historical demographer Sherburne F. Cook produced studies that combined counts of group populations from the mission registers with other historical clues to improve understanding of many homeland areas (Cook 1955).

James A. Bennyhoff advanced mission register study by making two of Cook<nowiki>’</nowiki>s approaches explicit. He wrote:

<blockquote>By plotting the tribelet names and the numbers baptized against the years, a significant constellation appears for each tribelet by which one can judge the approximate distance from the mission and the year of most intensive contact <nowiki>[</nowiki>Bennyhoff (1977:20<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Modern mission register-based ethnogeography follows three principles discussed by Bennyhoff:

* Rancherias close to missions generally sent their people for baptism earlier than villages at greater distances, resulting in a "domino" effect outward from each mission.
* Rancherias near one another had a greater number of intermarriages than rancherias separated by great distances (the basis for "marriage pattern" studies of group proximity).
* Rancherias that sent people to two or more missions usually existed in areas equidistant between the missions in question. (This rule does not apply north of San Francisco Bay due to the complex history of mission development and outreach in that area.)
When the "wave-front" of mission outreach is mapped, the relative distance of otherwise-unlocated groups baptized in specific years can be determined (Figure 5). The "marriage pattern" technique looks for strongly intermarried groups, then infers that such groups may have held lands contiguous to one another (Figure 6). Bennyhoff (1977) used a combination of these two techniques, together with clues from classical ethnography, to map ethnographic central California.

In southern California, Alan K. Brown (1967) pioneered the rigorous use of mission register clues to help determine Chumash village sizes and locations. While Brown did not systematically evaluate quantitative family links among villages, he carefully extracted quotations from specific baptismal entries to emphasize inter-village relationships that supported locational surmises. Techniques introduced by Bennyhoff and Brown were further developed by Chester King. King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1969, 1975) initial studies of Chumash village locations and their populations relied on J. P. Harrington<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1986) field notes, other early texts, and aggregative summaries of Santa Barbara County vicinity mission register entries. King (1973) also gleaned information from the Mission San Juan Bautista registers for T. King and Hickman<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1973) reconstruction of tribelet locations in the Mission San Juan Bautista vicinity.

===Family Reconstitution to Solve Rancheria Riddles===
[[File:Vol1-fig8.png|200|right|thumb|Figure 7. Family Reconstitution Chart: Onesimo and Maria de Los Angeles Baylon.]]One common flaw in early ethnogeographic studies that used mission register data was the failure to overcome "scale" and "synonymy" problems. Schenck (1926) failed to recognize that the "Tarquines" of one source were a conflation of the Karkins and Tauquimnes of the mission records. Kroeber (1963) made the same mistake, conflating the Chilamne and Cholvon of the mission records into the non-existent "Chulamni." Bennyhoff (1977) gave some very small "hamlet" groups equal space on the land with very large multi-village regional groups.

The backbone technique for identification and resolution of such problems is the family reconstitution method. Family reconstitution, first introduced for social geography studies in Europe (Henry 1976; Wrigley 1966), is the process of amalgamating dispersed bits of information about individuals, married couples, and extended families into composite information sets (Figure 7). In mission register studies, family kinship charts are reconstituted from various register entries, resulting in composite data sets that illuminate: (1) synonymous terms for rancherias; (2) relationships of rancherias that are villages to rancherias that are regional names; (3) patterns of intermarriage among communities; (4) timing of family and community movements to missions; and (5) numerous demographic processes that do not emerge from aggregative mission register studies.

Family reconstitution was first applied to California mission data sets by Chester King (King 1974, 1977, 1978). King constructed kinship charts, exposed alternative names of villages that sent people to more than one mission, and increased the number of identified inter-village marriages. The reconstituted evidence allowed King to infer the locations of poorly documented Northern Chumash locations around Mission San Luis Obispo.

Other researchers soon began constructing kinship charts following King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s lead (Horne 1981; Milliken 1981). John Johnson (1982) documented marriage relationships among Santa Barbara Channel Island villagers and between them and mainland populations. Randall Milliken (1981) used mission register information to identify the relationship between the Rumsen tribelet of the Carmel Valley and its five constituent villages. John Johnson (1988:248-288) applied quantitative techniques borrowed from social-network analysis and cultural geography to examine inter-village social relationships among Chumash of the Santa Barbara Channel. Johnson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s diagrams of inter-group interaction, for all people baptized from forty Chumash towns and villages within the Santa Ynez Valley and along the Santa Barbara Channel coast, suggest some alternate ethnogeographic placements to those in King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1984 study.

Milliken (1991) used Bennyhoff<nowiki>’</nowiki>s indirect mission register techniques, as well as family reconstitution, to identify San Francisco Bay area group locations and local group migrations to missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose between 1777 and 1810 in a work subsequently published as ''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810 ''(Milliken 1995). During the same time period, Chester King (1994) applied family reconstitution methods to Mission Santa Cruz register data to examine inter-group marriage patterns in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Beginning in 1993, a team of ethnohistorians led by Johnson and C. King conducted a comprehensive study of Chumash ethnogeography, marriage patterns, and family survival into the American period. The team built a six-mission database that included information on all baptized Indian people from Chumash territories between missions San Fernando and San Luis Obispo. The database was used by McLendon and Johnson (1999) to document the genealogical relationships between the Spanish-contact Chumash and the Chumash people of the twentieth century. In that study, McLendon and Johnson (1999:31) used an enhanced version of the domino and marriage pattern principles to re-evaluate village locations within the Northern Chumash region (the Mission San Luis Obispo outreach area), adjusting King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1984 map of that western Santa Barbara/southwestern San Luis Obispo county area.

===Computers for Mission Register Data Management===
====Initial Development of Computer Databases====
The base data for the present CDM process in the coastal portions of California south of the Russian River are computerized mission records that augment family reconstitution and contain fields that assign individuals and married couples to groups with standardized group names. Computer databases have been key tools in California ethnogeography since the mid-1980s. Gary Coombs (1975) was the first person to use a computer database to track and cross-refer thousands of bits of information in the mission registers. For his Ph.D. dissertation, Coombs used computer punch cards to collate and sort information about the history of baptism of Chumash villages in the present Santa Barbara County area. A short time later, Milliken (1981) developed computer punch card sets for the first 800 baptisms at Mission Carmel and the first 1,800 baptisms at Mission Dolores (Milliken 1983). Johnson (1988:248-288) used the database to apply quantitative techniques on the Santa Barbara Channel.

Milliken moved the Mission Carmel and Mission Dolores data from punch cards to a dBASE database format in the early 1980s, then continued to expand the Mission Dolores database in the late 1980s to include information on more than 5,000 individuals. The Mission Carmel database aided construction of kinship charts for people from rancherias whose members went to Mission Carmel from Esselen-speaking areas in the northern Santa Lucia Range and the Salinas River Valley (Milliken 1990). For other projects, including his dissertation, Milliken developed separate databases for all 11 of the central California missions from San Miguel north to San Francisco Solano from 1988 to 2004.

====Current Comprehensive Databases====
Rapid development in mission register digitization since the year 2002 has led to the emergence of two distinct comprehensive California mission databases. One is the Early California Population Project (ECPP) database, with more than 100,000 records available on-line through the Huntington Library in San Marino, California. That system was developed by historian Steve Hackel, with initial design advice from John Johnson and Randall Milliken, among others. The ECPP database, while excellent for genealogical research, lacks rigorous standardization of "rancheria" information and does not tie rancheria names to actual locations on the ground.

The second comprehensive California mission register database, and the one utilized for this report, is the California Mission Database built by Randall Milliken. It took form in 2006, when Milliken consolidated the series of independent mission-specific databases he had built over the years for the 11 central California missions into a single Microsoft ACCESS database. One of the key tables is the records for baptisms, also called the "Individuals" table (see Appendix Table A-1). In 2007 John Johnson allowed Milliken to modify the structure of Johnson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Santa Barbara Database (six missions from San Fernando to San Luis Obispo) and consolidate it (for limited research purposes) into Milliken<nowiki>’</nowiki>s ACCESS database structure. The result is the Mission Database, consisting of records up through the year 1840 for the 17 missions from San Fernando north to San Francisco Solano. The Missions Database has an individuals table that includes 55,603 records representing 32,375 tribal converts, 13,696 mission-born California Indians, 7,919 non-Indians, and 1,543 records marking duplicate or skipped entries. This table also contains linked death records of 33,210 death records of the baptized people except in the case of non-Indian immigrants baptized elsewhere. Finally, a separate table includes 16,333 marriage records (14,689 Indian couples, 1,535 Hispanic and other foreign couples, and 109 Hispanic/Indian couples) cross-referenced to the combined baptisms/deaths table.

As of 2010, the Missions Database also contains a separate "Regions" table that cross-links to the 663 GIS-mapped California habitation regions (see Appendix Table A-2). The Regions Table in the Missions Database also cross-links internally to baptismal records in the Individuals Table through a "Regions" field. The nature and use of the "regions" concept is explained in next chapter of this document.

==Building the Community Distribution Model==
This chapter presents how the CDM of ethnographic California, with 663 year-round habitation regions, was built. The first section illustrates how the model marks off a large segment of California that did not support year-round populations. Then we show the variation of regional identification from one portion of California to another due to differences in the nature of political communities and in the nature and quality of the information available today. The final portion of this chapter points out the results of printed and digital products and explains the reason for building a structure with both local region monographs and 14 analytic zone reports. Details of computer use in this process are laid out in Appendix B.

===Delineating Seasonal-Use Areas===
It is for the most part neither necessary nor desirable to delineate small local regions for parts of California that were not utilized intensively year-round, i.e., parts that were either covered with snow for much of the winter or very dry for much of the summer. These areas were utilized seasonally by people who lived in hospitable landscapes directly bordering them. Identified in the CDM as "seasonal regions," these harsh landscapes tend to be larger, as mapping units, than the regions that had year-round inhabitants. They are further distinguished from the year-round regions as they were often shared, and occasionally contested, by people from multiple year-round regions, often speaking different languages.

For cismontane California, the CDM upland boundary has been set at 2,780 feet elevation at the Oregon border, rising to 5,800 feet elevation at the Mexican border. As one travels ten miles north or south, the upland boundary moves downward or upward some 45 feet. This is due to changing day length and solar radiation exposure. It is, of course, only a general rule; distance from the ocean, weather patterns, and local topography render reality much less orderly. Nevertheless, the CDM boundary rule works for cismontane California because it was based upon the actual distribution of ethnographic villages in uplands across California. The rule has been ignored in the Pit River watershed and areas of transmontane California north and east of Walker Pass; in those areas year-round villages existed at elevations of 1,000 feet or more, higher than those over the mountains to the west.

Of special note, there are some places in California where small numbers of people seem to have been willing to live in very harsh environments year-round. These areas are all in transmontane upland and desert California. The Truckee Mono Lake regions are examples, as is the Mojave Desert. Most of these were at great distances from the typical year-round regions of California, suggesting an alternative, and more efficient, adaptation than the yearly "transhumance" found elsewhere in the state.

===Shaping Year-Round Local Group Regions===
Four different approaches were taken to delineating regions based upon two different sets of variables. One key variable is the nature of the land-using organization. Region determination is a different activity in areas where people lived in bounded territories (e.g., Pomo, Pit River, Yurok) than in areas were no regional territories seem to have existed (e.g., Cahuilla, Foothill Nisenan).

The second key variable is the nature of the data. The problems and opportunities for reconstructing ethnogeography are much different in areas strongly impacted by mission outreach (west central and west southern California) than in areas where the available information emerges primarily from classical ethnographic fieldwork (northern and eastern California).

In all four types of areas, the digital mapping process is preceded by working with small paper disks of known villages and groups placed on a large map. From that point forward, the decisions about coalescence of locations and placement of region boundaries is highly variable. Below, the different kinds of data and mapping procedures are summarized; Volumes 2-15 fully document these procedures for each analysis zone.

====Bounded Regions North and East of Mission Areas====
The following areas were the subject of good field ethnography that established core homelands, and in some cases mapped specific boundaries (some porous, others strict) between distinct territorial groups:

:4. Modoc speakers around Tule Lake and Palaihnihan speakers of the Pit River drainage, northeast California.
:5. Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, and Hupa lands, from the Eureka vicinity to the Oregon border in northwest California.
:6. Most North Coast Range areas where Pomo and Yukian languages were spoken (the exception being the missionized Santa Rosa Plain and northern Napa County near the San Francisco Bay area).
:7. East side of the South San Joaquin Valley and adjacent Sierran foothills where Yokuts languages, Mono and Tubatulabal, were spoken.
:8. Lake Tahoe vicinity, where Washoe group winter territories were politically unbounded but well-defined.
:9. Owens Valley where Mono/Northern Paiute groups had loose territorial boundaries.

In all these areas, regional boundaries are drawn with confidence that they generally reflect a factual ethnographic situation.

====Open Village Networks and Ambiguous Regions North and East of Mission Areas====
For large areas of California, field ethnographers gathered dozens of village names and locations, but found little or contradictory evidence of regional coalescence and boundedness. Such areas include:

#Athabascan-speaking portions of the North Coast Ranges in the Eel River drainage.
#Yana, Nomlaki, and Wintu areas of the northern Sacramento River drainage.
#River Patwin, Northwest Maidu, and Valley Nisenan villages of the Sacramento Valley (said to be tribelets, but boundaries absolutely opaque).
#The entire Sierra Nevada from the Feather River south to the headwaters of the San Joaquin River.
#The Kawaiisu area south of the Kern River.
#Shoshone and Southern Paiute-speaking areas of desert southeast California.
#The Mountain and Desert Cahuilla areas from San Gorgonio Pass to the south and east.

In areas where flexible home-base groups varied in size and locations from year to year, and sent their people far out into the Mojave Desert seasonally, we have divided the "year-round" habitation portion of the landscape into "tribelet-sized" regions to bring focus to what local ethnographic clues are available and to consider differences from one local region to another. These types of regions have significant year-round wells or springs and are often adjacent to uplands covered in snow for parts of the winter.

For the basin and range north of Mojave River, Panamint and Chemehuevi people had such flexibility that the concept of seasonal "home bases" may not even apply. Nevertheless, we have attempted to isolate regions that had the best resources for semi-permanent camping sites all year-round, and to leave the surrounding areas as "flexible use areas."

====Mission-Impacted Areas that were Bounded Territories====
[[File:Vol1-fig9.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 8. Ethnographic Regions by Major Language Group.
]][[File:Vol1-fig10.png|200|thumb|right|Figure 9. Variation in Mission-Induced Depopulation across California.]][[File:Vol1-fig11.png|200|thumb|right|
Figure 10. Ethnographic Regions by Tentative Population Density.]]In some of the areas of California hard-hit by mission proselytization, mission record sources clearly identify multi-village regional groups. However, they seldom provide much indication of their core areas or the boundary locations. The areas include:

#The San Francisco Bay Costanoan/Ohlone, Bay Miwok, and Coast Miwok speaking groups.
#The Plains Miwok and Yokuts groups of the Delta and central riverine corridor of the San Joaquin Valley.
#Some southern Costanoan-Ohlone groups of the Monterey Bay area, all Esselen groups, and some Salinan groups of the South Coast Ranges.
#Takic speakers of the Los Angeles Basin and the San Luis Rey area.

It is easiest to map such groups in vicinities that have geographic boundaries, such as the San Francisco and Marin peninsulas. In all other areas, regions are inferred using classic indirect mission register analysis.

====Mission-Impacted Areas with Numerous Independent Villages====
Mission records give no indication at all of the presence of multi-village regional groups in some areas of west-central and southern California. Areas include:

#Coast Miwok-speaking areas of western Marin County along Tomales Bay in the San Francisco Bay area.
#Much of the densely populated Chumash-speaking Santa Barbara Channel.
#Serrano Takic-speaking areas along the north edge of the San Gabriel Mountains.
#Luiseño Takic-speaking areas around Mission San Juan Capistrano and eastward toward San Jacinto.
#Ipai/Tipai-speaking village areas through San Diego County.

Although all these areas are listed together, the mapping problems that each present are unique. The techniques and results for each will be discussed in appropriate Analysis Zone volumes.

===Regions and Analysis zones===
After factoring in landholding community types, Franciscan mission registers of baptism and death, rancheria delineation, domino effects of missionization, marriage patterns, family reconstitution, mortality rates, inferred population densities, classical ethnographies, and seasonal-use areas, we have delineated 663 year-round local group regions in California. These are locations on the landscape that represent the known or inferred homeland of contact-period communities. The quantity of mapping regions, their sizes, and their precise boundaries, as presented here, underwent many changes during an iterative process, and will continue to change with future research.

We have grouped these regions into 14 analysis zones on the basis of mutual histories, shared language, and similar land-use patterns (Figure 8). The zones also combine some of the various factors that can affect region delineation, such as community types, the quality of mission record data, and the variation of ethnographic field data.

Appendix C presents the current array of 663 regions, broken down by analysis zone. Although the region count is larger than the 500 suggested by twentieth-century authors, it certainly is in the same order of magnitude. It is impossible to know how close the CDM model approaches ethnographic reality in the absence of a completely accurate survey in the year 1770. Thus the model can be criticized, even rejected, by perfectionists. But one of its main points is to illuminate assumptions about group locations and stimulate careful review of the evidence behind each of those assumptions.

====Naming Conventions for Regions and Native Groups====
An attempt was made to be systematic in applying name labels, both the modern geographic regional names and the chosen "tribal" group labels, for the regions. For the modern regional names, an attempt was made to pick something broadly recognizable, usually the largest town in the region. In rural areas a geographic feature, such as a creek or mountain peak, was used as a label, always one that is recognized by Google Maps. Modern rancheria names were typically not chosen, in order to reduce any fuzzy area between the ethnographic information and the map locations of today.

In choosing the ethnographic tribal or "rancheria" group label for each region, a probably hopeless attempt was made to minimize controversy and best reflect the preponderance of evidence that might be portrayed in a well-developed monograph. There is little problem in areas with minimal ethnographic data where only one field ethnographer worked; the name supplied by that source is used. Where two ethnographers supplied very different group names, but both with merit (e.g., Kroeber and Merriam), the label chosen followed that of the earliest (or only) formal publication.

In mission-impacted regions where only mission register group names are known, the most common spelling of a group in the Spanish orthography of the mission registers was used as the label. In other cases, where the published literature has slightly modified the spelling, the published standard was used (most common for Yokuts-speaking groups that went to the missions).

===Results as Digital Data===
Regional attributes can be used to generate numerous maps that will aid in the task of moving between close local study and analysis of broad regional patterns, another goal of the CDM. Two maps generated from those attributes are presented here, as a matter of illustration, rather than full explanation. Figure 9 shows the relative impact of the missions in the regions. Figure 10 is a draft representation of the population density of contact-period California.

==Moving Forward with the CDM==
The Community Distribution Model is a program, rather than a final product, for mapping and documenting the geography of the local socio-political groups of ethnographic (western-contact) period California. Kroeber (1962:3) estimated that there were 500 to 600 independent definable political groups in the State. Heizer pointed out in 1966 that no systematic attempt had yet been made to map such groups, due to the "huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians" (1966:9). He anticipated, however, that future scholars would map out the domains of those groups across the state. The CDM sets out along the path to accomplish that goal.

As it turns out, the goal of a perfect map of contact-period California local tribe areas can never be reached. One reason is that there are irreparable holes in the ethnographic record and the other reason is that there were areas of California that were not organized into definable local political groups. Recognizing these problems, the current version of the CDM separates the state into 663 lowland year-round local group regions, many of which are based on strong data, some of which are reconstructed from opaque data, and a few of which have been cut out from the landscape in the absence of any real data, just so that the map can be finished and local ethnographers can be challenged to fix it.

The concept of "editing and fixing" is critical to the CDM. The project is set up so that the groups and their regions are, or will be, described, defended, and questioned, in "wiki" text documents to which proven scholars from academia, tribal communities, and agencies will be able to improve on the work through primary field notes of the early ethnographers. When consensus is reached among the scholars in certain zones of the state, the GIS model boundaries themselves can be changed to reflect this improved knowledge. There will be problems, especially in defining and mapping the parts of California where small local village groups intermarried in overlapping outreach areas across wide landscapes, without developing true central leadership and territorial boundaries comparable to the Pomo or Yokuts groups of central California.

In summary, the CDM can be utilized in the future in the following areas:

* Bibliographic source: a place to check for references when conducting studies in any local region.
* Forum for working out conflicting ethnogeographic interpretations, using the consensus rules of Wikipedia Commons.
* Model for historic demography studies: separate data columns can be used to build and map regional population densities under alternative assumptions.
* Model for geographical social interaction studies: evidence on endogamous and exogamous marriage patterns can be translated to a map model, and tied to studies of genetic and cultural flow over time.
* Model for the initial colonization of California: algorithms can be built to model "budding off" and migration during the first human entry into California and, by map expansion, over all of North America.
These are just a few of the potential uses of the flexible package of tools that we are initiating in this statewide iteration of the Contact-Period California Community Distribution Model.

What follows, then, are 14 volumes, each one representing an analytical zone, focusing on multi-regional issues including a mutual history, shared language and land-use patterns, and relevant references, followed by anywhere from 13 to 68 regional monographs for each zone (Table 1).

