Editors (Berkeley): R. L. Olson, R. F. Heizer, T. D. McCown, J. H. Rowe Volume 16. No. 3. pp. 81-130

Submitted by editors April 21, 1955 Issued October 18, 1956 Price, 75 cents

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California

Cambridge University Press London, England

Manufactured in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 81

The Yurok 83

The Wiyot 93

The Karok 98

The Hupa 99

The Tolowa 101

The Athapascans 102

The Chilula 102

The Mattole. 102

The Whilkut 102

The Kato 102

The Nongatl, the Lassik, and the Sinkyone 103

The Wailaki 104

The Yuki 106

The Coast Yuki 106

The Yuki Proper 106

The Huchnom 108

The Athapascans and the Yuki 109

The Pomo 111

Clear Lake Pomo 111

Northern Pomo 112

Central Pomo 116

Southwestern Pomo 117

Southern Pomo 117

Northeastern Pomo 119

Summary 119

The Coast Miwok 120

The Wappo and the Lake Miwok 121

Summary of Estimates 127

Bibliography 128

THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF CALIFORNIA

BY

S. F. COOK

INTRODUCTION

The present manuscript attempts a reassessment of the aboriginal population of Northwestern California, from the Oregon line to the Bay of San Francisco. There are no natural and fixed limits to the territory. Its outline serves merely the purposes of convenience. For this reason the individual units within the whole area are based, not upon natural ecological provinces such as mountain ranges, valleys, or river basins, but upon ethnic or "tribal" boundaries. Moreover, since there is no necessary interrelationship between the component parts, each is considered as a separate entity, and its population is computed separately. There is no final grand total to be added up, the significance of which transcends that of any of the constituents.

Since the objective here is the calculation of pure numbers, it is irrelevant that the natural habitat, the mode of life, the reactions to environment of the various tribes and linguistic stocks vary enormously. Such a disregard for the basic principles of ethnography and human ecology will be tolerated only because the limitations of space and time demand that the fundamental question "What was the population?" be answered before opening up the problem of why the population was no greater or no less. We must know how many people there were before we can study their equilibrium with the physical or cultural environment.

The outcome of this study is to augment markedly the previously estimated number of inhabitants in the region at hand, and, by implication, the number in the whole state. The magnitude of the aboriginal population has steadily diminished in our eyes for many years. I believe it was Powers who thought that the natives numbered as high as 750,000 or more. Merriam thought there were 260,000. Kroeber, in the Handbook of California Indians, (1925, p. 882) reduced it to 133,000. I myself in an earlier work (1943, pp. 161 et seq.) reviewed the evidence and raised Kroeber's figure by no more than 10 per cent. It appears to