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="72%" align="center"
|+Table 1. Volume, Analytical Zone, and Languages Spoken.
|-
|align = "center"|VOLUME Number
|align = "center"|ANALYTICAL ZONE
|align = "center"|LANGUAGE
|align = "center"|NUMBER OF REGIONS

|-
|align = "center"|2
|align = "center"|Northwest
|align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok Athabascan Karok Takelman
|align = "center"|37

|-
|align = "center"|3
|align = "center"|North
|align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko Wintu and Nomlaki Yana
|align = "center"|48

|-
|align = "center"|4
|align = "center"|Northeast
|align = "center"|Modoc Mountain Maidu Numic Pit River Washoe
|align = "center"|28

|-
|align = "center"|5
|align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Lake Miwok Pomo Wappo Yuki
|align = "center"|59

|-
|align = "center"|6
|align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
|align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu Patwin Wintuan Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Northern Ohlone
|align = "center"|66

|-
|align = "center"|8
|align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok Delta Yokuts 
|align = "center"|54

|-
|align = "center"|9
|align = "center"|South San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Mono Numic Tubatulabal Yokuts
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|10
|align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Northern Chumash Esselen Ohlone Salinan
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|11
|align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
|align = "center"|Chumash 
|align = "center"|68

|-
|align = "center"|12
|align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
|align = "center"|Takic
|align = "center"|58

|-
|align = "center"|13
|align = "center"|Southeast
|align = "center"|Numic Takic
|align = "center"|45

|-
|align = "center"|14
|align = "center"|South
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|20

|-
|align = "center"|15
|align = "center"|Colorado River
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|13

|-
|align = "right" colspan="3"|Total
|align = "center"|663

|}

==Bibliography==
Acsádi, Györgi, and J. Nemeskéri

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|''History of Human Life Span and Mortality''. Academy Kaidó, Budapest, Hungary.

|}

Adams, John W., and Alice Bee Kasakoff

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Factors Underlying Endogamous Group Size''. ''In ''Regional Analysis: Social Systems, Volume 2'', Carol Smith, pp. 149-173. , Academic Press, San Francisco.

|}

Bean, Lowell John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|''Mukat<nowiki>’</nowiki>s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978
| Social Organization. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 673-682. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bennyhoff, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1961
|The Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. (Later published in 1977 by the Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, University of California, Davis.)

|}

Bennyhoff, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|''The Ethnohistory of the Plains Miwok''. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication, No. 2. University of California, Davis.

|}

Brown, A. K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1967
|The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Reports ''69:1-99. Berkeley.

|}

Cook, Sherburne F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 16, University of California Press, Berkeley. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1976a
|''The Conflict Between the California Indians and White Civilization''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1976b
|''The Population of the California Indians 1769-1970''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Coombs, Gary

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1975
|Migration and Adaptation: Indian Missionization in California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, Warren L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Great Basin''. Edited by William C. Sturtevant. Handbook of North American Indians 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Gibson, Robert O.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Hayward.

|}

Gifford, Edward W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Miwok Lineages and the Political Unit in Aboriginal California. ''American Anthropologist'' 28(2):389-401.

|}

Harrington, John P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''John P. Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: Southern California''. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Microfilm edition. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|}

Heizer, Robert F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Henry, Louis

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Population: Analysis and Models''. Edward Arnold, London. (Translated from the French by Etienne van de Walle and Elisa F. Jones)

|}

Horne, Stephen P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''The Inland Chumash: Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and Archaeology.'' Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

Johnson, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1982
|An Ethnohistoric Study of the Island Chumash. Master<nowiki>’</nowiki>s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|-
| 
|1988
|''Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective''. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

King, Chester A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1969
|''Map 1: Approximate 1760 Chumash Village Locations and Populations''. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11:3-4.

|-
| 
|1973
|Appendix I: Documentation of Tribelet Boundaries, Locations and Sizes, Extracted from San Juan Bautista Mission Records''. ''In ''Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part I: The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California'', edited by Thomas King and Pat Hickman. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California,

|-
| 
|1974
|Appendix 2: Northern Santa Clara Ethnography''. ''In ''Environmental Impact Report: San Felipe Water Distribution Systems'', edited by Thomas King and Gary Berg, Environmental Science Associates. Submitted to Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara, California.

|-
| 
|1975
|The Names and Locations of Historic Chumash Villages. ''The Journal of California Anthropology'' 2:171-179.

|-
| 
|1977
|Matalan Ethnohistory''. ''In ''Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations for Construction of Freeway 04-SCl-101, Post Miles 17.2/29.4'', pp. 35-54, Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, San Francisco.

|}

King, Chester D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Historic Indian Settlement in the Vicinity of the Holiday Inn Site''. ''In ''Investigations at CA-SCl-128, the Holiday Inn Site'', Joseph Winter, pp. 436-458. ,

|-
| 
|1994
|Central Ohlone Ethnohistory''. ''In ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region'', edited by Lowell John Bean, pp. 183-202. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 42, Sylvia Brakke Vane.

|}

King, Thomas F., and Patricia P. Hickman

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1973
|''Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part I The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California: A General Plan for Archaeology''. Submitted to US Department of Interior, National Park Service, and the Frederick Burk Foundation, California State University, San Francisco. On file, Northwest Information Center, California Resources Survey, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|}

Kroeber, Alfred L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1925
|Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1932
|''The Patwin and their Neighbors''. University of California Publications on American Archaeology and Ethnology 29(4):253 423. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1955
|Nature of Land-Holding Group. ''Ethnohistory ''2(4):303-314.

|-
| 
|1962
|The Nature of Land-holding Groups in Aboriginal California''. ''In ''Two Papers on the Aboriginal Ethnography of California'', Del H. Hymes and Robert F. Heizer, pp. 19-58. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 56, Berkeley, California.

|-
| 
|1963
|Yokuts dialect survey. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(3).

|}

Kunkel, Peter H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

McLendon, Sally, and John R. Johnson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|''Cultural Affiliation and Lineal Descent of Chumash Peoples in the Channel Islands and the Santa Monica Mountains: Volumes I and II''. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, and Hunter College, City University of New York. Submitted to the Archeology and Ethnography Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

|}

Merriam, C. Hart

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|''Studies in California Indians''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1968
|Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey ''74, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

|-
| 
|1970
|''Indian Rancherias in Four Mission Records''. Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility University of California 9:29-58.

|}

Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Ethnohistory of the Lower Napa Valley''. ''In ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at the River Glen Site, CA-NAP-261, Napa County, California'', Tom L. Jackson, pp. 2.1-2.43. , Archaeological Consulting and Research Services. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University,

|-
| 
|1981
|Chapter 2, Ethnohistory of the Rumsen: The Mission Period''. ''In ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaeological Sites for the Stage I Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System: Volume I'', Stephen A. Dietz and Thomas L. Jackson, pp. 12-102. , Archaeological Consulting and Research Services. Submitted to Engineering-Science, Inc., (Reprinted in 1987 as Rumsen Ethnohistory)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Cultural Resource Studies, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

|-
| 
|1987
|''Rumsen Ethnohistory''. Papers in Northern California Anthropology 2. Northern California Anthropological Association. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|''Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period''. University of California, Berkeley. Submitted to State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, under Agreement No. 48279021.

|-
| 
|1991
|Ethnographic Context, Ethnohistory, and Historic Context''. ''In ''Preliminary Evaluation of Thirteen Sites Along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California''.

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810''. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 43. Ballena Press, Berkeley.

|}

Milliken, Randall, and John R. Johnson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2005
|''Salinan and Northern Chumash Communities of the Early Mission Period''. Far Western Anthropological and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. On file, California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo.

|}

Morgado, Martin J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1991
|''Junipero Serra, a Pictoral Biography''. Siempre Adelante Publishing. Monterey, California.

|}

Priestley, Herbert Ingram

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|''A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California by Pedro Fages, Soldier of Spain'', translated by Herbert Ingram Priestley. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Schenck, W. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography'' 25(2):123-146.

|}

Strong, William Duncan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|Aboriginal Society in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.

|}

Velásquez de la Cadena, Mariano

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1974
|''New Revised Velásquez Spanish and English Dictionary''. Follett Publishing Company, Chicago.

|}

Wrigley, E. A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|An Introduction to English Historical Demography: From the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

|}

==Additional Files==
*[[Volume 1 Appendix A|Appendix A]]: Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model
*[[Volume 1 Appendix B|Appendix B]]: Process for Producing the Community Distribution Model Regions' Mapping Layers
*[[Volume 1 Appendix C|Appendix C]]: Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model Zones and Regions

[[Category:Volume Report]]
[[Category:Volume 1]]

File:Vol9-cover.png

2010-06-21T17:59:40Z

WikiSysop: Volume 9

Volume 9

VOLUME 9

2010-06-21T17:59:01Z

WikiSysop: Created page with '='''Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model= 250pxJune 2010 DRAFT ''By:'' Randall Milliken,…'

='''Volume 9: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol9-cover.png|right|250px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==

VOLUME 1

2010-06-21T17:55:01Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

='''Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol1-cover.png|right|300px]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==
The ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) reconstructs California Indian community ethnogeography at the time of Spanish settlement. The CDM package currently includes: (1) a GIS map layer portraying 663 independent landholding communities/year-round habitation regions; (2) a group of monographs documenting ethnogeographic information and sources for the regions; and (3) a mission register database tracking the vital statistics of individuals who moved to Franciscan missions from approximately 420 of the 663 native regions. The digital map and text are dynamic, designed to be used, updated, and revised by academic scholars, tribal scholars, government agency planners, and culture history interpreters.

Most of the CDM mapping regions—especially those across most of central California—represent the lands of true territorial sedentary village-communities or tribelets. Some other regions represent distinct clusters of loosely affiliated villages, sedentary in Northwest California but with extensive seasonal population shifts in areas east of the Sierra and in the dry inner Coast Ranges. Mapping regions in parts of southern California are merely arbitrary divisions applied for purposes of local vicinity analysis to portions of extensive open networks of small, inter-marrying village-groups. Confidence in the accuracy of the regions and their boundaries varies greatly due to differences in the richness of existing data and to differences in scholarly interpretations of those data.

The database, narratives, and regional boundaries are presented in a GIS application and Wiki format. This will allow future scholars to reconsider regional boundaries, to expand or annotate existing monographs, and to contribute new monographs for the currently unfinished areas.

==Introduction==
The ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) is a digital atlas and wiki encyclopedia that models the socio-political landscape of native California at the time of first contact with the Spanish, a rolling moment from the 1770s to the 1830s. The CDM atlas portrays a model distribution of 663 community ''regions'' (inferred or known village communities or tribelets) across California on a GIS digital map layer, divided into 14 ''analytical zones'' that combine regions on the basis of mutual histories, shared language, and similar land-use patterns. The associated encyclopedia consists of "wiki" monographs that gather together archival information for each of the community regions (i.e., presented within a collaborative website that allows for creation and controlled editing of interlinked web pages). An additional key element, a Mission Register database, provides locational information for the CDM regions from which the people were entirely removed to the Franciscan missions between 1770 and 1835. These separate elements together form the CDM (Figure 1).

The CDM Project is being developed by Dr. Randall Milliken for use by academic scholars, tribal scholars, government agency planners, and culture history interpreters. It brings together decades of research and mission record analysis. It has been produced by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. with support from a number of district environmental branches within the California Department of Transportation. As of spring 2010, monographs have been prepared for more than 80 of the regions, primarily in the San Francisco Bay area, the Sacramento Valley, and the San Joaquin Valley. Our future goal is to place the CDM within an academic setting so that the GIS map and wiki monographs will be available for further development—expansions, modifications, and annotations—by scholars knowledgeable about the contact-period ethnogeography of every local area of California.

===Project Purpose===
[[File:Vol1-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Creating the Community Distribution Model.]]California Indians at the time of Euro-American contact lived out their lives in local communities of a few score to a few hundred individuals. They interacted with their immediate neighbors on all sides, regardless of language differences, through reciprocal trading, participation in ceremonial events, and occasional hostilities. Early twentieth-century ethnographers documented such groups with some precision in areas of California that had avoided most of the initial negative impact of western expansion. A.L. Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" to characterize those groups that consisted of inter-married families that defended fixed territorial boundaries. However, the term "tribelet" pertained only to some regional groups (e.g., Pomo, Yokuts, Modoc, and Pit River), but not to more loosely organized ceremonial regions (e.g., Yurok). Nor is it clear that the term "tribelet" can be used for the mountains and deserts east and south of Los Angeles, where early twentieth-century field studies suggest that small villages formed around specific patrilocal lineages that intermarried in complex patterns on the land that precluded formation of multi-village socio-political identity.

No statewide "tribelet" map has ever been constructed for contact-period ethnographic California. Robert Heizer commented on that fact in his 1966 mapping project entitled ''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes'', a study that introduced the only composite statewide map of local groups based upon C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s many field notes, and compared against A.L. Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1925 map of the language groups of California. At the time, Heizer (1966:9) wrote:

<blockquote>Kroeber estimates that California held between 500 and 600 … <nowiki>’</nowiki>independent and separate definable groups.<nowiki>’</nowiki> It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets. Such a task is far too complex and time-consuming to be attempted here.</blockquote>

The digital process used in the CDM makes it easier than ever before to create a statewide map of contact-period California ethnogeography:

* We are not committed to a published, static, one-size map.
* It is especially valuable for mapping communities mentioned in mission records that can only be located indirectly and tentatively by date of baptism and marriage ties.
* The digital map can be modified as scholars examine the implications of one or another interpretation of the archival record for a given local area; i.e., the network placement of groups in relation to one mission may need to be redesigned when the inferred pattern is compared with those developed for the communities of adjacent missions.

===Assessing the Regional Model===
[[File:Vol1-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Analytical Zones within California.]]The specific regions draw attention to the local nature of everyday life in pre-European times and allow us a comparative perspective on the level of ethnographic knowledge. Many of the regions do approximate the year-round use-areas of tribelets or loose regional communities. In other cases a model region may inadvertently split the territory of some "real" past groups, or present the areas of separate groups as though they were one. There is no doubt, however, that pre-European California people lived out most of their lives within regions of the size presented by the CDM model, and that they interacted with neighbors in contiguous regions and knew much less about more distant groups.

It is a down side of this "cubby hole" approach that some readers will fail to read caveats presented here and believe that the regional boundaries are all precisely documented local group borders. But that problem is less serious than the tyranny of "language group as tribe" that informs the understanding of the public and some scholars today. The upside of the model presented here lies in its exposure of the variation in quality of ethnographic information from one region to the next and in its flexibility for adding new information about regions and their possible boundaries through in-depth local studies. In the future, thorough studies of one region, or a group of contiguous regions, might be the subject of entire academic symposia or doctoral dissertations.

==Ethnographic Landholding Groups in California==
The groups of California Indians portrayed on historic tribal maps of the United States—Cahuilla, Chumash, Pomo, Washoe, and dozens of others—are actually language groups, delineated and named by western scholars. Landholding groups in California at the time of European contact were local communities—people closely bound by blood, marriage, and proximity of residence. Anthropologist A.L. Kroeber introduced the term "tribelet" in 1932 for the type of territorial multi-family landholding community that prevailed across most of California. At the end of his career Kroeber considered the tribelet to be one of four landholding group types, the other three being: (1) small, ceremonially linked village clusters of northwest California; (2) small, single-lineage villages in the southern desert; and (3) high-population Colorado River multi-village tribes (Kroeber 1955, 1962; see also Bean 1978; Gifford 1926; Heizer 1966). While these general categories are maintained here, we have used broader terminology to identify them and have assigned groups to slightly different categories than identified by Kroeber (1955, 1962).

* ''Tribelets''
::Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Ohlone, Achomawi, Rumsen Costanoan; some Patwin, Pomo, and Yokuts; perhaps Plains Miwok and Nomlaki.

* ''Loose Regional Communities ''(includes Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s ceremonially linked villages)
::Washoe, Hupa, Karok, Yurok

* ''Completely Unbounded Networks of Small, Single-Lineage Villages''
::Uto-Aztecan, Ipai/Tipai; perhaps Sierra Miwok, Hill Nisenan, Hill Northwest Maidu, Yana

* ''Ambiguously Bounded Regions of Large Sedentary Villages''
::Sacramento Valley (Patwin and Maidu), Santa Barbara Channel (Coastal and Island Chumash), and Colorado River (Cocopa, Mohave, Yuma)

===The Tribelet===
Local tribelets had fixed territories, a single head person, and a large enough population (200 or more people) to have been at least 50% endogamous. They varied in number and relative size of villages. Most Patwin, Pomo, Valley Nisenan, Valley Northwest Maidu, and Yokuts tribelets seem to have had capital villages and outlying suburbs (Kunkel 1962). Some Patwin, Pomo, and Yokuts tribelets, and all Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok, and San Francisco Bay area Ohlone tribelets had multiple villages of relatively even size (Milliken 1995:20-24), as perhaps did the Plains Miwok (Bennyhoff 1977) and the Nomlaki (Kroeber 1932:373).

Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" for multi-family political communities that held most of the California landscape. He summarized his thinking about the tribelet and lineage as follows in a 1955 monograph:

<blockquote>The tribelet was first called the "village community" in the ethnological literature, to distinguish it from the village as a mere physical settlement; and its size was underestimated at only around 100 members. Later, I deliberately coined the name tribelet to designate it as a sovereign though miniature political unit, which was land-owning and maintained its frontiers against unauthorized trespass. At the average of 250-300, there would have been a full 500 tribelets in the later American state of California (Kroeber 1955:307-308).</blockquote>

Kroeber (1962:34-36) described three case studies of California tribelets to illustrate local variation in tribelet size and population density:

#Pomo-speaking tribelets of the North Coast Ranges averaged 240 persons in territories about ten miles by ten miles in size, for a population density of 2.4 persons per square mile.
#Yokuts-speaking tribelets of the San Joaquin Valley averaged 350 members each in territories about four times larger, with a suggested population density of 1.4 persons per square mile.
#Achomawi-speaking tribelets of northeast California contained about 275 persons and held such large territories that their populations were only 0.5 persons per square mile (when both their restricted winter territories and expanded summer territories are included).

===Loose Regional Communities===
Loose regional communities are clusters of family groups that shared numerous short-term villages within tribelet-sized regions that lacked defended boundaries and central leadership. The loose regional community model is well illustrated by the Washoe language group (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:485). Among the Washoe, daily life and the yearly life cycle revolved around two levels of community—the local village level and the regional multi-village level. The local village community, the basic unit of social organization, was a group of closely related households that shared the same winter camp and identified with a single local leader. The Washoe themselves referred to this local village community level as "the bunch." A local community populated one winter village that generally consisted of a cluster of two to ten houses. While the local community did not spend the entire year together in that single village, it did consider itself the basic cooperative unit for communal hunts, defense, and group ceremonial expression year-round. Membership in "bunches" was fluid, as individuals and families often shifted residence temporarily or permanently "to the households of other relatives in the same or a distant community" (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:483).

The Washoe regional community included all the local communities within a region approximately 10-15 miles in diameter. An example regional community included the four local communities of the Woodfords-Markleeville area of Alpine County, California. Together the four local communities formed the "dwellers in the corner where rivers flow away out" regional community (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:468). Constituent local communities united into regional communities "by identification with place and by loose ties of kinship and constituted a population of hundreds of persons with whom there was some degree of familiarity and mutual trust" (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:484). The regional community, as a cluster of local communities, had a number of headmen, but in ethnographic times it seldom acted as a single political unit.

In Northwest California the speakers of Hupa, Karok, and Yurok lived in numerous small villages along major rivers. Nuclear families were stratified between the wealthy and the poor. Extended family lineage affiliation did not seem to be important. Nor did groups of hamlets cluster into local landholding tribelets under centralized political authority. However, there was some regional organization at the ceremonial level:

<blockquote>There were practiced a series of "world-renewal" rituals, each made separately and with a fair measure of differentiation, at designated spots, and supported by the inhabitants of a recognized tract surrounding the sacred spots. Both in extent and in population these tracts resemble tribelets <nowiki>[</nowiki>Kroeber 1955:311<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

===Unbounded Networks of Small Single-Lineage Villages===
A third form of land use was based upon small, semi-sedentary villages of 40-100 inhabitants that intermarried with near neighbors in overlapping spheres of outreach that extended for great distances, without establishing any tribelet-sized regions. Such land-use patterns were clearly present among many Uto-Aztecan groups of southern California, probably among the Ipai/Tipai of San Diego County, and perhaps among the Sierra Miwok, Hill Nisenan, Hill Northwest Maidu, and Yana. In all these areas, evidence is either lacking or contradictory for fixed territorial tribelets. Populations lived in numerous small villages, many with their own ceremonial dance houses, scattered along ridges and in favorable valleys. The marriage networks of such communities overlapped with one another. Under this form of organization, each local village was politically independent, but each was so small that it was completely exogamous to near neighbors, much smaller than the 10-15-mile-diameter areas of classic Yokuts or Pomo tribelets. The independence of each local village community is upheld in the classic works of Kroeber (1925) and Strong (1929) for southern California as a whole, as well as a later study by Bean (1972) for the Cahuilla. Villages had complex intermarriage patterns driven by moiety considerations among the Uto-Aztecans (Bean 1972; Strong 1929). However, blanket terms were not applied to distinct multi-village communities because distinct multi-village regions do not seem to have existed:

<blockquote>The California lineage group was what the name implies, a line of male kinsmen who were autonomous in a territory sufficient to support them. They took their wives from and married their daughters into other lineages. The bonds of kinship might be transcended if one lineage became reduced and took refuge with another. A desert or infertile habitat, necessitating a spread of population, tended to preserve political organization on the lineage basis. Contrarily, in habitats rich in food, it is presumed that several lineages tended to coalesce into permanent village—that is tribelets <nowiki>[</nowiki>Kroeber 1955:308<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

===Ambiguously Bounded Regions of Large Sedentary Villages===
The last of the four land-use regions are the two areas of California where there were closely spaced, large permanent villages, each seemingly independent of the other, but so close together that they must have shared hinterlands in different ways than the classic Yokuts or Pomo tribelets. These two areas were the central Sacramento Valley (Patwin and Maidu) and the Santa Barbara Channel (Coastal and Island Chumash).

Similarly, tribelet-level regional differentiation seems to have been absent along the Colorado River, including southern California. Groups of 2,000 to 3,000 farming people (Cocopa, Mohave, Yuma) held tracts of riverine lands far more extensive than any of the small lineage or tribelet areas elsewhere in California. During the Spanish era in the southwest these groups were capable of mobilizing under a central leadership to make war upon one another. Yet, "it is possible that even these tribes were conglomerations of earlier tribelets," Kroeber (1955:310) suggested.

===Summary for Land-Use Types===
These different land-using groups are one aspect to be considered when delineating regional boundaries. There is the contrast between sedentary groups with fixed boundaries (tribelets) and mobile groups with fluid boundaries (loose regional communities). Then there are small, single-lineage villages with overlapping outreach areas (single-lineage villages), in contrast to closely spaced, independent villages with shared hinterlands (ambiguously bounded large villages).

We discuss how these landholding groups were used to create regional boundaries in [[VOLUME 1#BUILDING THE COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION MODEL|Section 1.5]].

==Franciscan Mission Registers and Ethnogeography==
This chapter describes the use of Franciscan mission records of baptism, marriage, and burial for reconstructing the local-level ethnogeographic tribal landscape. These mission records are the only systematic source for such reconstructions for a large portion of California. By the 1830s all tribal people of the San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles basin, the South Coast Ranges, the Delta, and the western side of the San Joaquin Valley—more than 50,000 people—had left their lands and moved to the missions. The mission records contain the only information regarding the original home groups of the vast majority of those people. And because the missionaries were obliged to document basic information about each individual that they baptized, the mission registers provide a systematic and nearly comprehensive tally of native groups for much of California.

Of the 663 CDM mapping regions identified in California, 420 are in areas that were completely or partially disrupted by the Franciscan mission system. Unfortunately, the mission record data on native homelands is uneven and often opaque for most of those areas. Missionaries did write down the names of thousands of communities that they called "rancherias," but they seldom clarified whether they were referring to a specific village, on the one hand, or a regional multi-village group on the other. Nor did they often provide explicit clues regarding the locations of the communities they listed. This chapter describes the techniques that have been developed over time to overcome these and other weaknesses in the mission register ethnogeographic information.

===Rancherias in the Mission Register===
[[File:Vol1-fig4.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 3. Father Serra<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Leather-bound, Mission Carmel Libro de Confirmaciones. Diocese of Monterey Chancery Archives, Monterey.
]][[File:Vol1-fig5.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 4. Record of the First Baptism Performed by Father Serra, listed in Mission San Carlos Borromeo<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Libro de Bautismos. Bernardino de Jesus of the Rumsen Tribe, Born in the Achista Rancheria.]]When the Spanish missionaries arrived in California, they brought with them leather-bound books within which they were enjoined by church and state to record key information about each of their Indian converts (Figure 3). At baptism, each individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name, newly bestowed Spanish name, and inferred age was transcribed in a dated entry next to a unique sequential baptismal identification number (Figure 4). Beyond basic date, name, age, and "serial number," individual missionaries varied in what they wrote about baptized individuals. The vast majority of missionaries provided names of the baptized person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home community. Confirmations, marriages, and deaths were also recorded, each in their own dedicated books. Stella Clemence, one of C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s assistants, extracted lists of the named rancherias for most missions just prior to 1920, published under the editorship of Robert Heizer (Merriam 1955, 1968, 1970).

Alternate spellings of rancheria names by different priests are a major problem as they can be quite extreme. This issue can be aided by bringing together the mission register information for nuclear and extended families so that names spelled out by different priests over many years can be seen at one time. In central California, for example, approximately 4,000 distinctly spelled rancheria names are listed in the registers of baptism, burial, and marriage of the 11 Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano south to San Miguel). These can be reduced to 1,300 names when alternative spellings of specific rancheria names are recognized. The processes of re-sorting mission register information by family group and of tracking "standardized" rancheria names in specific mission register entries will be documented in subsequent sections of this chapter.

A problem in understanding the socio-political meaning of the many rancheria names is that of synonymy. Some missionaries labeled groups by the name of the group<nowiki>’</nowiki>s headman, others labeled them by the name of their largest village, and still others named them by some directional or regional term. One missionary might label a group by a word used by its neighbors of a different language, while another might name the same group by a label that it called itself; this was common among groups that sent people to more than one mission. Through study of extended family groups, some synonymous rancheria names become apparent.

Another problem in interpreting the socio-political landscape from mission register information is that of scale. It has been mentioned that the word "rancheria" means "community." From the earliest days of exploration in California, Spanish diarists used the term in describing specific villages, or clusters of grass houses, inhabited by the tribal people they encountered. That usage corresponds to the modern Spanish-English dictionary definition of rancheria as "a collection of huts, like a hamlet" (Velásquez 1974:551). But the English term "community" can also mean a group of people who share a number of villages within a fixed territory, and the Spanish term "rancheria" came to be used that way in California as well (Milliken 1987:59, 1995:21, 233). Both in military diaries and in the mission records, the term "rancheria" may signify either a specific village or the community of shared identity that utilizes one or more specific villages. This conflation of two meanings partially explains why some rancheria names appear only five or six times in all the mission registers, while others appear hundreds of times.

In sum, some rancheria names in mission records refer to mobile bands, others represent specific sedentary villages, and still others represent the names of multi-village regions. The process that has developed over time to overcome problems of scale and synonymy in the mission registers, to track individuals as members of identifiable communities (distinct single village or multi-village groups), and to choose "standard" names for those groups, will be discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

===Pioneering Mission Register Studies===
[[File:Vol1-fig6.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 5. Map showing the Progressive Collapse of Autonomous Tribal Areas during the Years 1790 to 1806.]][[File:Vol1-fig7.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 6. Marriage Ties Between the Chupcan and Their Nearest Neighbors Based on Baptisms of Married Couples at Mission San Francisco and Mission San Jose, 1795-1811.
]]Ethnogeographies in the mission outreach areas of California now universally rely on mission register data. In this section we review the development of those kinds of studies from the 1850s forward. Beginning with Alexander Taylor in the 1860s, scholars interested in California ethnogeography have mined the mission records in search group names, then mapped ostensible home locations on the ground. Egbert Schenack referred to mission records in his 1926 study of the groups of the California Delta. Historical demographer Sherburne F. Cook produced studies that combined counts of group populations from the mission registers with other historical clues to improve understanding of many homeland areas (Cook 1955).

James A. Bennyhoff advanced mission register study by making two of Cook<nowiki>’</nowiki>s approaches explicit. He wrote:

<blockquote>By plotting the tribelet names and the numbers baptized against the years, a significant constellation appears for each tribelet by which one can judge the approximate distance from the mission and the year of most intensive contact <nowiki>[</nowiki>Bennyhoff (1977:20<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Modern mission register-based ethnogeography follows three principles discussed by Bennyhoff:

* Rancherias close to missions generally sent their people for baptism earlier than villages at greater distances, resulting in a "domino" effect outward from each mission.
* Rancherias near one another had a greater number of intermarriages than rancherias separated by great distances (the basis for "marriage pattern" studies of group proximity).
* Rancherias that sent people to two or more missions usually existed in areas equidistant between the missions in question. (This rule does not apply north of San Francisco Bay due to the complex history of mission development and outreach in that area.)
When the "wave-front" of mission outreach is mapped, the relative distance of otherwise-unlocated groups baptized in specific years can be determined (Figure 5). The "marriage pattern" technique looks for strongly intermarried groups, then infers that such groups may have held lands contiguous to one another (Figure 6). Bennyhoff (1977) used a combination of these two techniques, together with clues from classical ethnography, to map ethnographic central California.

In southern California, Alan K. Brown (1967) pioneered the rigorous use of mission register clues to help determine Chumash village sizes and locations. While Brown did not systematically evaluate quantitative family links among villages, he carefully extracted quotations from specific baptismal entries to emphasize inter-village relationships that supported locational surmises. Techniques introduced by Bennyhoff and Brown were further developed by Chester King. King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1969, 1975) initial studies of Chumash village locations and their populations relied on J. P. Harrington<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1986) field notes, other early texts, and aggregative summaries of Santa Barbara County vicinity mission register entries. King (1973) also gleaned information from the Mission San Juan Bautista registers for T. King and Hickman<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1973) reconstruction of tribelet locations in the Mission San Juan Bautista vicinity.

===Family Reconstitution to Solve Rancheria Riddles===
[[File:Vol1-fig8.png|200|right|thumb|Figure 7. Family Reconstitution Chart: Onesimo and Maria de Los Angeles Baylon.]]One common flaw in early ethnogeographic studies that used mission register data was the failure to overcome "scale" and "synonymy" problems. Schenck (1926) failed to recognize that the "Tarquines" of one source were a conflation of the Karkins and Tauquimnes of the mission records. Kroeber (1963) made the same mistake, conflating the Chilamne and Cholvon of the mission records into the non-existent "Chulamni." Bennyhoff (1977) gave some very small "hamlet" groups equal space on the land with very large multi-village regional groups.

The backbone technique for identification and resolution of such problems is the family reconstitution method. Family reconstitution, first introduced for social geography studies in Europe (Henry 1976; Wrigley 1966), is the process of amalgamating dispersed bits of information about individuals, married couples, and extended families into composite information sets (Figure 7). In mission register studies, family kinship charts are reconstituted from various register entries, resulting in composite data sets that illuminate: (1) synonymous terms for rancherias; (2) relationships of rancherias that are villages to rancherias that are regional names; (3) patterns of intermarriage among communities; (4) timing of family and community movements to missions; and (5) numerous demographic processes that do not emerge from aggregative mission register studies.

Family reconstitution was first applied to California mission data sets by Chester King (King 1974, 1977, 1978). King constructed kinship charts, exposed alternative names of villages that sent people to more than one mission, and increased the number of identified inter-village marriages. The reconstituted evidence allowed King to infer the locations of poorly documented Northern Chumash locations around Mission San Luis Obispo.

Other researchers soon began constructing kinship charts following King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s lead (Horne 1981; Milliken 1981). John Johnson (1982) documented marriage relationships among Santa Barbara Channel Island villagers and between them and mainland populations. Randall Milliken (1981) used mission register information to identify the relationship between the Rumsen tribelet of the Carmel Valley and its five constituent villages. John Johnson (1988:248-288) applied quantitative techniques borrowed from social-network analysis and cultural geography to examine inter-village social relationships among Chumash of the Santa Barbara Channel. Johnson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s diagrams of inter-group interaction, for all people baptized from forty Chumash towns and villages within the Santa Ynez Valley and along the Santa Barbara Channel coast, suggest some alternate ethnogeographic placements to those in King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1984 study.

Milliken (1991) used Bennyhoff<nowiki>’</nowiki>s indirect mission register techniques, as well as family reconstitution, to identify San Francisco Bay area group locations and local group migrations to missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose between 1777 and 1810 in a work subsequently published as ''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810 ''(Milliken 1995). During the same time period, Chester King (1994) applied family reconstitution methods to Mission Santa Cruz register data to examine inter-group marriage patterns in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Beginning in 1993, a team of ethnohistorians led by Johnson and C. King conducted a comprehensive study of Chumash ethnogeography, marriage patterns, and family survival into the American period. The team built a six-mission database that included information on all baptized Indian people from Chumash territories between missions San Fernando and San Luis Obispo. The database was used by McLendon and Johnson (1999) to document the genealogical relationships between the Spanish-contact Chumash and the Chumash people of the twentieth century. In that study, McLendon and Johnson (1999:31) used an enhanced version of the domino and marriage pattern principles to re-evaluate village locations within the Northern Chumash region (the Mission San Luis Obispo outreach area), adjusting King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1984 map of that western Santa Barbara/southwestern San Luis Obispo county area.

===Computers for Mission Register Data Management===
====Initial Development of Computer Databases====
The base data for the present CDM process in the coastal portions of California south of the Russian River are computerized mission records that augment family reconstitution and contain fields that assign individuals and married couples to groups with standardized group names. Computer databases have been key tools in California ethnogeography since the mid-1980s. Gary Coombs (1975) was the first person to use a computer database to track and cross-refer thousands of bits of information in the mission registers. For his Ph.D. dissertation, Coombs used computer punch cards to collate and sort information about the history of baptism of Chumash villages in the present Santa Barbara County area. A short time later, Milliken (1981) developed computer punch card sets for the first 800 baptisms at Mission Carmel and the first 1,800 baptisms at Mission Dolores (Milliken 1983). Johnson (1988:248-288) used the database to apply quantitative techniques on the Santa Barbara Channel.

Milliken moved the Mission Carmel and Mission Dolores data from punch cards to a dBASE database format in the early 1980s, then continued to expand the Mission Dolores database in the late 1980s to include information on more than 5,000 individuals. The Mission Carmel database aided construction of kinship charts for people from rancherias whose members went to Mission Carmel from Esselen-speaking areas in the northern Santa Lucia Range and the Salinas River Valley (Milliken 1990). For other projects, including his dissertation, Milliken developed separate databases for all 11 of the central California missions from San Miguel north to San Francisco Solano from 1988 to 2004.

====Current Comprehensive Databases====
Rapid development in mission register digitization since the year 2002 has led to the emergence of two distinct comprehensive California mission databases. One is the Early California Population Project (ECPP) database, with more than 100,000 records available on-line through the Huntington Library in San Marino, California. That system was developed by historian Steve Hackel, with initial design advice from John Johnson and Randall Milliken, among others. The ECPP database, while excellent for genealogical research, lacks rigorous standardization of "rancheria" information and does not tie rancheria names to actual locations on the ground.

The second comprehensive California mission register database, and the one utilized for this report, is the California Mission Database built by Randall Milliken. It took form in 2006, when Milliken consolidated the series of independent mission-specific databases he had built over the years for the 11 central California missions into a single Microsoft ACCESS database. One of the key tables is the records for baptisms, also called the "Individuals" table (see Appendix Table A-1). In 2007 John Johnson allowed Milliken to modify the structure of Johnson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Santa Barbara Database (six missions from San Fernando to San Luis Obispo) and consolidate it (for limited research purposes) into Milliken<nowiki>’</nowiki>s ACCESS database structure. The result is the Mission Database, consisting of records up through the year 1840 for the 17 missions from San Fernando north to San Francisco Solano. The Missions Database has an individuals table that includes 55,603 records representing 32,375 tribal converts, 13,696 mission-born California Indians, 7,919 non-Indians, and 1,543 records marking duplicate or skipped entries. This table also contains linked death records of 33,210 death records of the baptized people except in the case of non-Indian immigrants baptized elsewhere. Finally, a separate table includes 16,333 marriage records (14,689 Indian couples, 1,535 Hispanic and other foreign couples, and 109 Hispanic/Indian couples) cross-referenced to the combined baptisms/deaths table.

As of 2010, the Missions Database also contains a separate "Regions" table that cross-links to the 663 GIS-mapped California habitation regions (see Appendix Table A-2). The Regions Table in the Missions Database also cross-links internally to baptismal records in the Individuals Table through a "Regions" field. The nature and use of the "regions" concept is explained in next chapter of this document.

==Building the Community Distribution Model==
This chapter presents how the CDM of ethnographic California, with 663 year-round habitation regions, was built. The first section illustrates how the model marks off a large segment of California that did not support year-round populations. Then we show the variation of regional identification from one portion of California to another due to differences in the nature of political communities and in the nature and quality of the information available today. The final portion of this chapter points out the results of printed and digital products and explains the reason for building a structure with both local region monographs and 14 analytic zone reports. Details of computer use in this process are laid out in Appendix B.

===Delineating Seasonal-Use Areas===
It is for the most part neither necessary nor desirable to delineate small local regions for parts of California that were not utilized intensively year-round, i.e., parts that were either covered with snow for much of the winter or very dry for much of the summer. These areas were utilized seasonally by people who lived in hospitable landscapes directly bordering them. Identified in the CDM as "seasonal regions," these harsh landscapes tend to be larger, as mapping units, than the regions that had year-round inhabitants. They are further distinguished from the year-round regions as they were often shared, and occasionally contested, by people from multiple year-round regions, often speaking different languages.

For cismontane California, the CDM upland boundary has been set at 2,780 feet elevation at the Oregon border, rising to 5,800 feet elevation at the Mexican border. As one travels ten miles north or south, the upland boundary moves downward or upward some 45 feet. This is due to changing day length and solar radiation exposure. It is, of course, only a general rule; distance from the ocean, weather patterns, and local topography render reality much less orderly. Nevertheless, the CDM boundary rule works for cismontane California because it was based upon the actual distribution of ethnographic villages in uplands across California. The rule has been ignored in the Pit River watershed and areas of transmontane California north and east of Walker Pass; in those areas year-round villages existed at elevations of 1,000 feet or more, higher than those over the mountains to the west.

Of special note, there are some places in California where small numbers of people seem to have been willing to live in very harsh environments year-round. These areas are all in transmontane upland and desert California. The Truckee Mono Lake regions are examples, as is the Mojave Desert. Most of these were at great distances from the typical year-round regions of California, suggesting an alternative, and more efficient, adaptation than the yearly "transhumance" found elsewhere in the state.

===Shaping Year-Round Local Group Regions===
Four different approaches were taken to delineating regions based upon two different sets of variables. One key variable is the nature of the land-using organization. Region determination is a different activity in areas where people lived in bounded territories (e.g., Pomo, Pit River, Yurok) than in areas were no regional territories seem to have existed (e.g., Cahuilla, Foothill Nisenan).

The second key variable is the nature of the data. The problems and opportunities for reconstructing ethnogeography are much different in areas strongly impacted by mission outreach (west central and west southern California) than in areas where the available information emerges primarily from classical ethnographic fieldwork (northern and eastern California).

In all four types of areas, the digital mapping process is preceded by working with small paper disks of known villages and groups placed on a large map. From that point forward, the decisions about coalescence of locations and placement of region boundaries is highly variable. Below, the different kinds of data and mapping procedures are summarized; Volumes 2-15 fully document these procedures for each analysis zone.

====Bounded Regions North and East of Mission Areas====
The following areas were the subject of good field ethnography that established core homelands, and in some cases mapped specific boundaries (some porous, others strict) between distinct territorial groups:

:4. Modoc speakers around Tule Lake and Palaihnihan speakers of the Pit River drainage, northeast California.
:5. Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, and Hupa lands, from the Eureka vicinity to the Oregon border in northwest California.
:6. Most North Coast Range areas where Pomo and Yukian languages were spoken (the exception being the missionized Santa Rosa Plain and northern Napa County near the San Francisco Bay area).
:7. East side of the South San Joaquin Valley and adjacent Sierran foothills where Yokuts languages, Mono and Tubatulabal, were spoken.
:8. Lake Tahoe vicinity, where Washoe group winter territories were politically unbounded but well-defined.
:9. Owens Valley where Mono/Northern Paiute groups had loose territorial boundaries.

In all these areas, regional boundaries are drawn with confidence that they generally reflect a factual ethnographic situation.

====Open Village Networks and Ambiguous Regions North and East of Mission Areas====
For large areas of California, field ethnographers gathered dozens of village names and locations, but found little or contradictory evidence of regional coalescence and boundedness. Such areas include:

#Athabascan-speaking portions of the North Coast Ranges in the Eel River drainage.
#Yana, Nomlaki, and Wintu areas of the northern Sacramento River drainage.
#River Patwin, Northwest Maidu, and Valley Nisenan villages of the Sacramento Valley (said to be tribelets, but boundaries absolutely opaque).
#The entire Sierra Nevada from the Feather River south to the headwaters of the San Joaquin River.
#The Kawaiisu area south of the Kern River.
#Shoshone and Southern Paiute-speaking areas of desert southeast California.
#The Mountain and Desert Cahuilla areas from San Gorgonio Pass to the south and east.

In areas where flexible home-base groups varied in size and locations from year to year, and sent their people far out into the Mojave Desert seasonally, we have divided the "year-round" habitation portion of the landscape into "tribelet-sized" regions to bring focus to what local ethnographic clues are available and to consider differences from one local region to another. These types of regions have significant year-round wells or springs and are often adjacent to uplands covered in snow for parts of the winter.

For the basin and range north of Mojave River, Panamint and Chemehuevi people had such flexibility that the concept of seasonal "home bases" may not even apply. Nevertheless, we have attempted to isolate regions that had the best resources for semi-permanent camping sites all year-round, and to leave the surrounding areas as "flexible use areas."

====Mission-Impacted Areas that were Bounded Territories====
[[File:Vol1-fig9.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 8. Ethnographic Regions by Major Language Group.
]][[File:Vol1-fig10.png|200|thumb|right|Figure 9. Variation in Mission-Induced Depopulation across California.]][[File:Vol1-fig11.png|200|thumb|right|
Figure 10. Ethnographic Regions by Tentative Population Density.]]In some of the areas of California hard-hit by mission proselytization, mission record sources clearly identify multi-village regional groups. However, they seldom provide much indication of their core areas or the boundary locations. The areas include:

#The San Francisco Bay Costanoan/Ohlone, Bay Miwok, and Coast Miwok speaking groups.
#The Plains Miwok and Yokuts groups of the Delta and central riverine corridor of the San Joaquin Valley.
#Some southern Costanoan-Ohlone groups of the Monterey Bay area, all Esselen groups, and some Salinan groups of the South Coast Ranges.
#Takic speakers of the Los Angeles Basin and the San Luis Rey area.

It is easiest to map such groups in vicinities that have geographic boundaries, such as the San Francisco and Marin peninsulas. In all other areas, regions are inferred using classic indirect mission register analysis.

====Mission-Impacted Areas with Numerous Independent Villages====
Mission records give no indication at all of the presence of multi-village regional groups in some areas of west-central and southern California. Areas include:

#Coast Miwok-speaking areas of western Marin County along Tomales Bay in the San Francisco Bay area.
#Much of the densely populated Chumash-speaking Santa Barbara Channel.
#Serrano Takic-speaking areas along the north edge of the San Gabriel Mountains.
#Luiseño Takic-speaking areas around Mission San Juan Capistrano and eastward toward San Jacinto.
#Ipai/Tipai-speaking village areas through San Diego County.

Although all these areas are listed together, the mapping problems that each present are unique. The techniques and results for each will be discussed in appropriate Analysis Zone volumes.

===Regions and Analysis zones===
After factoring in landholding community types, Franciscan mission registers of baptism and death, rancheria delineation, domino effects of missionization, marriage patterns, family reconstitution, mortality rates, inferred population densities, classical ethnographies, and seasonal-use areas, we have delineated 663 year-round local group regions in California. These are locations on the landscape that represent the known or inferred homeland of contact-period communities. The quantity of mapping regions, their sizes, and their precise boundaries, as presented here, underwent many changes during an iterative process, and will continue to change with future research.

We have grouped these regions into 14 analysis zones on the basis of mutual histories, shared language, and similar land-use patterns (Figure 8). The zones also combine some of the various factors that can affect region delineation, such as community types, the quality of mission record data, and the variation of ethnographic field data.

Appendix C presents the current array of 663 regions, broken down by analysis zone. Although the region count is larger than the 500 suggested by twentieth-century authors, it certainly is in the same order of magnitude. It is impossible to know how close the CDM model approaches ethnographic reality in the absence of a completely accurate survey in the year 1770. Thus the model can be criticized, even rejected, by perfectionists. But one of its main points is to illuminate assumptions about group locations and stimulate careful review of the evidence behind each of those assumptions.

====Naming Conventions for Regions and Native Groups====
An attempt was made to be systematic in applying name labels, both the modern geographic regional names and the chosen "tribal" group labels, for the regions. For the modern regional names, an attempt was made to pick something broadly recognizable, usually the largest town in the region. In rural areas a geographic feature, such as a creek or mountain peak, was used as a label, always one that is recognized by Google Maps. Modern rancheria names were typically not chosen, in order to reduce any fuzzy area between the ethnographic information and the map locations of today.

In choosing the ethnographic tribal or "rancheria" group label for each region, a probably hopeless attempt was made to minimize controversy and best reflect the preponderance of evidence that might be portrayed in a well-developed monograph. There is little problem in areas with minimal ethnographic data where only one field ethnographer worked; the name supplied by that source is used. Where two ethnographers supplied very different group names, but both with merit (e.g., Kroeber and Merriam), the label chosen followed that of the earliest (or only) formal publication.

In mission-impacted regions where only mission register group names are known, the most common spelling of a group in the Spanish orthography of the mission registers was used as the label. In other cases, where the published literature has slightly modified the spelling, the published standard was used (most common for Yokuts-speaking groups that went to the missions).

===Results as Digital Data===
Regional attributes can be used to generate numerous maps that will aid in the task of moving between close local study and analysis of broad regional patterns, another goal of the CDM. Two maps generated from those attributes are presented here, as a matter of illustration, rather than full explanation. Figure 9 shows the relative impact of the missions in the regions. Figure 10 is a draft representation of the population density of contact-period California.

==Moving Forward with the CDM==
The Community Distribution Model is a program, rather than a final product, for mapping and documenting the geography of the local socio-political groups of ethnographic (western-contact) period California. Kroeber (1962:3) estimated that there were 500 to 600 independent definable political groups in the State. Heizer pointed out in 1966 that no systematic attempt had yet been made to map such groups, due to the "huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians" (1966:9). He anticipated, however, that future scholars would map out the domains of those groups across the state. The CDM sets out along the path to accomplish that goal.

As it turns out, the goal of a perfect map of contact-period California local tribe areas can never be reached. One reason is that there are irreparable holes in the ethnographic record and the other reason is that there were areas of California that were not organized into definable local political groups. Recognizing these problems, the current version of the CDM separates the state into 663 lowland year-round local group regions, many of which are based on strong data, some of which are reconstructed from opaque data, and a few of which have been cut out from the landscape in the absence of any real data, just so that the map can be finished and local ethnographers can be challenged to fix it.

The concept of "editing and fixing" is critical to the CDM. The project is set up so that the groups and their regions are, or will be, described, defended, and questioned, in "wiki" text documents to which proven scholars from academia, tribal communities, and agencies will be able to improve on the work through primary field notes of the early ethnographers. When consensus is reached among the scholars in certain zones of the state, the GIS model boundaries themselves can be changed to reflect this improved knowledge. There will be problems, especially in defining and mapping the parts of California where small local village groups intermarried in overlapping outreach areas across wide landscapes, without developing true central leadership and territorial boundaries comparable to the Pomo or Yokuts groups of central California.

In summary, the CDM can be utilized in the future in the following areas:

* Bibliographic source: a place to check for references when conducting studies in any local region.
* Forum for working out conflicting ethnogeographic interpretations, using the consensus rules of Wikipedia Commons.
* Model for historic demography studies: separate data columns can be used to build and map regional population densities under alternative assumptions.
* Model for geographical social interaction studies: evidence on endogamous and exogamous marriage patterns can be translated to a map model, and tied to studies of genetic and cultural flow over time.
* Model for the initial colonization of California: algorithms can be built to model "budding off" and migration during the first human entry into California and, by map expansion, over all of North America.
These are just a few of the potential uses of the flexible package of tools that we are initiating in this statewide iteration of the Contact-Period California Community Distribution Model.

What follows, then, are 14 volumes, each one representing an analytical zone, focusing on multi-regional issues including a mutual history, shared language and land-use patterns, and relevant references, followed by anywhere from 13 to 68 regional monographs for each zone (Table 1).

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="72%" align="center"
|+Table 1. Volume, Analytical Zone, and Languages Spoken.
|-
|align = "center"|VOLUME Number
|align = "center"|ANALYTICAL ZONE
|align = "center"|LANGUAGE
|align = "center"|NUMBER OF REGIONS

|-
|align = "center"|2
|align = "center"|Northwest
|align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok Athabascan Karok Takelman
|align = "center"|37

|-
|align = "center"|3
|align = "center"|North
|align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko Wintu and Nomlaki Yana
|align = "center"|48

|-
|align = "center"|4
|align = "center"|Northeast
|align = "center"|Modoc Mountain Maidu Numic Pit River Washoe
|align = "center"|28

|-
|align = "center"|5
|align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Lake Miwok Pomo Wappo Yuki
|align = "center"|59

|-
|align = "center"|6
|align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
|align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu Patwin Wintuan Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Northern Ohlone
|align = "center"|66

|-
|align = "center"|8
|align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok Delta Yokuts 
|align = "center"|54

|-
|align = "center"|9
|align = "center"|South San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Mono Numic Tubatulabal Yokuts
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|10
|align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Northern Chumash Esselen Ohlone Salinan
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|11
|align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
|align = "center"|Chumash 
|align = "center"|68

|-
|align = "center"|12
|align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
|align = "center"|Takic
|align = "center"|58

|-
|align = "center"|13
|align = "center"|Southeast
|align = "center"|Numic Takic
|align = "center"|45

|-
|align = "center"|14
|align = "center"|South
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|20

|-
|align = "center"|15
|align = "center"|Colorado River
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|13

|-
|align = "right" colspan="3"|Total
|align = "center"|663

|}

==Bibliography==
Acsádi, Györgi, and J. Nemeskéri

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|''History of Human Life Span and Mortality''. Academy Kaidó, Budapest, Hungary.

|}

Adams, John W., and Alice Bee Kasakoff

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Factors Underlying Endogamous Group Size''. ''In ''Regional Analysis: Social Systems, Volume 2'', Carol Smith, pp. 149-173. , Academic Press, San Francisco.

|}

Bean, Lowell John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|''Mukat<nowiki>’</nowiki>s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978
| Social Organization. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 673-682. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bennyhoff, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1961
|The Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. (Later published in 1977 by the Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, University of California, Davis.)

|}

Bennyhoff, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|''The Ethnohistory of the Plains Miwok''. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication, No. 2. University of California, Davis.

|}

Brown, A. K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1967
|The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Reports ''69:1-99. Berkeley.

|}

Cook, Sherburne F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 16, University of California Press, Berkeley. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1976a
|''The Conflict Between the California Indians and White Civilization''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1976b
|''The Population of the California Indians 1769-1970''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Coombs, Gary

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1975
|Migration and Adaptation: Indian Missionization in California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, Warren L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Great Basin''. Edited by William C. Sturtevant. Handbook of North American Indians 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Gibson, Robert O.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Hayward.

|}

Gifford, Edward W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Miwok Lineages and the Political Unit in Aboriginal California. ''American Anthropologist'' 28(2):389-401.

|}

Harrington, John P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''John P. Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: Southern California''. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Microfilm edition. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|}

Heizer, Robert F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Henry, Louis

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Population: Analysis and Models''. Edward Arnold, London. (Translated from the French by Etienne van de Walle and Elisa F. Jones)

|}

Horne, Stephen P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''The Inland Chumash: Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and Archaeology.'' Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

Johnson, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1982
|An Ethnohistoric Study of the Island Chumash. Master<nowiki>’</nowiki>s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|-
| 
|1988
|''Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective''. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

King, Chester A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1969
|''Map 1: Approximate 1760 Chumash Village Locations and Populations''. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11:3-4.

|-
| 
|1973
|Appendix I: Documentation of Tribelet Boundaries, Locations and Sizes, Extracted from San Juan Bautista Mission Records''. ''In ''Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part I: The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California'', edited by Thomas King and Pat Hickman. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California,

|-
| 
|1974
|Appendix 2: Northern Santa Clara Ethnography''. ''In ''Environmental Impact Report: San Felipe Water Distribution Systems'', edited by Thomas King and Gary Berg, Environmental Science Associates. Submitted to Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara, California.

|-
| 
|1975
|The Names and Locations of Historic Chumash Villages. ''The Journal of California Anthropology'' 2:171-179.

|-
| 
|1977
|Matalan Ethnohistory''. ''In ''Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations for Construction of Freeway 04-SCl-101, Post Miles 17.2/29.4'', pp. 35-54, Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, San Francisco.

|}

King, Chester D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Historic Indian Settlement in the Vicinity of the Holiday Inn Site''. ''In ''Investigations at CA-SCl-128, the Holiday Inn Site'', Joseph Winter, pp. 436-458. ,

|-
| 
|1994
|Central Ohlone Ethnohistory''. ''In ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region'', edited by Lowell John Bean, pp. 183-202. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 42, Sylvia Brakke Vane.

|}

King, Thomas F., and Patricia P. Hickman

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1973
|''Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part I The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California: A General Plan for Archaeology''. Submitted to US Department of Interior, National Park Service, and the Frederick Burk Foundation, California State University, San Francisco. On file, Northwest Information Center, California Resources Survey, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|}

Kroeber, Alfred L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1925
|Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1932
|''The Patwin and their Neighbors''. University of California Publications on American Archaeology and Ethnology 29(4):253 423. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1955
|Nature of Land-Holding Group. ''Ethnohistory ''2(4):303-314.

|-
| 
|1962
|The Nature of Land-holding Groups in Aboriginal California''. ''In ''Two Papers on the Aboriginal Ethnography of California'', Del H. Hymes and Robert F. Heizer, pp. 19-58. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 56, Berkeley, California.

|-
| 
|1963
|Yokuts dialect survey. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(3).

|}

Kunkel, Peter H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

McLendon, Sally, and John R. Johnson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|''Cultural Affiliation and Lineal Descent of Chumash Peoples in the Channel Islands and the Santa Monica Mountains: Volumes I and II''. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, and Hunter College, City University of New York. Submitted to the Archeology and Ethnography Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

|}

Merriam, C. Hart

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|''Studies in California Indians''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1968
|Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey ''74, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

|-
| 
|1970
|''Indian Rancherias in Four Mission Records''. Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility University of California 9:29-58.

|}

Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Ethnohistory of the Lower Napa Valley''. ''In ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at the River Glen Site, CA-NAP-261, Napa County, California'', Tom L. Jackson, pp. 2.1-2.43. , Archaeological Consulting and Research Services. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University,

|-
| 
|1981
|Chapter 2, Ethnohistory of the Rumsen: The Mission Period''. ''In ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaeological Sites for the Stage I Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System: Volume I'', Stephen A. Dietz and Thomas L. Jackson, pp. 12-102. , Archaeological Consulting and Research Services. Submitted to Engineering-Science, Inc., (Reprinted in 1987 as Rumsen Ethnohistory)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Cultural Resource Studies, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

|-
| 
|1987
|''Rumsen Ethnohistory''. Papers in Northern California Anthropology 2. Northern California Anthropological Association. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|''Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period''. University of California, Berkeley. Submitted to State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, under Agreement No. 48279021.

|-
| 
|1991
|Ethnographic Context, Ethnohistory, and Historic Context''. ''In ''Preliminary Evaluation of Thirteen Sites Along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California''.

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810''. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 43. Ballena Press, Berkeley.

|}

Milliken, Randall, and John R. Johnson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2005
|''Salinan and Northern Chumash Communities of the Early Mission Period''. Far Western Anthropological and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. On file, California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo.

|}

Morgado, Martin J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1991
|''Junipero Serra, a Pictoral Biography''. Siempre Adelante Publishing. Monterey, California.

|}

Priestley, Herbert Ingram

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|''A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California by Pedro Fages, Soldier of Spain'', translated by Herbert Ingram Priestley. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Schenck, W. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography'' 25(2):123-146.

|}

Strong, William Duncan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|Aboriginal Society in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.

|}

Velásquez de la Cadena, Mariano

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1974
|''New Revised Velásquez Spanish and English Dictionary''. Follett Publishing Company, Chicago.

|}

Wrigley, E. A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|An Introduction to English Historical Demography: From the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

|}

==Additional Files==
*[[Volume 1 Appendix A|Appendix A]]: Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model
*[[Volume 1 Appendix B|Appendix B]]: Process for Producing the Community Distribution Model Regions' Mapping Layers
*[[Volume 1 Appendix C|Appendix C]]: Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model Zones and Regions

[[Category:Volume Report]]
[[Category:Volume 1]]

VOLUME 1

2010-06-21T17:53:46Z

WikiSysop: /* Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

='''Volume 1: Introduction to the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=

[[Image:Vol1-cover.png|right|400]]June 2010 DRAFT

''By:''

Randall Milliken,''Consulting in the Past''

''With:''

John Johnson,''Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History'' 
David Earle,''Antelope Valley College'' 
Norval Smith,''University of Amsterdam'' 
Patricia Mikkelsen,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Paul Brandy,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 
Jerome King,''Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.'' 

''Submitted to: ''California Department of Transportation, District 6, 2015 East Shields Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
----

<blockquote>''It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets.

-R. F. Heizer 1966''</blockquote>

==Abstract==
The ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) reconstructs California Indian community ethnogeography at the time of Spanish settlement. The CDM package currently includes: (1) a GIS map layer portraying 663 independent landholding communities/year-round habitation regions; (2) a group of monographs documenting ethnogeographic information and sources for the regions; and (3) a mission register database tracking the vital statistics of individuals who moved to Franciscan missions from approximately 420 of the 663 native regions. The digital map and text are dynamic, designed to be used, updated, and revised by academic scholars, tribal scholars, government agency planners, and culture history interpreters.

Most of the CDM mapping regions—especially those across most of central California—represent the lands of true territorial sedentary village-communities or tribelets. Some other regions represent distinct clusters of loosely affiliated villages, sedentary in Northwest California but with extensive seasonal population shifts in areas east of the Sierra and in the dry inner Coast Ranges. Mapping regions in parts of southern California are merely arbitrary divisions applied for purposes of local vicinity analysis to portions of extensive open networks of small, inter-marrying village-groups. Confidence in the accuracy of the regions and their boundaries varies greatly due to differences in the richness of existing data and to differences in scholarly interpretations of those data.

The database, narratives, and regional boundaries are presented in a GIS application and Wiki format. This will allow future scholars to reconsider regional boundaries, to expand or annotate existing monographs, and to contribute new monographs for the currently unfinished areas.

==Introduction==
The ''Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model'' (CDM) is a digital atlas and wiki encyclopedia that models the socio-political landscape of native California at the time of first contact with the Spanish, a rolling moment from the 1770s to the 1830s. The CDM atlas portrays a model distribution of 663 community ''regions'' (inferred or known village communities or tribelets) across California on a GIS digital map layer, divided into 14 ''analytical zones'' that combine regions on the basis of mutual histories, shared language, and similar land-use patterns. The associated encyclopedia consists of "wiki" monographs that gather together archival information for each of the community regions (i.e., presented within a collaborative website that allows for creation and controlled editing of interlinked web pages). An additional key element, a Mission Register database, provides locational information for the CDM regions from which the people were entirely removed to the Franciscan missions between 1770 and 1835. These separate elements together form the CDM (Figure 1).

The CDM Project is being developed by Dr. Randall Milliken for use by academic scholars, tribal scholars, government agency planners, and culture history interpreters. It brings together decades of research and mission record analysis. It has been produced by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. with support from a number of district environmental branches within the California Department of Transportation. As of spring 2010, monographs have been prepared for more than 80 of the regions, primarily in the San Francisco Bay area, the Sacramento Valley, and the San Joaquin Valley. Our future goal is to place the CDM within an academic setting so that the GIS map and wiki monographs will be available for further development—expansions, modifications, and annotations—by scholars knowledgeable about the contact-period ethnogeography of every local area of California.

===Project Purpose===
[[File:Vol1-fig1.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 1. Creating the Community Distribution Model.]]California Indians at the time of Euro-American contact lived out their lives in local communities of a few score to a few hundred individuals. They interacted with their immediate neighbors on all sides, regardless of language differences, through reciprocal trading, participation in ceremonial events, and occasional hostilities. Early twentieth-century ethnographers documented such groups with some precision in areas of California that had avoided most of the initial negative impact of western expansion. A.L. Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" to characterize those groups that consisted of inter-married families that defended fixed territorial boundaries. However, the term "tribelet" pertained only to some regional groups (e.g., Pomo, Yokuts, Modoc, and Pit River), but not to more loosely organized ceremonial regions (e.g., Yurok). Nor is it clear that the term "tribelet" can be used for the mountains and deserts east and south of Los Angeles, where early twentieth-century field studies suggest that small villages formed around specific patrilocal lineages that intermarried in complex patterns on the land that precluded formation of multi-village socio-political identity.

No statewide "tribelet" map has ever been constructed for contact-period ethnographic California. Robert Heizer commented on that fact in his 1966 mapping project entitled ''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes'', a study that introduced the only composite statewide map of local groups based upon C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s many field notes, and compared against A.L. Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1925 map of the language groups of California. At the time, Heizer (1966:9) wrote:

<blockquote>Kroeber estimates that California held between 500 and 600 … <nowiki>’</nowiki>independent and separate definable groups.<nowiki>’</nowiki> It may be anticipated that future scholars, undaunted by the huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians, will work over the information on a tribe-by-tribe basis and prepare maps showing the domains of the identifiable or inferable tribelets. Such a task is far too complex and time-consuming to be attempted here.</blockquote>

The digital process used in the CDM makes it easier than ever before to create a statewide map of contact-period California ethnogeography:

* We are not committed to a published, static, one-size map.
* It is especially valuable for mapping communities mentioned in mission records that can only be located indirectly and tentatively by date of baptism and marriage ties.
* The digital map can be modified as scholars examine the implications of one or another interpretation of the archival record for a given local area; i.e., the network placement of groups in relation to one mission may need to be redesigned when the inferred pattern is compared with those developed for the communities of adjacent missions.

===Assessing the Regional Model===
[[File:Vol1-fig2.png|200px|thumb|right|Figure 2. Community Distribution Model Analytical Zones within California.]]The specific regions draw attention to the local nature of everyday life in pre-European times and allow us a comparative perspective on the level of ethnographic knowledge. Many of the regions do approximate the year-round use-areas of tribelets or loose regional communities. In other cases a model region may inadvertently split the territory of some "real" past groups, or present the areas of separate groups as though they were one. There is no doubt, however, that pre-European California people lived out most of their lives within regions of the size presented by the CDM model, and that they interacted with neighbors in contiguous regions and knew much less about more distant groups.

It is a down side of this "cubby hole" approach that some readers will fail to read caveats presented here and believe that the regional boundaries are all precisely documented local group borders. But that problem is less serious than the tyranny of "language group as tribe" that informs the understanding of the public and some scholars today. The upside of the model presented here lies in its exposure of the variation in quality of ethnographic information from one region to the next and in its flexibility for adding new information about regions and their possible boundaries through in-depth local studies. In the future, thorough studies of one region, or a group of contiguous regions, might be the subject of entire academic symposia or doctoral dissertations.

==Ethnographic Landholding Groups in California==
The groups of California Indians portrayed on historic tribal maps of the United States—Cahuilla, Chumash, Pomo, Washoe, and dozens of others—are actually language groups, delineated and named by western scholars. Landholding groups in California at the time of European contact were local communities—people closely bound by blood, marriage, and proximity of residence. Anthropologist A.L. Kroeber introduced the term "tribelet" in 1932 for the type of territorial multi-family landholding community that prevailed across most of California. At the end of his career Kroeber considered the tribelet to be one of four landholding group types, the other three being: (1) small, ceremonially linked village clusters of northwest California; (2) small, single-lineage villages in the southern desert; and (3) high-population Colorado River multi-village tribes (Kroeber 1955, 1962; see also Bean 1978; Gifford 1926; Heizer 1966). While these general categories are maintained here, we have used broader terminology to identify them and have assigned groups to slightly different categories than identified by Kroeber (1955, 1962).

* ''Tribelets''
::Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Ohlone, Achomawi, Rumsen Costanoan; some Patwin, Pomo, and Yokuts; perhaps Plains Miwok and Nomlaki.

* ''Loose Regional Communities ''(includes Kroeber<nowiki>’</nowiki>s ceremonially linked villages)
::Washoe, Hupa, Karok, Yurok

* ''Completely Unbounded Networks of Small, Single-Lineage Villages''
::Uto-Aztecan, Ipai/Tipai; perhaps Sierra Miwok, Hill Nisenan, Hill Northwest Maidu, Yana

* ''Ambiguously Bounded Regions of Large Sedentary Villages''
::Sacramento Valley (Patwin and Maidu), Santa Barbara Channel (Coastal and Island Chumash), and Colorado River (Cocopa, Mohave, Yuma)

===The Tribelet===
Local tribelets had fixed territories, a single head person, and a large enough population (200 or more people) to have been at least 50% endogamous. They varied in number and relative size of villages. Most Patwin, Pomo, Valley Nisenan, Valley Northwest Maidu, and Yokuts tribelets seem to have had capital villages and outlying suburbs (Kunkel 1962). Some Patwin, Pomo, and Yokuts tribelets, and all Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok, and San Francisco Bay area Ohlone tribelets had multiple villages of relatively even size (Milliken 1995:20-24), as perhaps did the Plains Miwok (Bennyhoff 1977) and the Nomlaki (Kroeber 1932:373).

Kroeber coined the term "tribelet" for multi-family political communities that held most of the California landscape. He summarized his thinking about the tribelet and lineage as follows in a 1955 monograph:

<blockquote>The tribelet was first called the "village community" in the ethnological literature, to distinguish it from the village as a mere physical settlement; and its size was underestimated at only around 100 members. Later, I deliberately coined the name tribelet to designate it as a sovereign though miniature political unit, which was land-owning and maintained its frontiers against unauthorized trespass. At the average of 250-300, there would have been a full 500 tribelets in the later American state of California (Kroeber 1955:307-308).</blockquote>

Kroeber (1962:34-36) described three case studies of California tribelets to illustrate local variation in tribelet size and population density:

#Pomo-speaking tribelets of the North Coast Ranges averaged 240 persons in territories about ten miles by ten miles in size, for a population density of 2.4 persons per square mile.
#Yokuts-speaking tribelets of the San Joaquin Valley averaged 350 members each in territories about four times larger, with a suggested population density of 1.4 persons per square mile.
#Achomawi-speaking tribelets of northeast California contained about 275 persons and held such large territories that their populations were only 0.5 persons per square mile (when both their restricted winter territories and expanded summer territories are included).

===Loose Regional Communities===
Loose regional communities are clusters of family groups that shared numerous short-term villages within tribelet-sized regions that lacked defended boundaries and central leadership. The loose regional community model is well illustrated by the Washoe language group (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:485). Among the Washoe, daily life and the yearly life cycle revolved around two levels of community—the local village level and the regional multi-village level. The local village community, the basic unit of social organization, was a group of closely related households that shared the same winter camp and identified with a single local leader. The Washoe themselves referred to this local village community level as "the bunch." A local community populated one winter village that generally consisted of a cluster of two to ten houses. While the local community did not spend the entire year together in that single village, it did consider itself the basic cooperative unit for communal hunts, defense, and group ceremonial expression year-round. Membership in "bunches" was fluid, as individuals and families often shifted residence temporarily or permanently "to the households of other relatives in the same or a distant community" (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:483).

The Washoe regional community included all the local communities within a region approximately 10-15 miles in diameter. An example regional community included the four local communities of the Woodfords-Markleeville area of Alpine County, California. Together the four local communities formed the "dwellers in the corner where rivers flow away out" regional community (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:468). Constituent local communities united into regional communities "by identification with place and by loose ties of kinship and constituted a population of hundreds of persons with whom there was some degree of familiarity and mutual trust" (D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo 1986:484). The regional community, as a cluster of local communities, had a number of headmen, but in ethnographic times it seldom acted as a single political unit.

In Northwest California the speakers of Hupa, Karok, and Yurok lived in numerous small villages along major rivers. Nuclear families were stratified between the wealthy and the poor. Extended family lineage affiliation did not seem to be important. Nor did groups of hamlets cluster into local landholding tribelets under centralized political authority. However, there was some regional organization at the ceremonial level:

<blockquote>There were practiced a series of "world-renewal" rituals, each made separately and with a fair measure of differentiation, at designated spots, and supported by the inhabitants of a recognized tract surrounding the sacred spots. Both in extent and in population these tracts resemble tribelets <nowiki>[</nowiki>Kroeber 1955:311<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

===Unbounded Networks of Small Single-Lineage Villages===
A third form of land use was based upon small, semi-sedentary villages of 40-100 inhabitants that intermarried with near neighbors in overlapping spheres of outreach that extended for great distances, without establishing any tribelet-sized regions. Such land-use patterns were clearly present among many Uto-Aztecan groups of southern California, probably among the Ipai/Tipai of San Diego County, and perhaps among the Sierra Miwok, Hill Nisenan, Hill Northwest Maidu, and Yana. In all these areas, evidence is either lacking or contradictory for fixed territorial tribelets. Populations lived in numerous small villages, many with their own ceremonial dance houses, scattered along ridges and in favorable valleys. The marriage networks of such communities overlapped with one another. Under this form of organization, each local village was politically independent, but each was so small that it was completely exogamous to near neighbors, much smaller than the 10-15-mile-diameter areas of classic Yokuts or Pomo tribelets. The independence of each local village community is upheld in the classic works of Kroeber (1925) and Strong (1929) for southern California as a whole, as well as a later study by Bean (1972) for the Cahuilla. Villages had complex intermarriage patterns driven by moiety considerations among the Uto-Aztecans (Bean 1972; Strong 1929). However, blanket terms were not applied to distinct multi-village communities because distinct multi-village regions do not seem to have existed:

<blockquote>The California lineage group was what the name implies, a line of male kinsmen who were autonomous in a territory sufficient to support them. They took their wives from and married their daughters into other lineages. The bonds of kinship might be transcended if one lineage became reduced and took refuge with another. A desert or infertile habitat, necessitating a spread of population, tended to preserve political organization on the lineage basis. Contrarily, in habitats rich in food, it is presumed that several lineages tended to coalesce into permanent village—that is tribelets <nowiki>[</nowiki>Kroeber 1955:308<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

===Ambiguously Bounded Regions of Large Sedentary Villages===
The last of the four land-use regions are the two areas of California where there were closely spaced, large permanent villages, each seemingly independent of the other, but so close together that they must have shared hinterlands in different ways than the classic Yokuts or Pomo tribelets. These two areas were the central Sacramento Valley (Patwin and Maidu) and the Santa Barbara Channel (Coastal and Island Chumash).

Similarly, tribelet-level regional differentiation seems to have been absent along the Colorado River, including southern California. Groups of 2,000 to 3,000 farming people (Cocopa, Mohave, Yuma) held tracts of riverine lands far more extensive than any of the small lineage or tribelet areas elsewhere in California. During the Spanish era in the southwest these groups were capable of mobilizing under a central leadership to make war upon one another. Yet, "it is possible that even these tribes were conglomerations of earlier tribelets," Kroeber (1955:310) suggested.

===Summary for Land-Use Types===
These different land-using groups are one aspect to be considered when delineating regional boundaries. There is the contrast between sedentary groups with fixed boundaries (tribelets) and mobile groups with fluid boundaries (loose regional communities). Then there are small, single-lineage villages with overlapping outreach areas (single-lineage villages), in contrast to closely spaced, independent villages with shared hinterlands (ambiguously bounded large villages).

We discuss how these landholding groups were used to create regional boundaries in [[VOLUME 1#BUILDING THE COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION MODEL|Section 1.5]].

==Franciscan Mission Registers and Ethnogeography==
This chapter describes the use of Franciscan mission records of baptism, marriage, and burial for reconstructing the local-level ethnogeographic tribal landscape. These mission records are the only systematic source for such reconstructions for a large portion of California. By the 1830s all tribal people of the San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles basin, the South Coast Ranges, the Delta, and the western side of the San Joaquin Valley—more than 50,000 people—had left their lands and moved to the missions. The mission records contain the only information regarding the original home groups of the vast majority of those people. And because the missionaries were obliged to document basic information about each individual that they baptized, the mission registers provide a systematic and nearly comprehensive tally of native groups for much of California.

Of the 663 CDM mapping regions identified in California, 420 are in areas that were completely or partially disrupted by the Franciscan mission system. Unfortunately, the mission record data on native homelands is uneven and often opaque for most of those areas. Missionaries did write down the names of thousands of communities that they called "rancherias," but they seldom clarified whether they were referring to a specific village, on the one hand, or a regional multi-village group on the other. Nor did they often provide explicit clues regarding the locations of the communities they listed. This chapter describes the techniques that have been developed over time to overcome these and other weaknesses in the mission register ethnogeographic information.

===Rancherias in the Mission Register===
[[File:Vol1-fig4.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 3. Father Serra<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Leather-bound, Mission Carmel Libro de Confirmaciones. Diocese of Monterey Chancery Archives, Monterey.
]][[File:Vol1-fig5.png|thumb|200|right|Figure 4. Record of the First Baptism Performed by Father Serra, listed in Mission San Carlos Borromeo<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Libro de Bautismos. Bernardino de Jesus of the Rumsen Tribe, Born in the Achista Rancheria.]]When the Spanish missionaries arrived in California, they brought with them leather-bound books within which they were enjoined by church and state to record key information about each of their Indian converts (Figure 3). At baptism, each individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name, newly bestowed Spanish name, and inferred age was transcribed in a dated entry next to a unique sequential baptismal identification number (Figure 4). Beyond basic date, name, age, and "serial number," individual missionaries varied in what they wrote about baptized individuals. The vast majority of missionaries provided names of the baptized person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home community. Confirmations, marriages, and deaths were also recorded, each in their own dedicated books. Stella Clemence, one of C. Hart Merriam<nowiki>’</nowiki>s assistants, extracted lists of the named rancherias for most missions just prior to 1920, published under the editorship of Robert Heizer (Merriam 1955, 1968, 1970).

Alternate spellings of rancheria names by different priests are a major problem as they can be quite extreme. This issue can be aided by bringing together the mission register information for nuclear and extended families so that names spelled out by different priests over many years can be seen at one time. In central California, for example, approximately 4,000 distinctly spelled rancheria names are listed in the registers of baptism, burial, and marriage of the 11 Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano south to San Miguel). These can be reduced to 1,300 names when alternative spellings of specific rancheria names are recognized. The processes of re-sorting mission register information by family group and of tracking "standardized" rancheria names in specific mission register entries will be documented in subsequent sections of this chapter.

A problem in understanding the socio-political meaning of the many rancheria names is that of synonymy. Some missionaries labeled groups by the name of the group<nowiki>’</nowiki>s headman, others labeled them by the name of their largest village, and still others named them by some directional or regional term. One missionary might label a group by a word used by its neighbors of a different language, while another might name the same group by a label that it called itself; this was common among groups that sent people to more than one mission. Through study of extended family groups, some synonymous rancheria names become apparent.

Another problem in interpreting the socio-political landscape from mission register information is that of scale. It has been mentioned that the word "rancheria" means "community." From the earliest days of exploration in California, Spanish diarists used the term in describing specific villages, or clusters of grass houses, inhabited by the tribal people they encountered. That usage corresponds to the modern Spanish-English dictionary definition of rancheria as "a collection of huts, like a hamlet" (Velásquez 1974:551). But the English term "community" can also mean a group of people who share a number of villages within a fixed territory, and the Spanish term "rancheria" came to be used that way in California as well (Milliken 1987:59, 1995:21, 233). Both in military diaries and in the mission records, the term "rancheria" may signify either a specific village or the community of shared identity that utilizes one or more specific villages. This conflation of two meanings partially explains why some rancheria names appear only five or six times in all the mission registers, while others appear hundreds of times.

In sum, some rancheria names in mission records refer to mobile bands, others represent specific sedentary villages, and still others represent the names of multi-village regions. The process that has developed over time to overcome problems of scale and synonymy in the mission registers, to track individuals as members of identifiable communities (distinct single village or multi-village groups), and to choose "standard" names for those groups, will be discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

===Pioneering Mission Register Studies===
[[File:Vol1-fig6.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 5. Map showing the Progressive Collapse of Autonomous Tribal Areas during the Years 1790 to 1806.]][[File:Vol1-fig7.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 6. Marriage Ties Between the Chupcan and Their Nearest Neighbors Based on Baptisms of Married Couples at Mission San Francisco and Mission San Jose, 1795-1811.
]]Ethnogeographies in the mission outreach areas of California now universally rely on mission register data. In this section we review the development of those kinds of studies from the 1850s forward. Beginning with Alexander Taylor in the 1860s, scholars interested in California ethnogeography have mined the mission records in search group names, then mapped ostensible home locations on the ground. Egbert Schenack referred to mission records in his 1926 study of the groups of the California Delta. Historical demographer Sherburne F. Cook produced studies that combined counts of group populations from the mission registers with other historical clues to improve understanding of many homeland areas (Cook 1955).

James A. Bennyhoff advanced mission register study by making two of Cook<nowiki>’</nowiki>s approaches explicit. He wrote:

<blockquote>By plotting the tribelet names and the numbers baptized against the years, a significant constellation appears for each tribelet by which one can judge the approximate distance from the mission and the year of most intensive contact <nowiki>[</nowiki>Bennyhoff (1977:20<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Modern mission register-based ethnogeography follows three principles discussed by Bennyhoff:

* Rancherias close to missions generally sent their people for baptism earlier than villages at greater distances, resulting in a "domino" effect outward from each mission.
* Rancherias near one another had a greater number of intermarriages than rancherias separated by great distances (the basis for "marriage pattern" studies of group proximity).
* Rancherias that sent people to two or more missions usually existed in areas equidistant between the missions in question. (This rule does not apply north of San Francisco Bay due to the complex history of mission development and outreach in that area.)
When the "wave-front" of mission outreach is mapped, the relative distance of otherwise-unlocated groups baptized in specific years can be determined (Figure 5). The "marriage pattern" technique looks for strongly intermarried groups, then infers that such groups may have held lands contiguous to one another (Figure 6). Bennyhoff (1977) used a combination of these two techniques, together with clues from classical ethnography, to map ethnographic central California.

In southern California, Alan K. Brown (1967) pioneered the rigorous use of mission register clues to help determine Chumash village sizes and locations. While Brown did not systematically evaluate quantitative family links among villages, he carefully extracted quotations from specific baptismal entries to emphasize inter-village relationships that supported locational surmises. Techniques introduced by Bennyhoff and Brown were further developed by Chester King. King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1969, 1975) initial studies of Chumash village locations and their populations relied on J. P. Harrington<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1986) field notes, other early texts, and aggregative summaries of Santa Barbara County vicinity mission register entries. King (1973) also gleaned information from the Mission San Juan Bautista registers for T. King and Hickman<nowiki>’</nowiki>s (1973) reconstruction of tribelet locations in the Mission San Juan Bautista vicinity.

===Family Reconstitution to Solve Rancheria Riddles===
[[File:Vol1-fig8.png|200|right|thumb|Figure 7. Family Reconstitution Chart: Onesimo and Maria de Los Angeles Baylon.]]One common flaw in early ethnogeographic studies that used mission register data was the failure to overcome "scale" and "synonymy" problems. Schenck (1926) failed to recognize that the "Tarquines" of one source were a conflation of the Karkins and Tauquimnes of the mission records. Kroeber (1963) made the same mistake, conflating the Chilamne and Cholvon of the mission records into the non-existent "Chulamni." Bennyhoff (1977) gave some very small "hamlet" groups equal space on the land with very large multi-village regional groups.

The backbone technique for identification and resolution of such problems is the family reconstitution method. Family reconstitution, first introduced for social geography studies in Europe (Henry 1976; Wrigley 1966), is the process of amalgamating dispersed bits of information about individuals, married couples, and extended families into composite information sets (Figure 7). In mission register studies, family kinship charts are reconstituted from various register entries, resulting in composite data sets that illuminate: (1) synonymous terms for rancherias; (2) relationships of rancherias that are villages to rancherias that are regional names; (3) patterns of intermarriage among communities; (4) timing of family and community movements to missions; and (5) numerous demographic processes that do not emerge from aggregative mission register studies.

Family reconstitution was first applied to California mission data sets by Chester King (King 1974, 1977, 1978). King constructed kinship charts, exposed alternative names of villages that sent people to more than one mission, and increased the number of identified inter-village marriages. The reconstituted evidence allowed King to infer the locations of poorly documented Northern Chumash locations around Mission San Luis Obispo.

Other researchers soon began constructing kinship charts following King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s lead (Horne 1981; Milliken 1981). John Johnson (1982) documented marriage relationships among Santa Barbara Channel Island villagers and between them and mainland populations. Randall Milliken (1981) used mission register information to identify the relationship between the Rumsen tribelet of the Carmel Valley and its five constituent villages. John Johnson (1988:248-288) applied quantitative techniques borrowed from social-network analysis and cultural geography to examine inter-village social relationships among Chumash of the Santa Barbara Channel. Johnson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s diagrams of inter-group interaction, for all people baptized from forty Chumash towns and villages within the Santa Ynez Valley and along the Santa Barbara Channel coast, suggest some alternate ethnogeographic placements to those in King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1984 study.

Milliken (1991) used Bennyhoff<nowiki>’</nowiki>s indirect mission register techniques, as well as family reconstitution, to identify San Francisco Bay area group locations and local group migrations to missions Dolores, Santa Clara, and San Jose between 1777 and 1810 in a work subsequently published as ''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810 ''(Milliken 1995). During the same time period, Chester King (1994) applied family reconstitution methods to Mission Santa Cruz register data to examine inter-group marriage patterns in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Beginning in 1993, a team of ethnohistorians led by Johnson and C. King conducted a comprehensive study of Chumash ethnogeography, marriage patterns, and family survival into the American period. The team built a six-mission database that included information on all baptized Indian people from Chumash territories between missions San Fernando and San Luis Obispo. The database was used by McLendon and Johnson (1999) to document the genealogical relationships between the Spanish-contact Chumash and the Chumash people of the twentieth century. In that study, McLendon and Johnson (1999:31) used an enhanced version of the domino and marriage pattern principles to re-evaluate village locations within the Northern Chumash region (the Mission San Luis Obispo outreach area), adjusting King<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1984 map of that western Santa Barbara/southwestern San Luis Obispo county area.

===Computers for Mission Register Data Management===
====Initial Development of Computer Databases====
The base data for the present CDM process in the coastal portions of California south of the Russian River are computerized mission records that augment family reconstitution and contain fields that assign individuals and married couples to groups with standardized group names. Computer databases have been key tools in California ethnogeography since the mid-1980s. Gary Coombs (1975) was the first person to use a computer database to track and cross-refer thousands of bits of information in the mission registers. For his Ph.D. dissertation, Coombs used computer punch cards to collate and sort information about the history of baptism of Chumash villages in the present Santa Barbara County area. A short time later, Milliken (1981) developed computer punch card sets for the first 800 baptisms at Mission Carmel and the first 1,800 baptisms at Mission Dolores (Milliken 1983). Johnson (1988:248-288) used the database to apply quantitative techniques on the Santa Barbara Channel.

Milliken moved the Mission Carmel and Mission Dolores data from punch cards to a dBASE database format in the early 1980s, then continued to expand the Mission Dolores database in the late 1980s to include information on more than 5,000 individuals. The Mission Carmel database aided construction of kinship charts for people from rancherias whose members went to Mission Carmel from Esselen-speaking areas in the northern Santa Lucia Range and the Salinas River Valley (Milliken 1990). For other projects, including his dissertation, Milliken developed separate databases for all 11 of the central California missions from San Miguel north to San Francisco Solano from 1988 to 2004.

====Current Comprehensive Databases====
Rapid development in mission register digitization since the year 2002 has led to the emergence of two distinct comprehensive California mission databases. One is the Early California Population Project (ECPP) database, with more than 100,000 records available on-line through the Huntington Library in San Marino, California. That system was developed by historian Steve Hackel, with initial design advice from John Johnson and Randall Milliken, among others. The ECPP database, while excellent for genealogical research, lacks rigorous standardization of "rancheria" information and does not tie rancheria names to actual locations on the ground.

The second comprehensive California mission register database, and the one utilized for this report, is the California Mission Database built by Randall Milliken. It took form in 2006, when Milliken consolidated the series of independent mission-specific databases he had built over the years for the 11 central California missions into a single Microsoft ACCESS database. One of the key tables is the records for baptisms, also called the "Individuals" table (see Appendix Table A-1). In 2007 John Johnson allowed Milliken to modify the structure of Johnson<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Santa Barbara Database (six missions from San Fernando to San Luis Obispo) and consolidate it (for limited research purposes) into Milliken<nowiki>’</nowiki>s ACCESS database structure. The result is the Mission Database, consisting of records up through the year 1840 for the 17 missions from San Fernando north to San Francisco Solano. The Missions Database has an individuals table that includes 55,603 records representing 32,375 tribal converts, 13,696 mission-born California Indians, 7,919 non-Indians, and 1,543 records marking duplicate or skipped entries. This table also contains linked death records of 33,210 death records of the baptized people except in the case of non-Indian immigrants baptized elsewhere. Finally, a separate table includes 16,333 marriage records (14,689 Indian couples, 1,535 Hispanic and other foreign couples, and 109 Hispanic/Indian couples) cross-referenced to the combined baptisms/deaths table.

As of 2010, the Missions Database also contains a separate "Regions" table that cross-links to the 663 GIS-mapped California habitation regions (see Appendix Table A-2). The Regions Table in the Missions Database also cross-links internally to baptismal records in the Individuals Table through a "Regions" field. The nature and use of the "regions" concept is explained in next chapter of this document.

==Building the Community Distribution Model==
This chapter presents how the CDM of ethnographic California, with 663 year-round habitation regions, was built. The first section illustrates how the model marks off a large segment of California that did not support year-round populations. Then we show the variation of regional identification from one portion of California to another due to differences in the nature of political communities and in the nature and quality of the information available today. The final portion of this chapter points out the results of printed and digital products and explains the reason for building a structure with both local region monographs and 14 analytic zone reports. Details of computer use in this process are laid out in Appendix B.

===Delineating Seasonal-Use Areas===
It is for the most part neither necessary nor desirable to delineate small local regions for parts of California that were not utilized intensively year-round, i.e., parts that were either covered with snow for much of the winter or very dry for much of the summer. These areas were utilized seasonally by people who lived in hospitable landscapes directly bordering them. Identified in the CDM as "seasonal regions," these harsh landscapes tend to be larger, as mapping units, than the regions that had year-round inhabitants. They are further distinguished from the year-round regions as they were often shared, and occasionally contested, by people from multiple year-round regions, often speaking different languages.

For cismontane California, the CDM upland boundary has been set at 2,780 feet elevation at the Oregon border, rising to 5,800 feet elevation at the Mexican border. As one travels ten miles north or south, the upland boundary moves downward or upward some 45 feet. This is due to changing day length and solar radiation exposure. It is, of course, only a general rule; distance from the ocean, weather patterns, and local topography render reality much less orderly. Nevertheless, the CDM boundary rule works for cismontane California because it was based upon the actual distribution of ethnographic villages in uplands across California. The rule has been ignored in the Pit River watershed and areas of transmontane California north and east of Walker Pass; in those areas year-round villages existed at elevations of 1,000 feet or more, higher than those over the mountains to the west.

Of special note, there are some places in California where small numbers of people seem to have been willing to live in very harsh environments year-round. These areas are all in transmontane upland and desert California. The Truckee Mono Lake regions are examples, as is the Mojave Desert. Most of these were at great distances from the typical year-round regions of California, suggesting an alternative, and more efficient, adaptation than the yearly "transhumance" found elsewhere in the state.

===Shaping Year-Round Local Group Regions===
Four different approaches were taken to delineating regions based upon two different sets of variables. One key variable is the nature of the land-using organization. Region determination is a different activity in areas where people lived in bounded territories (e.g., Pomo, Pit River, Yurok) than in areas were no regional territories seem to have existed (e.g., Cahuilla, Foothill Nisenan).

The second key variable is the nature of the data. The problems and opportunities for reconstructing ethnogeography are much different in areas strongly impacted by mission outreach (west central and west southern California) than in areas where the available information emerges primarily from classical ethnographic fieldwork (northern and eastern California).

In all four types of areas, the digital mapping process is preceded by working with small paper disks of known villages and groups placed on a large map. From that point forward, the decisions about coalescence of locations and placement of region boundaries is highly variable. Below, the different kinds of data and mapping procedures are summarized; Volumes 2-15 fully document these procedures for each analysis zone.

====Bounded Regions North and East of Mission Areas====
The following areas were the subject of good field ethnography that established core homelands, and in some cases mapped specific boundaries (some porous, others strict) between distinct territorial groups:

:4. Modoc speakers around Tule Lake and Palaihnihan speakers of the Pit River drainage, northeast California.
:5. Tolowa, Karok, Yurok, Wiyot, and Hupa lands, from the Eureka vicinity to the Oregon border in northwest California.
:6. Most North Coast Range areas where Pomo and Yukian languages were spoken (the exception being the missionized Santa Rosa Plain and northern Napa County near the San Francisco Bay area).
:7. East side of the South San Joaquin Valley and adjacent Sierran foothills where Yokuts languages, Mono and Tubatulabal, were spoken.
:8. Lake Tahoe vicinity, where Washoe group winter territories were politically unbounded but well-defined.
:9. Owens Valley where Mono/Northern Paiute groups had loose territorial boundaries.

In all these areas, regional boundaries are drawn with confidence that they generally reflect a factual ethnographic situation.

====Open Village Networks and Ambiguous Regions North and East of Mission Areas====
For large areas of California, field ethnographers gathered dozens of village names and locations, but found little or contradictory evidence of regional coalescence and boundedness. Such areas include:

#Athabascan-speaking portions of the North Coast Ranges in the Eel River drainage.
#Yana, Nomlaki, and Wintu areas of the northern Sacramento River drainage.
#River Patwin, Northwest Maidu, and Valley Nisenan villages of the Sacramento Valley (said to be tribelets, but boundaries absolutely opaque).
#The entire Sierra Nevada from the Feather River south to the headwaters of the San Joaquin River.
#The Kawaiisu area south of the Kern River.
#Shoshone and Southern Paiute-speaking areas of desert southeast California.
#The Mountain and Desert Cahuilla areas from San Gorgonio Pass to the south and east.

In areas where flexible home-base groups varied in size and locations from year to year, and sent their people far out into the Mojave Desert seasonally, we have divided the "year-round" habitation portion of the landscape into "tribelet-sized" regions to bring focus to what local ethnographic clues are available and to consider differences from one local region to another. These types of regions have significant year-round wells or springs and are often adjacent to uplands covered in snow for parts of the winter.

For the basin and range north of Mojave River, Panamint and Chemehuevi people had such flexibility that the concept of seasonal "home bases" may not even apply. Nevertheless, we have attempted to isolate regions that had the best resources for semi-permanent camping sites all year-round, and to leave the surrounding areas as "flexible use areas."

====Mission-Impacted Areas that were Bounded Territories====
[[File:Vol1-fig9.png|thumb|200|right|
Figure 8. Ethnographic Regions by Major Language Group.
]][[File:Vol1-fig10.png|200|thumb|right|Figure 9. Variation in Mission-Induced Depopulation across California.]][[File:Vol1-fig11.png|200|thumb|right|
Figure 10. Ethnographic Regions by Tentative Population Density.]]In some of the areas of California hard-hit by mission proselytization, mission record sources clearly identify multi-village regional groups. However, they seldom provide much indication of their core areas or the boundary locations. The areas include:

#The San Francisco Bay Costanoan/Ohlone, Bay Miwok, and Coast Miwok speaking groups.
#The Plains Miwok and Yokuts groups of the Delta and central riverine corridor of the San Joaquin Valley.
#Some southern Costanoan-Ohlone groups of the Monterey Bay area, all Esselen groups, and some Salinan groups of the South Coast Ranges.
#Takic speakers of the Los Angeles Basin and the San Luis Rey area.

It is easiest to map such groups in vicinities that have geographic boundaries, such as the San Francisco and Marin peninsulas. In all other areas, regions are inferred using classic indirect mission register analysis.

====Mission-Impacted Areas with Numerous Independent Villages====
Mission records give no indication at all of the presence of multi-village regional groups in some areas of west-central and southern California. Areas include:

#Coast Miwok-speaking areas of western Marin County along Tomales Bay in the San Francisco Bay area.
#Much of the densely populated Chumash-speaking Santa Barbara Channel.
#Serrano Takic-speaking areas along the north edge of the San Gabriel Mountains.
#Luiseño Takic-speaking areas around Mission San Juan Capistrano and eastward toward San Jacinto.
#Ipai/Tipai-speaking village areas through San Diego County.

Although all these areas are listed together, the mapping problems that each present are unique. The techniques and results for each will be discussed in appropriate Analysis Zone volumes.

===Regions and Analysis zones===
After factoring in landholding community types, Franciscan mission registers of baptism and death, rancheria delineation, domino effects of missionization, marriage patterns, family reconstitution, mortality rates, inferred population densities, classical ethnographies, and seasonal-use areas, we have delineated 663 year-round local group regions in California. These are locations on the landscape that represent the known or inferred homeland of contact-period communities. The quantity of mapping regions, their sizes, and their precise boundaries, as presented here, underwent many changes during an iterative process, and will continue to change with future research.

We have grouped these regions into 14 analysis zones on the basis of mutual histories, shared language, and similar land-use patterns (Figure 8). The zones also combine some of the various factors that can affect region delineation, such as community types, the quality of mission record data, and the variation of ethnographic field data.

Appendix C presents the current array of 663 regions, broken down by analysis zone. Although the region count is larger than the 500 suggested by twentieth-century authors, it certainly is in the same order of magnitude. It is impossible to know how close the CDM model approaches ethnographic reality in the absence of a completely accurate survey in the year 1770. Thus the model can be criticized, even rejected, by perfectionists. But one of its main points is to illuminate assumptions about group locations and stimulate careful review of the evidence behind each of those assumptions.

====Naming Conventions for Regions and Native Groups====
An attempt was made to be systematic in applying name labels, both the modern geographic regional names and the chosen "tribal" group labels, for the regions. For the modern regional names, an attempt was made to pick something broadly recognizable, usually the largest town in the region. In rural areas a geographic feature, such as a creek or mountain peak, was used as a label, always one that is recognized by Google Maps. Modern rancheria names were typically not chosen, in order to reduce any fuzzy area between the ethnographic information and the map locations of today.

In choosing the ethnographic tribal or "rancheria" group label for each region, a probably hopeless attempt was made to minimize controversy and best reflect the preponderance of evidence that might be portrayed in a well-developed monograph. There is little problem in areas with minimal ethnographic data where only one field ethnographer worked; the name supplied by that source is used. Where two ethnographers supplied very different group names, but both with merit (e.g., Kroeber and Merriam), the label chosen followed that of the earliest (or only) formal publication.

In mission-impacted regions where only mission register group names are known, the most common spelling of a group in the Spanish orthography of the mission registers was used as the label. In other cases, where the published literature has slightly modified the spelling, the published standard was used (most common for Yokuts-speaking groups that went to the missions).

===Results as Digital Data===
Regional attributes can be used to generate numerous maps that will aid in the task of moving between close local study and analysis of broad regional patterns, another goal of the CDM. Two maps generated from those attributes are presented here, as a matter of illustration, rather than full explanation. Figure 9 shows the relative impact of the missions in the regions. Figure 10 is a draft representation of the population density of contact-period California.

==Moving Forward with the CDM==
The Community Distribution Model is a program, rather than a final product, for mapping and documenting the geography of the local socio-political groups of ethnographic (western-contact) period California. Kroeber (1962:3) estimated that there were 500 to 600 independent definable political groups in the State. Heizer pointed out in 1966 that no systematic attempt had yet been made to map such groups, due to the "huge mass of available published and manuscript data on California Indians" (1966:9). He anticipated, however, that future scholars would map out the domains of those groups across the state. The CDM sets out along the path to accomplish that goal.

As it turns out, the goal of a perfect map of contact-period California local tribe areas can never be reached. One reason is that there are irreparable holes in the ethnographic record and the other reason is that there were areas of California that were not organized into definable local political groups. Recognizing these problems, the current version of the CDM separates the state into 663 lowland year-round local group regions, many of which are based on strong data, some of which are reconstructed from opaque data, and a few of which have been cut out from the landscape in the absence of any real data, just so that the map can be finished and local ethnographers can be challenged to fix it.

The concept of "editing and fixing" is critical to the CDM. The project is set up so that the groups and their regions are, or will be, described, defended, and questioned, in "wiki" text documents to which proven scholars from academia, tribal communities, and agencies will be able to improve on the work through primary field notes of the early ethnographers. When consensus is reached among the scholars in certain zones of the state, the GIS model boundaries themselves can be changed to reflect this improved knowledge. There will be problems, especially in defining and mapping the parts of California where small local village groups intermarried in overlapping outreach areas across wide landscapes, without developing true central leadership and territorial boundaries comparable to the Pomo or Yokuts groups of central California.

In summary, the CDM can be utilized in the future in the following areas:

* Bibliographic source: a place to check for references when conducting studies in any local region.
* Forum for working out conflicting ethnogeographic interpretations, using the consensus rules of Wikipedia Commons.
* Model for historic demography studies: separate data columns can be used to build and map regional population densities under alternative assumptions.
* Model for geographical social interaction studies: evidence on endogamous and exogamous marriage patterns can be translated to a map model, and tied to studies of genetic and cultural flow over time.
* Model for the initial colonization of California: algorithms can be built to model "budding off" and migration during the first human entry into California and, by map expansion, over all of North America.
These are just a few of the potential uses of the flexible package of tools that we are initiating in this statewide iteration of the Contact-Period California Community Distribution Model.

What follows, then, are 14 volumes, each one representing an analytical zone, focusing on multi-regional issues including a mutual history, shared language and land-use patterns, and relevant references, followed by anywhere from 13 to 68 regional monographs for each zone (Table 1).

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="72%" align="center"
|+Table 1. Volume, Analytical Zone, and Languages Spoken.
|-
|align = "center"|VOLUME Number
|align = "center"|ANALYTICAL ZONE
|align = "center"|LANGUAGE
|align = "center"|NUMBER OF REGIONS

|-
|align = "center"|2
|align = "center"|Northwest
|align = "center"|Wiyot/Yurok Athabascan Karok Takelman
|align = "center"|37

|-
|align = "center"|3
|align = "center"|North
|align = "center"|Shastan, Chimariko Wintu and Nomlaki Yana
|align = "center"|48

|-
|align = "center"|4
|align = "center"|Northeast
|align = "center"|Modoc Mountain Maidu Numic Pit River Washoe
|align = "center"|28

|-
|align = "center"|5
|align = "center"|North Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Lake Miwok Pomo Wappo Yuki
|align = "center"|59

|-
|align = "center"|6
|align = "center"|Middle Sacramento Valley
|align = "center"|Northwest Maidu and Nisenan Maidu Patwin Wintuan Bay Miwok, Coast Miwok Northern Ohlone
|align = "center"|66

|-
|align = "center"|8
|align = "center"|Delta-North San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok Delta Yokuts 
|align = "center"|54

|-
|align = "center"|9
|align = "center"|South San Joaquin
|align = "center"|Mono Numic Tubatulabal Yokuts
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|10
|align = "center"|South Coast Ranges
|align = "center"|Northern Chumash Esselen Ohlone Salinan
|align = "center"|56

|-
|align = "center"|11
|align = "center"|Santa Barbara Channel
|align = "center"|Chumash 
|align = "center"|68

|-
|align = "center"|12
|align = "center"|Los Angeles Vicinity
|align = "center"|Takic
|align = "center"|58

|-
|align = "center"|13
|align = "center"|Southeast
|align = "center"|Numic Takic
|align = "center"|45

|-
|align = "center"|14
|align = "center"|South
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|20

|-
|align = "center"|15
|align = "center"|Colorado River
|align = "center"|Yuman
|align = "center"|13

|-
|align = "right" colspan="3"|Total
|align = "center"|663

|}

==Bibliography==
Acsádi, Györgi, and J. Nemeskéri

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1970
|''History of Human Life Span and Mortality''. Academy Kaidó, Budapest, Hungary.

|}

Adams, John W., and Alice Bee Kasakoff

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|Factors Underlying Endogamous Group Size''. ''In ''Regional Analysis: Social Systems, Volume 2'', Carol Smith, pp. 149-173. , Academic Press, San Francisco.

|}

Bean, Lowell John

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1972
|''Mukat<nowiki>’</nowiki>s People: the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1978
| Social Organization. Volume 8 (California), Robert Heizer, volume editor, pp. 673-682. ''Handbook of North American Indians'', William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

|}

Bennyhoff, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1961
|The Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. (Later published in 1977 by the Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, University of California, Davis.)

|}

Bennyhoff, James A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1977
|''The Ethnohistory of the Plains Miwok''. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication, No. 2. University of California, Davis.

|}

Brown, A. K.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1967
|The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. ''University of California Archaeological Survey Reports ''69:1-99. Berkeley.

|}

Cook, Sherburne F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 16, University of California Press, Berkeley. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Reprint available through Coyote Press, Salinas, California.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|-
| 
|1976a
|''The Conflict Between the California Indians and White Civilization''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1976b
|''The Population of the California Indians 1769-1970''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Coombs, Gary

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1975
|Migration and Adaptation: Indian Missionization in California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

D<nowiki>’</nowiki>Azevedo, Warren L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''Great Basin''. Edited by William C. Sturtevant. Handbook of North American Indians 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

|}

Gibson, Robert O.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1983
|Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Hayward.

|}

Gifford, Edward W.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Miwok Lineages and the Political Unit in Aboriginal California. ''American Anthropologist'' 28(2):389-401.

|}

Harrington, John P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1986
|''John P. Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: Southern California''. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives. <nowiki>[</nowiki>Microfilm edition. Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

|}

Heizer, Robert F.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|''Languages, Territories, and Names of California Indian Tribes''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Henry, Louis

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1976
|''Population: Analysis and Models''. Edward Arnold, London. (Translated from the French by Etienne van de Walle and Elisa F. Jones)

|}

Horne, Stephen P.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|''The Inland Chumash: Ethnography, Ethnohistory, and Archaeology.'' Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

Johnson, John R.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1982
|An Ethnohistoric Study of the Island Chumash. Master<nowiki>’</nowiki>s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|-
| 
|1988
|''Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective''. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.

|}

King, Chester A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1969
|''Map 1: Approximate 1760 Chumash Village Locations and Populations''. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 11:3-4.

|-
| 
|1973
|Appendix I: Documentation of Tribelet Boundaries, Locations and Sizes, Extracted from San Juan Bautista Mission Records''. ''In ''Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part I: The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California'', edited by Thomas King and Pat Hickman. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California,

|-
| 
|1974
|Appendix 2: Northern Santa Clara Ethnography''. ''In ''Environmental Impact Report: San Felipe Water Distribution Systems'', edited by Thomas King and Gary Berg, Environmental Science Associates. Submitted to Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara, California.

|-
| 
|1975
|The Names and Locations of Historic Chumash Villages. ''The Journal of California Anthropology'' 2:171-179.

|-
| 
|1977
|Matalan Ethnohistory''. ''In ''Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations for Construction of Freeway 04-SCl-101, Post Miles 17.2/29.4'', pp. 35-54, Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, District 4, San Francisco.

|}

King, Chester D.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Historic Indian Settlement in the Vicinity of the Holiday Inn Site''. ''In ''Investigations at CA-SCl-128, the Holiday Inn Site'', Joseph Winter, pp. 436-458. ,

|-
| 
|1994
|Central Ohlone Ethnohistory''. ''In ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region'', edited by Lowell John Bean, pp. 183-202. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 42, Sylvia Brakke Vane.

|}

King, Thomas F., and Patricia P. Hickman

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1973
|''Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part I The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California: A General Plan for Archaeology''. Submitted to US Department of Interior, National Park Service, and the Frederick Burk Foundation, California State University, San Francisco. On file, Northwest Information Center, California Resources Survey, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|}

Kroeber, Alfred L.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1925
|Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

|-
| 
|1932
|''The Patwin and their Neighbors''. University of California Publications on American Archaeology and Ethnology 29(4):253 423. Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1955
|Nature of Land-Holding Group. ''Ethnohistory ''2(4):303-314.

|-
| 
|1962
|The Nature of Land-holding Groups in Aboriginal California''. ''In ''Two Papers on the Aboriginal Ethnography of California'', Del H. Hymes and Robert F. Heizer, pp. 19-58. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 56, Berkeley, California.

|-
| 
|1963
|Yokuts dialect survey. ''University of California Anthropological Records'' 11(3).

|}

Kunkel, Peter H.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1962
|Yokuts and Pomo Political Institutions: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

|}

McLendon, Sally, and John R. Johnson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1999
|''Cultural Affiliation and Lineal Descent of Chumash Peoples in the Channel Islands and the Santa Monica Mountains: Volumes I and II''. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, and Hunter College, City University of New York. Submitted to the Archeology and Ethnography Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

|}

Merriam, C. Hart

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1955
|''Studies in California Indians''. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1968
|Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Robert F. Heizer, editor. ''Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey ''74, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley

|-
| 
|1970
|''Indian Rancherias in Four Mission Records''. Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility University of California 9:29-58.

|}

Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1978
|Ethnohistory of the Lower Napa Valley''. ''In ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at the River Glen Site, CA-NAP-261, Napa County, California'', Tom L. Jackson, pp. 2.1-2.43. , Archaeological Consulting and Research Services. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco. On file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University,

|-
| 
|1981
|Chapter 2, Ethnohistory of the Rumsen: The Mission Period''. ''In ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaeological Sites for the Stage I Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System: Volume I'', Stephen A. Dietz and Thomas L. Jackson, pp. 12-102. , Archaeological Consulting and Research Services. Submitted to Engineering-Science, Inc., (Reprinted in 1987 as Rumsen Ethnohistory)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Cultural Resource Studies, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

|-
| 
|1987
|''Rumsen Ethnohistory''. Papers in Northern California Anthropology 2. Northern California Anthropological Association. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|''Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period''. University of California, Berkeley. Submitted to State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, under Agreement No. 48279021.

|-
| 
|1991
|Ethnographic Context, Ethnohistory, and Historic Context''. ''In ''Preliminary Evaluation of Thirteen Sites Along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California''.

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810''. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 43. Ballena Press, Berkeley.

|}

Milliken, Randall, and John R. Johnson

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|2005
|''Salinan and Northern Chumash Communities of the Early Mission Period''. Far Western Anthropological and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. On file, California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo.

|}

Morgado, Martin J.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1991
|''Junipero Serra, a Pictoral Biography''. Siempre Adelante Publishing. Monterey, California.

|}

Priestley, Herbert Ingram

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1937
|''A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California by Pedro Fages, Soldier of Spain'', translated by Herbert Ingram Priestley. University of California Press, Berkeley.

|}

Schenck, W. E.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1926
|Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography'' 25(2):123-146.

|}

Strong, William Duncan

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1929
|Aboriginal Society in Southern California. ''University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology'' 26(1)1-358. Berkeley.

|}

Velásquez de la Cadena, Mariano

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1974
|''New Revised Velásquez Spanish and English Dictionary''. Follett Publishing Company, Chicago.

|}

Wrigley, E. A.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1966
|An Introduction to English Historical Demography: From the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

|}

==Additional Files==
*[[Volume 1 Appendix A|Appendix A]]: Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model
*[[Volume 1 Appendix B|Appendix B]]: Process for Producing the Community Distribution Model Regions' Mapping Layers
*[[Volume 1 Appendix C|Appendix C]]: Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model Zones and Regions

[[Category:Volume Report]]
[[Category:Volume 1]]

Main Page

2010-06-21T17:48:34Z

WikiSysop: /* Overview */

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:31:48Z

WikiSysop: /* Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''

This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''

Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''

This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''

Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''

This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''

Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''

This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''

This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''

The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''

This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''

This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''

Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''

Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''

Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''

Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''

Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''

Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''

Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''

Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''

This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''

Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''

This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''

This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''

Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''

The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''

This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''

Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''

Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''

This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''

The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''

Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''

This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==Regions Table Fields and Codes==
[[Image:Vol1-appA-tableA-6.png|thumb|right|200|Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.]]This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
'''''Type'''''

Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

'''''Analysis Zone'''''

Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

'''''Region'''''

This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
'''''Rancherias'''''

The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

'''''Language'''''

The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

'''''Specific Language'''''

The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

'''''Political Cohesion'''''

Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

'''''Land Use'''''

Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

'''''Known Names'''''

Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

'''''Reference'''''

The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
'''''Research Investment'''''

Amount of consideration given to constructing the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

'''''Info Quality'''''

Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
'''''Missionized*'''''

This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER

'''''Missions'''''

Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

'''''Missions for Mapping'''''

This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

'''''0sTreaties*'''''

Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

===Demographic Information===

'''''Adults Baptized'''''

Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''AveAdultYr'''''

Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''PopFactor'''''

Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

'''''Contact Adults deduced'''''

Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''Contact Population*'''''

Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

: Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorithm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.
: Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.
: <nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.

'''''GIS Area'''''

This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorithm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.

'''''PopDensity*'''''

Population per square mile is generated by an algorithm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.

===Geographic/Locational Information===
'''''Geography'''''
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

'''''Upland'''''
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

'''''County'''''
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

'''''Caltrans District'''''
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==Bibliography==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:29:04Z

WikiSysop: /* BIBLIOGRAPHY */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''

This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''

Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''

This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''

Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''

This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''

Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''

This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''

This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''

The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''

This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''

This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''

Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''

Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''

Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''

Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''

Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''

Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''

Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''

Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''

This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''

Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''

This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''

This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''

Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''

The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''

This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''

Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''

Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''

This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''

The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''

Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''

This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==Regions Table Fields and Codes==
[[Image:Vol1-appA-tableA-6.png|thumb|right|200|Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.]]This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
'''''Type'''''

Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

'''''Analysis Zone'''''

Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

'''''Region'''''

This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
'''''Rancherias'''''

The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

'''''Language'''''

The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

'''''Specific Language'''''

The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

'''''Political Cohesion'''''

Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

'''''Land Use'''''

Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

'''''Known Names'''''

Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

'''''Reference'''''

The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
'''''Research Investment'''''

Amount of consideration given to constructing the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

'''''Info Quality'''''

Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
'''''Missionized*'''''

This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER

'''''Missions'''''

Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

'''''Missions for Mapping'''''

This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

'''''0sTreaties*'''''

Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

===Demographic Information===

'''''Adults Baptized'''''

Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''AveAdultYr'''''

Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''PopFactor'''''

Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

'''''Contact Adults deduced'''''

Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''Contact Population*'''''

Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

: Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorithm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.
: Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.
: <nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.

'''''GIS Area'''''

This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorithm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.

'''''PopDensity*'''''

Population per square mile is generated by an algorithm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.

===Geographic/Locational Information===
'''''Geography'''''
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

'''''Upland'''''
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

'''''County'''''
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

'''''Caltrans District'''''
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==Bibliography==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:26:38Z

WikiSysop: /* Regions Table Fields and Codes */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''

This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''

Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''

This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''

Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''

This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''

Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''

This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''

This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''

The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''

This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''

This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''

Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''

Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''

Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''

Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''

Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''

Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''

Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''

Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''

This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''

Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''

This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''

This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''

Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''

The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''

This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''

Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''

Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''

This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''

The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''

Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''

This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==Regions Table Fields and Codes==
[[Image:Vol1-appA-tableA-6.png|thumb|right|200|Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.]]This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
'''''Type'''''

Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

'''''Analysis Zone'''''

Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

'''''Region'''''

This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
'''''Rancherias'''''

The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

'''''Language'''''

The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

'''''Specific Language'''''

The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

'''''Political Cohesion'''''

Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

'''''Land Use'''''

Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

'''''Known Names'''''

Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

'''''Reference'''''

The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
'''''Research Investment'''''

Amount of consideration given to constructing the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

'''''Info Quality'''''

Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
'''''Missionized*'''''

This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER

'''''Missions'''''

Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

'''''Missions for Mapping'''''

This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

'''''0sTreaties*'''''

Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

===Demographic Information===

'''''Adults Baptized'''''

Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''AveAdultYr'''''

Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''PopFactor'''''

Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

'''''Contact Adults deduced'''''

Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''Contact Population*'''''

Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

: Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorithm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.
: Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.
: <nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.

'''''GIS Area'''''

This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorithm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.

'''''PopDensity*'''''

Population per square mile is generated by an algorithm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.

===Geographic/Locational Information===
'''''Geography'''''
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

'''''Upland'''''
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

'''''County'''''
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

'''''Caltrans District'''''
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

File:Vol1-appA-tableA-6.png

2010-06-21T17:26:12Z

WikiSysop: Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:25:23Z

WikiSysop: /* Regions Table Fields and Codes */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''

This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''

Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''

This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''

Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''

This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''

Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''

This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''

This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''

The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''

This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''

This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''

Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''

Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''

Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''

Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''

Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''

Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''

Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''

Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''

This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''

Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''

This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''

This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''

Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''

The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''

This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''

Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''

Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''

This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''

The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''

Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''

This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==Regions Table Fields and Codes==
[[Image:Vol1-appA-tableA-6.jpg|thumb|right|200|Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.]]This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
'''''Type'''''

Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

'''''Analysis Zone'''''

Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

'''''Region'''''

This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
'''''Rancherias'''''

The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

'''''Language'''''

The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

'''''Specific Language'''''

The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

'''''Political Cohesion'''''

Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

'''''Land Use'''''

Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

'''''Known Names'''''

Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

'''''Reference'''''

The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
'''''Research Investment'''''

Amount of consideration given to constructing the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

'''''Info Quality'''''

Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
'''''Missionized*'''''

This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER

'''''Missions'''''

Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

'''''Missions for Mapping'''''

This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

'''''0sTreaties*'''''

Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

===Demographic Information===

'''''Adults Baptized'''''

Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''AveAdultYr'''''

Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''PopFactor'''''

Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

'''''Contact Adults deduced'''''

Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorithm described in Appendix B.

'''''Contact Population*'''''

Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

: Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorithm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.
: Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.
: <nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.

'''''GIS Area'''''

This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorithm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.

'''''PopDensity*'''''

Population per square mile is generated by an algorithm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.

===Geographic/Locational Information===
'''''Geography'''''
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

'''''Upland'''''
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

'''''County'''''
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

'''''Caltrans District'''''
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:23:37Z

WikiSysop: /* REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''

This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''

Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''

This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''

Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''

This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''

Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''

This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''

This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''

The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''

This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''

This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''

Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''

Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''

Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''

Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''

Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''

Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''

Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''

Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''

This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''

Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''

This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''

This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''

Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''

The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''

This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''

Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''

Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''

This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''

The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''

Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''

This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==Regions Table Fields and Codes==
[[Image:Vol1-appA-tableA-6.jpg|thumb|right|200|Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.]]This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
'''''Type'''''

Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

'''''Analysis Zone'''''

Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

'''''Region'''''

This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
'''''Rancherias'''''

The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

'''''Language'''''

The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

'''''Specific Language'''''

The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

'''''Political Cohesion'''''

Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

'''''Land Use'''''

Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

'''''Known Names'''''

Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

'''''Reference'''''

The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
'''''Research Investment'''''

Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

'''''Info Quality'''''

Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
'''''Missionized*'''''

This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER

'''''Missions'''''

Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

'''''Missions for Mapping'''''

This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

'''''0sTreaties*'''''

Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

===Demographic Information===

'''''Adults Baptized'''''

Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

'''''AveAdultYr'''''

Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

'''''PopFactor'''''

Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

'''''Contact Adults deduced'''''

Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

'''''Contact Population*'''''

Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

: Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.
: Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.
: <nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.

'''''GIS Area'''''

This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorithm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.

'''''PopDensity*'''''

Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.

===Geographic/Locational Information===
'''''Geography'''''
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

'''''Upland'''''
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

'''''County'''''
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

'''''Caltrans District'''''
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:10:00Z

WikiSysop: /* Marriage Table Fields and Codes */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''

This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''

Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''

This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''

Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''

This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''

Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''

This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''

This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''

The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''

This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''

This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''

Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''

Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''

Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''

Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''

Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''

Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''

Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''

Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''

This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''

Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''

This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''

This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''

Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''

The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''

This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''

Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''

Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''

The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''

This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''

For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''

This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''

The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''

Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''

Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''

This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''

This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:08:30Z

WikiSysop: /* Individuals Table Fields */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''

This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''

This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''

Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''

This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''

Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''

This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''

Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''

This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''

This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''

The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''

This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''

This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''

Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''

Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''

Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''

Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''

This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''

Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''

Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''

Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''

Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''

This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''

Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''
This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''
This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''
Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''
The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''
This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''
Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''
Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''
This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''
The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''
Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''
This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:05:44Z

WikiSysop: /* Individuals Table Fields */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[Image:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''
This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''
This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''
This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''
Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''
This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''
Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''
This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''
Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''
This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''
This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''
The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''
This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''
This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''
Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''
Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''
Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''
Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''
Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''
Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''
Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''
Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''
This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''
Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''
This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''
This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''
Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''
The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''
This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''
Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''
Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''
This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''
The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''
Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''
This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:05:07Z

WikiSysop: /* Marriage Table Fields and Codes */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[File:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''
This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''
This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''
This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''
Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''
This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''
Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''
This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''
Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''
This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''
This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''
The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''
This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''
This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''
Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''
Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''
Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''
Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''
Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''
Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''
Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''
Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''
This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''
Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

'''''MarrNum'''''
This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

'''''MarrDate'''''
This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

'''''HusbAge'''''
Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''HusbOrigin'''''
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''PrevWife'''''
The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

'''''HusbSurname'''''
This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

'''''HusbName'''''
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''CFHusb'''''
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''HusdID'''''
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

'''''HStatus'''''
Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltero (bachelor)

: V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WStatus'''''
Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

: R = renovar (renewing marriage)

: S = soltera (bachelorette)

: V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

'''''WifeID'''''
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

'''''CFWife'''''
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

'''''WifeName'''''
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

'''''WifeSurname'''''
This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

'''''PrevHusb'''''
The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

'''''WifeOrigin'''''
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

'''''WifeAge'''''
Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

'''''Witnesses01'''''
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''Witnesses02'''''
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

'''''PriestMarr'''''
This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:01:20Z

WikiSysop: /* Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[File:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''
This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''
This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''
This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''
Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''
This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''
Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''
This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''
Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''
This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''
This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''
The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''
This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''
This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''
Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''
Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''
Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''
Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''
Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''
Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''
Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''
Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
'''''Special'''''
This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

'''''Notes'''''
Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

=====MarrNum=====
This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

=====MarrDate=====
This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

=====HusbAge=====
Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====HusbOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====PrevWife=====
The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

=====HusbSurname=====
This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

=====HusbName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====CFHusb=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====HusdID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|align = "center"|
[[Image:App_A_FORMATTED_Coding_Manual_01.png]]

Code Letter
|Information Source with Implied Reliability

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

=====HStatus=====
Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltero (bachelor)

V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WStatus=====
Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltera (bachelorette)

V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WifeID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

=====CFWife=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====WifeName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====WifeSurname=====
This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

=====PrevHusb=====
The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

=====WifeOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====WifeAge=====
Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====Witnesses01=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====Witnesses02=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====PriestMarr=====
This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:00:58Z

WikiSysop: /* Demographic Research Information */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[File:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''
This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''
This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''
This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''
Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''
This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''
Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''
This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''
Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''
This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''
This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''
The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''
This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''
This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''
Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''
Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''
Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''
Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
'''''BAPTYEAR'''''
Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

'''''BRTHYEAR'''''
Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

'''''YEARDTH'''''
Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

'''''DEATHAGE'''''
Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
=====Special=====
This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

=====Notes=====
Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

=====MarrNum=====
This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

=====MarrDate=====
This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

=====HusbAge=====
Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====HusbOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====PrevWife=====
The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

=====HusbSurname=====
This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

=====HusbName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====CFHusb=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====HusdID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|align = "center"|
[[Image:App_A_FORMATTED_Coding_Manual_01.png]]

Code Letter
|Information Source with Implied Reliability

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

=====HStatus=====
Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltero (bachelor)

V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WStatus=====
Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltera (bachelorette)

V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WifeID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

=====CFWife=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====WifeName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====WifeSurname=====
This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

=====PrevHusb=====
The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

=====WifeOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====WifeAge=====
Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====Witnesses01=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====Witnesses02=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====PriestMarr=====
This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T17:00:05Z

WikiSysop: /* Death Register Information */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[File:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''
This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''
This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''
This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''
Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''
This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''
Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''
This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''
Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
'''''DthNum'''''
This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

'''''CFDth'''''
This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

'''''DateDth'''''
The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including implication of reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

'''''DateDthEntry'''''
This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

'''''SiteDth'''''
This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

: PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

: PD = Presidio at San Diego

: PF = Presidio at San Francisco

: PM = Presidio at Monterey

'''''CauseDth'''''
Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

'''''OriginDthRec'''''
Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

'''''AgeDthRec'''''
Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

'''''AgeDthLVL'''''
Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

'''''PriestDth'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
=====BAPTYEAR=====
Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

=====BRTHYEAR=====
Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

=====YEARDTH=====
Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

=====DEATHAGE=====
Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
=====Special=====
This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

=====Notes=====
Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

=====MarrNum=====
This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

=====MarrDate=====
This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

=====HusbAge=====
Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====HusbOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====PrevWife=====
The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

=====HusbSurname=====
This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

=====HusbName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====CFHusb=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====HusdID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|align = "center"|
[[Image:App_A_FORMATTED_Coding_Manual_01.png]]

Code Letter
|Information Source with Implied Reliability

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

=====HStatus=====
Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltero (bachelor)

V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WStatus=====
Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltera (bachelorette)

V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WifeID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

=====CFWife=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====WifeName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====WifeSurname=====
This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

=====PrevHusb=====
The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

=====WifeOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====WifeAge=====
Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====Witnesses01=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====Witnesses02=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====PriestMarr=====
This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]

Volume 1 Appendix A

2010-06-21T16:57:45Z

WikiSysop: /* Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information */

=Coding Manual for the Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model=
Copyright © 2009 for this manual and accompanying ACCESS database design/contents belong to Randall Milliken

==Introduction==
The Contact-Period Native California Community Distribution Model (hereafter the Database) is a computerized transcription of the ecclesiastical records of California Indians and Hispanic settlers at eleven Franciscan missions (San Francisco Solano on the north to San Miguel Arcangel on the south). Two key tables of the database separately track baptismal/death record information and marriage information. (The Individuals Table tracks approximately 55,000 individuals, of which 46,370 were California Indians; the Marriages Table lists approximately 15,000 marriages, 12,560 where both spouses were California Indians) . The Database was built by Randall Milliken between 1978 and 2009. It is currently organized within the Microsoft ACCESS computer database software environment.

As background, each Franciscan mission in California kept a set of vital registers in which they entered the sacramental events of community members. One register was for baptisms, one for marriages, one for deaths/burials, and one for confirmations. They record events in the lives of individual California Indians of cismontane and desert California from Clear Lake south to the Mexican border. Most of the early registers were saved in archives of the Catholic Church in California, where they continue to exist today.

Computerization of the information in the Franciscan mission registers facilitates study in the following research domains:

* Colonial contact period Indian group sizes and relative locations
* Mission period Indian social and demographic history
* Church history, including assignments of missionaries and foundations of churches, chapels, and outstations.
* Family genealogy for Hispanic and California Indian descendants
Searching California mission vital records for all the references to each person in a genealogical sequence, or each member of a specific native Indian community, is akin to seeking the proverbial needle in a haystack. An individual may be mentioned in a number of different mission register entries – as the subject of a baptism in one, as a parent or other relative in another, and as a god-parent in still another. The same individual may appear as a spouse in a marriage register entry and as the deceased person in a death entry. A computerized database is the key to efficient study of the data.

The Database was initiated by Milliken in 1978, with the development of a stand alone baptism/death database and marriage database for the first 1,100 converts at Mission San Carlos Borromeo. A DEC mini-mainframe computer at U.C. Berkeley was used. The data were used to reconstruct inferred village locations in the Carmel Valley (Milliken 1981). Milliken next developed a similar database to track information about baptized San Francisco Peninsula Indians; those data were used for his M.S. thesis (Milliken 1983). Those two data sets were brought over to a dBASE program in the DOS operating system in 1984. Milliken added separate databases for missions Santa Clara, San Jose, and Santa Cruz between 1986 and 1989; those data provided the basis for his PhD dissertation (Milliken 1991).

During the 1990s funds became available for development of individual databases for missions San Juan Bautista, San Antonio, and San Miguel, through various Caltrans environmental mitigation and planning projects. Over 2002 and 2003 Milliken constructed dBASE databases for mission San Rafael and San Francisco Solano for studies supported by the National Park Service Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Milliken constructed a Mission Soledad dBASE database in 2005 without funding support.

Milliken transferred all of the above-mentioned databases to Microsoft ACCESS format in 2005 and unified them into the single comprehensive database that is documented here. Although duplications and inconsistent entry formats were repaired at that time, errors remain due to the complexity of the project.

==Mission Register Contents==
Mission register entries at all California missions follow fairly standard formats. Types of information common to baptismal, marriage, confirmation, and death register entries include:

# unique index numbers at the left margin of each individual register entry;
# date of the register entry (written only with the initial entry of the day);
# a statement about the place where the event took place (usually in a mission church, sometimes at the mission village, another mission, a tribal village, or in some other location away from the mission);
# the Spanish first name (and occasionally surname) given to Indian individual at their time of baptism or the full name of Hispanic infants;
# the signature of the priest of record. Handwriting indicates that most missionaries made their own register entries, yet at times unknown scribes wrote entries which were signed by other people.

Beyond the standard information required under canon law, records vary in the amount of additional detail. Each missionary priest developed his own unique approach to supplementary information. Because many of the priests moved from one mission to another, as much variation exists in the entry formats within a register of a given mission as exists between the registers of the various missions.

===Information Specific to Baptismal Registers===
Baptismal registers generally contain more information about individuals than the other registers. The following areas of information commonly appear in the baptismal registers but only rarely appear in others.

''Indian Name''. Most missionaries entered the native names of almost all converts over one year of age in their baptismal entries, male and female. A few priests, however, provided native names of males, but not females. Still fewer listed the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s native name in native female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptisms as though they were the female<nowiki>’</nowiki>s own native names. One or two missionaries failed to list any native personal names for converts.

''Age''. The priests entered an estimated age for baptismal registrants. Junípero Serra noted the problem of assigning age to people whose birth dates had not been previously recorded:

<blockquote>Concerning the age of the Indian neophytes . . . it may be remarked that since most of them were baptized in adult age, we cannot know exactly how old they are because they themselves cannot give us the information. Accordingly, the age is put down at what they appear to be – no exact figures being possible – as has always been our practice in census and baptismal records <nowiki>[</nowiki>Serra 1956:3:171<nowiki>]</nowiki>.</blockquote>

Disproportionately large numbers of persons at some missions were age "clumped," that is, with guessed ages such as "about thirty," "forty, more or less," or "more than fifty" years of age.

''Home group or village''. Some of the Franciscans provided the names of the home ''rancherías'' of each of their native converts. (The word ''ranchería'' as they used it is a very imprecise term; it could indicate a specific village or a political community, much as the word "pueblo" is used in the current Hispanic world.)

''Godparent''. Each baptismal registrant was assigned a godparent. In the early years all godparents were members of the Spanish community – soldiers, colonists, or visitors from the supply ships. Christian Indians became sponsors at some missions after 1786.

''Other Relationships''. The first converts of each particular political group were usually children whose parents were non-Christians. At some missions the native names of non-Christian fathers were recorded in the entry for the first child brought by a family. In cases where non-Christian parents continued to bring other children in for baptism over time, the relationship of those later children to the family was often indicated only by a cross-reference to the previously baptized siblings.

===Common Information in Marriage Registers===
Most priests were careful to note the prior marital history of everyone married in their churches. Three marriage statuses pertained – recruited couples renewing their tribal marriages before the Church, previously unmarried people, and people widowed from a Church marriage. Since marriages can only occur among Christians, Christian names of spouses are always listed. Marriage records list at least one set of witnesses, those for the wedding itself. Some priests also listed separately the witnesses who initially testified that there was no impediment to the marriage.

Some missionaries systematically entered the baptismal numbers of the spouses in a wedding. Others did not do so. A few missionaries supplied information about the parents of Indian spouses. That was done much more often in the case of marriages of Hispanics.

===Common Information in Death Registers===
Death register entries usually list the date of interment, or the date that the priest found out that a person had died away from the mission. Information about the cause of death was very seldom provided, and when it was, it was always deaths of violence such as a murder, from a snake bite, or from drowning. Some entries indicate that the deceased had been a runaway. Death register entries mention disease names or symptoms during only two periods, that of an unknown ''peste'' epidemic in 1802 and that of a measles epidemic in 1806.

===Confirmation Register Information===
Confirmation records are usually brief lists of the Spanish given names of large numbers of individuals confirmed on a specific date. Some confirmation registers provide valuable information for many Indian people, such as surnames not been assigned at baptism or Spanish given names of parents unstated at baptism. Confirmation record information has not yet been integrated into the Database, but could be done easily through linked tables or through a field in the Individuals table.

===Padrons and Indexes===
Some missions produced detailed census records, or padrons, listing all the individuals alive during a given year, in alphabetical groups. In some cases those padrons were updated by checking off people who had died and adding the names of newly baptized people. Such padrons do not, therefore, represent just the year that they were first created. Padrons verify that people are still alive after many years. Some padrons list the native names of some fathers or Spanish given names of fathers or mothers that do not appear in any other records. The current form of the Database maintains separate Padron tables for some missions, containing information that can be linked to the Individuals table through a common field

==Central California Database Format==
===Individuals Table Fields===
[[File:Vol1-appA-figA-1.png|thumb|200|right|Table A-1. Sample Data from the Individuals Table of the Missions Database.]]
The Individuals table contains separate records for each baptism subject or "ego." Each record contains 43 fields. Some fields are dedicated to information found in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. Other fields are dedicated to information regarding the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record. Still other fields allow marking of special information about the ego, or about the source and quality of some related field. Thus a particular record becomes a transcription of various linked primary sources regarding an ego (Table A-1).

Listed below are descriptions of each of the fields, their typical contents, and special codes:

====Baptism Register Information (primarily)====

'''''Mission'''''
This field indicates the mission that supplied the baseline baptism information of an individual, or if not the baptism, the other information that led to creation of the record (a death or a confirmation not linked to any baptism). The following codes differentiate the various missions:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|
AN = San Antonio 
BA = Santa Barbara 
CA = San Carlos Borromeo 
CL = Santa Clara de Asis 
CR = Santa Cruz 
DI = San Diego de Alcala 
JC = San Juan Capistrano 
FE = San Fernando Rey de España 
FR = San Francisco de Asis 
FS = San Francisco Solano 
GA = San Gabriel Arcangel 
|JO = San Jose 
JB = San Juan Bautista 
LA = Los Angeles Plaza Church 
LO = San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 
LP = La Purisima Concepcion 
LR = San Luis Rey de España 
MI = San Miguel Arcangel 
RA = San Rafael Arcangel 
SO = Soledad, Nuestra Señora de la 
VE (1V, 2V) = San Buenaventura 
YN = Santa Ynez 
|}

'''''BapID (Mission and Baptismal entry number of ego)'''''

This field is the unique sequential entry number of every individual listed in the table. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

At Mission Santa Clara only, where baptismal numbers exceeded 9,999, letters are used to represent the two lead digits of numbers greater than 9,999. For instance, X999=10,999, Y999=11,999, and Z999=12,999.

Because the ''BapID'' field must contain a unique ID for everyone, BapIDs for records derived from non-baptismal sources (as death or confirmation records of people not baptized in central California) are created through a standard logic described here. Some represent records of individuals who died at a mission, but have no baptismal record in any of the above listed missions. Some of them moved into California from elsewhere and appear as egos in California mission burial registers. They are marked as follows:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|<nowiki>#</nowiki>#
|= foreign-born Hispanics

|-
|&&
|= foreign-born Indians (usually Baja California)

|-
|==
|= foreign-born, neither Hispanic nor Indian

|-
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>-
|= a person, usually a child, probably born at a southern California mission

|-
|__
|= skipped death records

|}

BapIDs are provided for death records where no baptismal record was found. Such BapIDs begin with the two letters of the mission of the death record, followed by "D," then by the death record unique entry string (see ''DthNum'' field below).

'''''DateBap'''''

This is the date of baptism. Usually there is only one baptismal date, but occasionally people were conditionally baptized when at danger of death, with a later supplementary ceremony following recovery and completion of a catechism exercise (marked in the ''TypeBap'' field below).

'''''TypeBap'''''

This field is blank for normal baptisms. It is filled in to mark baptisms under special conditions, as follows:

<blockquote>An "e" notes a conditional baptism, usually where the person then died without going through a supplementary baptism (''articulo mortis'' or ''moribundo'').

An "su" indicates a suplemental baptism that takes place to confirm that a person who was given conditional baptism has since been given full rights (seldom used in place of "e" by the data enterers).

A "p" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born while the missionized parents were "on paseo" (on holiday) – this code has seldom been used.

An "h" may be placed in the second column if the ego was baptized at the mission, but was born to missionized parents who have been ''huido'' (runaway).—this code has seldom been used</blockquote>

'''''SiteBap'''''

This field contains information about the site at which the baptism took place. There are two types of information: a) the specific location of the event, and b) the conditions of baptism.

:1st column for Location:
::1 = mission church (as default, usually not entered)
::2 = mission ''ranchería''
::3 = home village of ego
::4 = other native village
::5-7 = specific outstations unique to each mission
::8 = some other mission
::9 = miscellaneous (in memo field)

The ''TypeBap'' and ''SiteBap'' information were entered together in a single field prior to 2007; as of 2009 the ''TypeBap'' information is still repeated in the ''SiteBap'' field for most records.

'''''Sex'''''

The missionaries marked the gender of their converts in so many ways that it is impossible for this bit of information to be missed.

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="50%" align="center"
|align = "center"|M = male
|align = "center"|F = female
|}

'''''AgeBap'''''

This column contains numbers only. A "0" is entered for a child described as less than one year old at baptism. In the rare times when no age is given, a variety of cross-reference means are used to decide upon an estimated age, which is entered here, marked as a guess in the following field, and usually justified in "notes."

'''''AgeLVL'''''

This "age level" field qualifies the information in the preceding field. It contains an "A" for ''años''. Additionally, if specific age in months or days had been given for a "0" year old, additional information is provided here for "''Dias''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" or "''Meses''-<nowiki>[</nowiki>number<nowiki>]</nowiki>" as appropriate.

Some infants are merely listed as ''recien nacido'' (recently born) in which case "Rec. nac." is added following the "A" in this field.

This is also the place where a guessed age number in the Age field is marked, using "A-guess."

'''''Spanname'''''

This is always the Spanish name provided at a person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptism. If the person is Hispanic or the child of an Hispanic mother, the given name is preceded by "#" and if a non-Hispanic immigrant it is led by "=." Given name is standardized to a form that allows alphanumeric sorting of all people who have been given the same name, irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of spelling by individual missionaries. Examples include the following:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|Theresa
|changed to
|Teresa

|-
|Vernavela
|changed to
|Bernabela

|-
|Josepha
|changed to
|Josefa

|}

Capitalized Spanish "I" usually looks identical to "Y." In these databases the keyboard letter "Y" is always typically used for both letters.

Prepositional links in names were used by most early priests, dropped by some later ones. Therefore they have been moved to the ends of given names. For instance:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="75%" align="center"
|"Juan de Dios"
|entered as
|"Juan Dios -de"

|-
|"Maria de la Concepcion"
|entered as
|"Maria Concepcion -de la"

|}

Standardized Spanish name spelling allows alphabetical sorting and searching for all references to a person, as well as to all people who shared a specific name, regardless of variable spelling in the records.

'''''Nativename'''''

This is a dual purpose field. For California Indians, this field contain the native name of the baptized individual even if it was not recorded in the baptism. For Hispanics immigrants, this field contains the surname led by an "#," for non-Hispanic immigrants an "=". Spellings of Hispanic surnames have been standardized to the most commonly appearing form.

Some missionaries did not provide Indian names. They are so important for family studies and ethnographic studies, however, that they are entered in this field even if found elsewhere. The native name may have appeared in the earlier record of one of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s children, or rarely in a later marriage or death record of the individual. If the name did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with "-H" (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), "-M" (marriage record), "-N" (death record) or some other cross-reference code.

Indian names are sometimes difficult to transcribe, due to an individual scribe<nowiki>’</nowiki>s unclear hand-writing or idiosyncratic letter formation. Transcribers must become familiar with the script of each scribe, by making an alphabet of each capital and lower case letter that the scribe formed in known Spanish words. Especially difficult to differentiate are the letters "r" from "x," "a" from "o," and "c" from "e". Difficulties with unclear handwriting cannot always be overcome. Procedures for letters difficult to transcribe are as follows:

# Where a letter or group of letters in the original are ambiguous, the best guess is entered first, followed immediately be the second choice in parentheses. For example: "Tiri??m" might be entered "Tiriu(o)m".
# Where the letters in the original are ambiguous, without there being alternative guesses, guessed letters are entered in brackets. For example: Toc??? might be entered "Toc<nowiki>[</nowiki>rum<nowiki>]</nowiki>"
# Where a letter is completely indiscernible, dashes ("-") are entered within brackets. For example: Tur??? might be entered "Tur<nowiki>[</nowiki>---<nowiki>]</nowiki>"

'''''Surname'''''

The surname field was added in 1999 to tables for missions San Antonio and San Miguel, the only central California missions that systematically gave surnames to their California Indian converts. For appropriate missions, the Indian surnames are placed in this field with standardized spellings.

As with native names, if the surname in this field did not derive from the baptismal record, it is followed with -H (child<nowiki>’</nowiki>s record), -M (marriage record), -N (death record), or some other cross-reference code.

'''''OriginBap'''''

Information about the home group of the ego is placed here, with the key word in the left-hand column. If no information was given, a "-" is entered in the left-hand column. In some cases the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s home group can only be identified from later marriage or burial register information. In such a case the information is added to this field to the right of a back-slash (/). The specific source of that supplemental information is indicated by a "-M" (from marriage), "-N" (from death record), or some other cross-reference code.

"*" indicates that a detailed entry is briefly characterized in this field, and more fully transcribed in the ''NOTES'' memo field.

'''''FaBapID'''''

This is the field for the unique BapID code of the father. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFFather'''''

This field contains code letters marking the source of the father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

'''''FatherName'''''

This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s father (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The father<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

'''''MoBapID'''''

This is the field for the BapID code of the mother. Some missionary priests entered the baptismal numbers of a mission-born ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents, others entered the parental names only. For most adult Indian converts, the parents were never listed. However, the parents of many people, especially young people, can be identified through a variety of cross-references to subsequent entries.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-2. "CFOrigin" Codes for Noting Source/Confidence of Rancheria Assignments in the OriginStandard Field in the Individuals Table.
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source (including Implication of Reliability)''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|direct statement about ego in baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|direct statement that one parent is from this place, other parent from another tribelet.

|-
|align = "center"|X
|conflicting direct statements in various primary sources

|-
|align = "center"|W
|key alias of group appears in register

|-
|align = "center"|V
|direct statement that ego is mission Indian, but lists parent original home group (inconsistently used).

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Codegp entry contradicts baptismal entry, based on over¬-whelming evidence

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|interpretation of a direct statement leads to lumping the "group" entry with this code group

|-
|align = "center"|P
|direct statement from some important Padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s death record

|-
|align = "center"|M
|direct statement in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|statement in baptismal or death entry of ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s child

|-
|align = "center"|K
|civil or military correspondence identifies ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s group

|-
|align = "center"|J
|two or more siblings, parents, or children of ego identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|H
|one child identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|G
|one sibling identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|F
|one parent identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|E
|spouse identified with the group

|-
|align = "center"|D
|indirect contradiction, two or more relatives identified from group, others with some other group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|indirect contradiction, one relative identified with this place, another with another group (no direct evidence)

|-
|align = "center"|B
|most others baptized the same day indirectly found to have been from the assigned group

|-
|align = "center"|A
|special, complex, or uncertain source of information not described above

|-
|align = "center"|rexamination
|Explanation occasionally found in the NOTES field

|} 

Special alphanumeric strings beginning with "H" are used to mark an unknown parent of two or more baptized siblings. The string "CLH2340," for instance, derives from embedding an "H" in the baptismal ID of the last of a group of siblings with a common parent who has no baptismal number; it is used in the parent field of all of the siblings.

'''''CFMother'''''
This field contains code letters marking the source of the mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s BapID identification as well as the confidence with which the identification was made; through this field cascading generational link queries can be constructed in ACCESS. See Table A-2 for the meaning of the code letters.

''''''MotherName'''''
This field contains the name of the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s mother (Spanish and/or native), if available in some explicit record entry. In cases where the parent is a non-Christian, it would be a native name; such names are not always provided. If the parent is a Christian, that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s Christian name is provided, except where a missionary makes a mistake.

The mother<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name in this field may derive from sources other than the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record. If the name comes from some other source, however, it is followed by a "-M" (marriage record), " -N" (death record), "-I" (Index), " -T" (confirmation record), or some other source code.

''''''Padrino'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for males). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''Madrina'''''
This field lists the godfather of the baptism ego (usually provided for females). This is a "placeholder" field, for the most part, as no attempt has been made to systematically enter these data in the Database as of 2009.

'''''PriestBap'''''
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Sometimes the handwriting of an entry is clearly not that of the priest who signed off on the bottom of the entry. Nevertheless, the signature name is added here. <nowiki>[</nowiki>This is not always the name of the person who conducted the baptism.<nowiki>]</nowiki>

====Reconstructed Community, Geography, and Language Information====
'''''OriginStandard'''''
Whereas the OriginBap field contains the spelling of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe or village just as recorded in the baptismal record, this field contains the standardized spelling or more typical name for the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s tribe. If various records have contradictory information about tribal membership, the most logical choice is entered in this field.

This OriginStandard field is the basis for counts of tribal size and for sorting community membership lists.

'''''CFOrigin'''''
This field points to the source location for the information about tribal group entered in the previous ''OriginStandard'' field. It also indicates the amount of guess work and contradiction involved in the decision about tribal group membership for the individual. Codes used and their meaning are found in Table A-3.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|+Table A-3. Codes for Father and Mother Baptismal Numbers Source/Confidence Field in the Individuals Table (CFFather/CFMother).
|align = "center"|''Code Letter''
|''Information Source with Implied Reliability''

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Parent baptismal number supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Parent baptismal number supplied in that parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|Some cross referenced sibling of ego has this linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Some non-parent relative links this person to linked parent

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Parent Spanish name in baptism, link made to the only possible baptized individual

|-
|align = "center"|T
|Direct data for this parent link in a confirmation register

|-
|align = "center"|S
|Indian name of parent matches Indian name in linked baptismal record, parent weakly inferred

|-
|align = "center"|R
|Indian names of both parents, supplied in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry, match a set of married Indian people baptized subsequent to ego (a strong parent linkage inference)

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Like V or K, but the parent name in the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal entry has been mutated.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Direct statement identifying the parent in some padron

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Parent relationship indicated in death record (ego or this parent)

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Parent relationship indicated in ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Spanish names of both parents match a set of married people in a marriage record, parent baptismal numbers drawn from parent IDs in that marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|K
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (little doubt in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|J
|Parent Spanish name in ego baptism, link made to the most likely baptized person, out of more than one people with that name (but there is some doubt involved in the match).

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Information for this link found in an index to the baptismal register

|-
|align = "center"|E
|Parent ID made to spouse of the better-identified parent (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Link made to most likely parent on the basis of evaluation of surname clusters (weak inference)

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Parent ID link based on information in a parent<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Contextual (see notes)

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Special inference (see notes)

|} 

'''''Region'''''
Physical area from which the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s community is believed to derive, one of approximately 700 GIS mapping units across California developed for the Community Distribution Model (CDM) project by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

'''''CFRegion'''''
This new numeric field will state a radius, in miles, beyond the assigned Region that the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s "community" (noted in ''OriginStandard'') may actually have been located. The lower the distance, the greater the degree of certainly regarding the community location on the land. AS OF 2009, THIS FIELD HAS ONLY BEEN USED EXPERIMENTALLY.

'''''Lang (Language)'''''
Two columns are used to indicate the probable language of the ego. Where the ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s parents belonged to different language groups, the lead column marks the language of father and the second column marks the language of the mother.

Codes for language groups: A= Chumash; B= Bay Miwok; C=Coast Miwok; D=Ipai/Tipai; E= Esselen; F=questionable between Chumash and Takic; G=Pomo; L= Lake Miwok; M = Sierra Miwok; N= Nisenan; O= Ohlone/Costanoan; P = Plains Miwok; Q=questionable between Takic and Ipai/Tipai; S= Patwin; T = Salinan; U = Numic; V=Takic; X=questionable between Miwok and Yokuts; W= Wappo; Y=Yokuts; Z= Playano; ## = Razon; "=" = non-Hispanic immigrant

====Death Register Information====
=====DthNum=====
This field is the death record entry number of a baptized individual. For the vast majority of entrants, the string begins with the two letter ''Mission'' field code (see above) and then the unique entry number supplied by a priest at the time of baptisms. Four spaces leave room for numbers up to 9999. The fifth column is reserved for those few cases in which the priest repeated a baptismal number, either deliberately or by accident. Repeated numbers are further marked sequentially with "A," "B," etc. in column 5.

Insertion of death register information into the record of a baptized individual is a critical linkage decision made by the modern data transcriber. Sometimes the transcriber is aided in making a link by the priest of record for a death register entry, who actually looked up and inserted the baptismal mission and number of the deceased in the death record. (The priests occasionally made mistakes in so doing, our experience indicates.) Many priests did not, however, provide such a cross reference; in such cases a number of techniques have been used to link the deceased to a baptismal entry (see ''CFDth'' field immediately below).

=====CFDth=====
This field contains a code that signifies how the link of the death record was made to the specific baptized individual. See the code choices in Table A-4 at the end of this document. The code letters were not consistently entered until the mid-1990s. In most records, therefore, the basis of a baptism/death linkage is not documented in the database as of 2009.

=====DateDth=====
The date of the entry in a register of deaths, for the most part. It is usually the date of the actual funeral ceremony and burial, which may be the day of death, but was often one or two days later. About one entry in fifty was made on the basis of hearsay evidence of death added to the register of deaths later, usually at the year end. In such cases, arbitrary death dates were assigned over the suggested earlier time period, for purposes of low-sensitivity statistical studies of seasonal death distribution.

----

Table A-4. Burial (Death) Record Link to Baptismal Entry Confidence/Source (DCFD) Codes.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|align = "center"|Code Letter
|Information Source (including implication of reliability)

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|Death Record contains ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|X
|Death Record contains confirming information (native name, home group, and/or parents), but not ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal number

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Death Record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name as weak confirming information, and there is only one available living person with this name

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Death Record contains no confirming information, but there is only one available living child or adult with this name

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|Death Record contains an impossible baptismal number; this alternative is almost certainly the correct person

|-
|align = "center"|R
|No known death record, but this individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse remarries with explicit statement that this person has died.

|-
|align = "center"|P
|Ambiguous death record link to this specific person is substantiate by cross-reference evidence from some padron.

|-
|align = "center"|N
|Death record only, no baptismal record has been found for this person.

|-
|align = "center"|M
|Death record name is somewhat different than this baptismal name, but it is certainly a mutation of this baptismal name

|-
|align = "center"|L
|Death record name is not the same as this baptismal name at all, but this is the only possible child of this age from this set of parents identified in the death record.

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This is the most likely of more than one alternative person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|B
|This link is made on the basis of complex or tenous information. (Explanation usually found in the NOTES field).

|-
|align = "center"|A
|Reasons for this link bare

|} 

=====DateDthEntry=====
This field for the "Date of death record entry" is used for the date of record entry only when the ''DateDth'' contains an artificial death date because the record indicates the death occurred away from the mission, often weeks, months, or years prior to the date of entry (as discussed in ''DateDth'' above.)

=====SiteDth=====
This column notes the place of death. The field is usually empty, the default situation in which the ego was buried at the mission church without any comment regarding the place of death. Place of death is not always the same as the place of burial. Codes are the same as those for the field ''SiteBap'' above. Lower case letters following numbers indicate special information, found in memo field (p = died ''en paseo'', i.e., on a holiday in the field; h = died while a fugitive; v = died under violent conditions).

Additional codes note deaths at other missions (see ''Mission'' field above) or Presidios:

PB = Presidio at Santa Barbara

PD = Presidio at San Diego

PF = Presidio at San Francisco

PM = Presidio at Monterey

=====CauseDth=====
Priests seldom provided information on cause of death, but when it was given, it was usually some atypical cause, such as some epidemic, a snake bite, or being thrown from a horse. Female deaths due to complication from birth delivery were occasionally mentioned, but circumstantial information suggests they were far more common than the amount of explicit statements would suggest.

=====OriginDthRec=====
Information in the death record about the home group of the ego is entered, if provided. As with ''OriginBap'', the key rancheria name or other place name set in the left hand column, for sorting purposes. Fewer than half of the missionary scribes recorded this kind of information.

=====AgeDthRec=====
Numeric field for reported age of death in years. Very few priests actually noted the age of people in their death records, other than as ''adulto'' or ''parvula'' (children between about two and ten years old). On those few occasions when age in years was entered, the information was recorded in this field.

=====AgeDthLVL=====
Text field: General age at death information, such as ''adulto/a'' or ''parvulo/a''. If the person is noted as "casada" (married) or "viuda" (widowed) at the time of death, that information is noted here. The string "Casada*" in this field indicates that the name of the person<nowiki>’</nowiki>s spouse was given in the record. Prior to 2002 any named spouse was transcribed in the ''NOTES'' field of this record. From 2002 forward the name of the spouse has been added to this field, for ease in noticing it.

=====PriestDth=====
This field is for the surname of the priest who signed the entry. Over the many years of the project, this field has not often been filled in.

====Demographic Research Information====
=====BAPTYEAR=====
Year of baptism, derived from ''DateBap'' field.

=====BRTHYEAR=====
Year of birth, arithmetically derived by subtracting age at baptism from ''BAPTYEAR''. (This datum can be off by one year, due, for example, to the fact that some children baptized in January are listed as 0 years of age, but are stated in text to be two or three months old.)

=====YEARDTH=====
Year of death, derived from ''DateDth'' field.

=====DEATHAGE=====
Numeric Field: Age at death, arithmetically derived by subtracting ''BRTHYEAR'' from ''YEARDTH''

====Fields for Highlight Notation, Text Transcription, and Commentary====
=====Special=====
This field is used to mark occasional and exceptional occurrences, such as the mention of a ''capitán'' or a person who was ''ciega'' (blind), or ''huida'' (runaway). For mission and Spanish children, births or deaths at outlying ranchos are often noted here. (Generally, data are placed in this field with an eye to catching researchers attention to interesting patterns.)

=====Notes=====
Memo field (open-ended text field): Important text information regarding the individual is found here. This includes all information about siblings and other relatives (excluding parents) found in a baptismal entry. It also includes information from death registers or any other important source mentioning this individual. "//" separates information from sources beyond the initial baptismal entry for the record.

===Marriage Table Fields and Codes===
The logic of the Marriages Table is somewhat different than the logic of the Individuals Table, in that each record contains information about two egos. The fields ''HusbID'' and ''WifeID'' are critical in the Marriage Table, as they hold the key information that ties the egos of the Marriages table to the egos of the Individuals Table.

=====MarrNum=====
This is a code for the mission in which the marriage was recorded, followed by the unique marriage number in the left margin of the marriage book. Mission codes here are the same as those for the ''Mission'' field at the beginning of the Individuals Table (above).

=====MarrDate=====
This is the date of final ceremony of marriage, as entered in the register.

=====HusbAge=====
Age in years of the male spouse, if provided in marriage record, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====HusbOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the male spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====PrevWife=====
The Spanish name of a widower<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous Christian spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname, except for ''genté de razón'' (people of reason, i.e. rational beings).

=====HusbSurname=====
This is the surname of the male spouse, a standardized spelling of the name as written in the entry. Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather. For the northern missions, surnames were consistently applied only at Mission San Antonio and Mission San Miguel.

=====HusbName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the groom in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====CFHusb=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the husband in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''HusbID'' field below). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====HusdID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the husband is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique BapIDs, and therefore HusbIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

Table A-5. Marriage Table Husband and Wife Baptismal Number Confidence/Source (HusbID/WifeID) Codes for Marriages.

{|border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%" align="center"
|align = "center"|
[[Image:App_A_FORMATTED_Coding_Manual_01.png]]

Code Letter
|Information Source with Implied Reliability

|-
|align = "center"|Z
|ID of Husb/Wife explicitly stated in the marriage record

|-
|align = "center"|Y
|ID found, along with name and name of spouse, in the baptismal record of at least one of his/her children (seldom used, since there are quicker sources for ID)

|-
|align = "center"|X
|ID and name included in spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s baptismal record (for renovaron <nowiki>[</nowiki>tribal marriage renewed in the church<nowiki>]</nowiki> marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|W
|Baptismal record contains spouse<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name (for renovaron marriages only, very rare)

|-
|align = "center"|V
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage.

|-
|align = "center"|U
|Through search of Baptisms/Deaths table, this is the only logical person available for this marriage, all other live people with the name being married or too young

|-
|align = "center"|T
|ID reconstructed from information in a Confirmation Record

|-
|align = "center"|Q
|No one with the marriage record name of ego is alive, but logic indicates that the ego is a person with a name that was significantly different at baptism (see Notes for specific logic)

|-
|align = "center"|N
|ID reconstructed from information in a death record.

|-
|align = "center"|L
|ID carried over for a widow/widower from an earlier marriage

|-
|align = "center"|K
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a strong likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|J
|This spouse is the most likely of more than one alternative possible person, with a weak likelihood.

|-
|align = "center"|I
|Marriage tie explicit with ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s name and ID in the Baptismal Padron/Index

|-
|align = "center"|H
|ID clarified by some clue in one of their children<nowiki>’</nowiki>s later records

|-
|align = "center"|F
|Marriage tie of ego explicit in the baptismal information of a parent (rare)

|-
|align = "center"|D
|Problem. Identified ego<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous wife is not listed as dead, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|C
|Problem. Identified ego has been linked to a death record, yet this seems the correct ego ID

|-
|align = "center"|B
|Problem. The person identified in this record cannot possibly be correct (priest must be mistaken), The basis for my alternative ID is explicated in the Notes.

|} 

=====HStatus=====
Husband<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltero (bachelor)

V = viudo (widower)

In some cases this information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WStatus=====
Wife<nowiki>’</nowiki>s marital status. The marital history of individuals placed them in one of three statuses relative to Roman Catholic marriage: married as pagans, widow/widower, or bachelor/bachelorette. The condition was usually stated by the entrant.

R = renovar (renewing marriage)

S = soltera (bachelorette)

V = viuda (widow)

In some cases the information was not made explicit in the record entry. Status can usually be determined through contextual analysis of the individual<nowiki>’</nowiki>s life history. When the status is determined on the basis of earlier mission register information, the letter "I" for "inferred" is added in the second column (RI, SI, VI).

=====WifeID=====
The unique baptismal entry number (BapID) of the wife is placed here, if it can be found. Thus the field follows the rules from the Individuals Table ''BapID'' field. Note that artificial unique IDs and WifeIDs have been created for some Hispanic spouses born outside of California.

=====CFWife=====
This field marks the confidence/source regarding the linkage of the wife in this marriage to a given individual in the Individuals Table (through a unique BapID entered in the ''WifeID'' field above). The codes for this confidence field are found in Table A-5.

=====WifeName=====
For Indians, this is the Spanish given name of the female spouse in standardized spelling. For Hispanics, "#" leads, followed by surname, then given name.

=====WifeSurname=====
This is the surname of the female spouse for Indians at the few missions that provided Indian surnames (San Antonio and San Miguel). Surnames are usually taken from Hispanic surnames, but are occasionally derived from the native name of an Indian father or grandfather.

=====PrevHusb=====
The Spanish name of a widow<nowiki>’</nowiki>s previous spouse is placed in this field, if it is provided in the marriage book entry. Given name precedes surname for Indians. Surname with "#" leads for ''genté de razón''.

=====WifeOrigin=====
Here is placed the home village/group/city/country of the female spouse, as provided within the marriage record entry. Some missionary scribes consistently provided this information while other missionaries never provided it. Of interest, it does not always match the OriginBap of a given individual, providing clues regarding synonymous rancheria names and family movements outside the mission.

=====WifeAge=====
Age in years of the female spouse, if provided, is entered here. Such information was given very rarely.

=====Witnesses01=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the first stage of a wedding (the verification that the couple are free to wed), or to the only witnesses for those weddings that are not recorded with two stages. y. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====Witnesses02=====
This field allows listing of the witnesses to the second stage of a wedding (the verification that vows have been exchanged). It is left blank in the case of weddings that are recorded with only one set of witnesses. Over the many years of database development, this field has not often been filled in.

=====PriestMarr=====
This field is for the priest who signed the wedding entry. It contains the priest<nowiki>’</nowiki>s surname. These data have not been systematically entered as of 2009.

===Supplementary Tables in Community Distribution Model===
In addition to the basic information in the Individuals Table and the Marriages Table, the master copy of the Community Distribution Model also contains the following tables:

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|Confirmations
|Confirmation numbers cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed, only small number of San Antonio and Santa Clara confirmations as of 2009)

|-
|Regions
|Attributes of the 710 or so GIS mapping regions of the Community Distribution Model Digital Map (partially developed as of 2009)

|-
|Rancherias
|Information about the hundreds of rancherias referenced in the mission records (minimally developed)

|-
|Padron_CR1
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_CR2_1840
|Rancheria information in a late Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_FR_1822
|Rancheria information in the 1818-1822 Mission San Francisco padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Transfer
|Rancheria information in the initial San Francisco Solano padron, which listed hundreds of temporary and permanent transfers from missions San Francisco and San Jose, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_Alternate
|Rancheria information in a San Francisco Solano padron of 1826-1828, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_FS_1837
|Rancheria information in the San Francisco Solano padron of 1837, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (well developed)

|-
|Padron_JB
|Rancheria information in Arroyo de la Cuesta<nowiki>’</nowiki>s 1821-1827 Mission San Juan Bautista padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (partially developed)

|-
|Padron_JO
|Rancheria information in an early Santa Cruz padron, cross-linked to BapID in the Individuals Table (minimally developed)

|}

==REGIONS TABLE FIELDS AND CODES==
This appendix section documents fields of the Regions Table of the Missions Database, fields that contain information about each of the hundreds of tribelet-sized geographical regions across ethnographic California. The Regions Table fields, 27 in all, are dedicated to the following types of information: Organizational/locational information, Cultural information, Status of Current Research, Historic information, Demographic information, and Geographic information for each region (Table A-6).

Mappable information in this Mission Database Regions Table is portrayed on a GIS map by linking the table<nowiki>’</nowiki>s contents to the "Regions Attribute Table" of the CDM GIS mapping program. Also through such a link, the conten of a "GIS_Area" (area in square miles/kilometers) field in this Mission Database Regions Table is supplied by one of the CDM GIS mapping program<nowiki>’</nowiki>s analytical tools. Below the 27 fields of the Regions Table are described in six logical sections.

===Organizational/Locational Information===
=====Type=====
Quick-sort field to separate true "year round habitation regions" from other types of polygons, such as seasonal use regions and lakes.

=====Analysis Zone=====
Region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s placement in one of fourteen organizational zones for documenting California ethnogeography. Zones are based on a practical combination of language and geographic affinities.

=====Region=====
This is a recognizable modern name label for the regions. It is usually derived from the largest current town in the region, although in rural regions it may derive from the name of a stream or distinctive mountain.

===Cultural Information===
=====Rancherias=====
The name of the local group of the region, be it a tribelet or loose regional community. A key village name is used here in cases where no regional name is documented or where the region is made up of a cluster of village locations without documented regional cohesion.

=====Language=====
The "language" field indicates the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s language family or major sub-family of ethnographic California as portrayed by Kroeber in 1925. We cannot label the field "language family" because of the great variation in language group affiliation levels represented.

=====Specific Language=====
The specific language field indicates the language within the family or sub-family spoken in the region at ethnographic contact with the west.

=====Political Cohesion=====
Political cohesion within the drawn region, reflecting the four types of cohesion outlined in the CDM overview document: tribelet, loose regional community, artificial region of small local groups, and ambiguous region of large contiguous villages.

----

Table A-6. Sample Data from the Regions Table of the Missions Database.

11x17

=====Land Use=====
Degree of sedentism within the region (e.g., .

=====Known Names=====
Total count of community names (group names and specific village names) documented in the archival record. This number is a proxy for the degree of work in a region by classical anthropologists.

=====Reference=====
The best current comprehensive sources for documenting the regions ethnogeography, including its boundaries, regional group, and villages.

===Status Of Current Research===
=====Research Investment=====
Amount of consideration given to constucting the present regional boundary, presented as the following three levels: Quick (reflects minimal consideration, much more work needed), Careful (reflects a careful consideration of secondary sources or first-pass consideration of primary sources), Intensive (reflects full-scale research consideration of all sources).

=====Info Quality=====
Confidence level regarding the general legitimacy of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s boundaries and accuracy of identification of the groups within the region. This rating is divided into two parts, one part for regions thought to reflect ethnographic bounded territories, another for artificial regions in portions of California where regional boundaries did not pertain.

For areas with territorial groups: Good (strong confidence in accurate boundary), Fairly good (probably reflects accurate boundary), Weak (limited information renders this boundary a guess)

For areas without territorial groups: Artificial-Fairly good (a well-thought-out practical analytic unit), Artificial-Weak (a hurridly-applied unit applied with no research investment)

===Historical Information===
=====Missionized*=====
This field marks the degree to which people of the region are believed to have moved to Franciscan missions. Six self-evident classes are: 0% none, 1-5% trace, 6-30% some, 31-65% many, 66-90% most, 91-100% all.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki> CONTENTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, REFLECTING VARIABLE LEVELS OF RESEARCH WITH PRIMARY DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER=====
=====Missions=====
Specific missions that took people from this region. Find codes for the mission abbreviations, for instance "FR," in the "Individuals" table of this coding manual under "Mission."

=====Missions for Mapping=====
This field presents a simplified version of the previous "Missions" field, allowing space for the code for only the one most important one in the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s history. This field is important for mapping, the "Missions" field containing so many mixes of missions that problems are created for displaying them on large-area maps.

=====0sTreaties*=====
Regions whose groups signed one or another of the 1851-1852 Unratified Treaties are marked by the letter of the appropriate treaty (A-R).

<nowiki>*</nowiki>CONTENTS OF THIS FIELD REFLECT AN INCOMPLETE STUDY AS OF JUNE 2010.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

=====Adults Baptized=====
Number of adults from the region baptized at all missions. This count is produced by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====AveAdultYr=====
Average year of adult baptism from this region at all missions. This year is determined by an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====PopFactor=====
Manually-assigned factor representing constant reduction of "potential" baptizable population over time from 1770, reflecting disease and warfare in tribal areas around the missions.

=====Contact Adults deduced=====
Contact-period adult population of the region, deduced through an algorhythm described in Appendix B.

=====Contact Population*=====
Full contact population of the region. This number has been derived in two quite-distinct ways, reflecting of the differing nature of the source information.

Method One: Contact population is deduced by an algorhythm applying PopFactor (see above) to Adults_Baptized; used only for areas with 91-100% missionization.

Method Two: Contact population is inferred by Randall Milliken for each specific region outside of the intensive missionization zone through consideration of the published projections of A. L. Kroeber, Sherburne Cook, Martin Baumhoff, and the authors of the chapters in the 1978 California volume of the Handbook of the Indians of North America.

=====<nowiki>*</nowiki>THE RESULTS IN THIS FIELD ARE PRELIMINARY AS OF JUNE 2010.=====
=====GIS Area=====

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
|This field gives the precise area of a region in square miles. It is produced by an algorhythm in the CDM GIS package. Needless to say, this information can quickly be converted to square kilometers.
| 

|}

=====PopDensity*=====
Population per square mile is generated by an algorhythm in which the number in the field "Contact Population" is divided by the number in the field "GIS Area."

===<nowiki>*</nowiki>RESULTS ARE TENTATIVE AS OF JUNE 2010, AS THEY ARE BASED UPON VARIABLE-QUALITY INFORMATION CURRENTLY IN THE "CONTACT POPULATION" FIELD.===
===Geographic/Locational Information===
=====Geography=====
Geographic area type labels that allow simple grouping of clusters of regions by geography. Types include: Riverine <nowiki>[</nowiki>Colorado River<nowiki>]</nowiki>, Basin, Desert, Cascades, Sierra, Transverse, Central Valley, Hills <nowiki>[</nowiki>Coast Range<nowiki>]</nowiki>, and Coast.

=====Upland=====
Elevation, in feet, of the upland boundary. This field is only used for "year-round" regions and is only applicable if the region borders a seasonal upland (see Volume 1). Field value is null for all other regions.

=====County=====
Counties within which this region is found. Counties that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

=====Caltrans District=====
Caltrans districts within which this region is found, coded by Caltrans district numbers from 01 to 12. Caltrans districts that make up less than 5% of the region<nowiki>’</nowiki>s area are not noted in the field.

==BIBLIOGRAPHY==
Milliken, Randall

{|border="0" cellspacing="2" width="100%"
| 
|1981
|Ethnohistory of the Rumsen. Chapters 2 and 3 in ''Report of Archaeological Excavations at Nineteen Archaelogical Sites for the State 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey Consolidation Project of the Regional Sewerage System''. Limited distribution technical report prepared by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. (Reprinted as "Ethnohistory of the Rumsen," Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 2. Northern California Anthropological Group, Berkeley, California. Available through Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.)

|-
| 
|1983
|The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California<nowiki>’</nowiki>s San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Masters Thesis in Cultural Resource Management. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

|-
| 
|1990
|Ethnogeography and Ethnohistory of the Big Sur District, California State Park System, during the 1770-1810 Time Period. Manuscript submitted to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation

|-
| 
|1991
|An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from 1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

|-
| 
|1994
|The Costanoan-Yokuts Language Boundary in the Contact Period. Pp. 165-182 in ''The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region''. Lowell John Bean, editor. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 42. Sylvia Brakke Vane, Series Editor. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1995
|''A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Region, 1769-1810''. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|1999
|''Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian''. Lawrence Shoup and Randall Milliken. Ballena Pres, Menlo Park, California.

|-
| 
|2002
|History of Indian Assimilation into Mission Santa Clara. Pp. 45-63 in ''Telling the Santa Clara Story: Sesquicentennial Voices'', Russell Skowronek, editor. University of Santa Clara Press.

|-
| 
|2002
|The Spanish Contact and Mission Period Indians of the Santa Cruz-Monterey Bay Region. Pp. 25-36 in ''Gathering of Voices: The Native People of the Central California Coast''. Santa Cruz County History Journal, Issue Number 5. Linda Yamane, editor. Museum of Art and History, Santa Cruz, California.

|-
| 
|2006
|''Ethnogeography of the South Coast Ranges, with Special Attention to Priest Valley, Monterey County''. Limited distribution technical report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.

|}

[[category:Volume 1]]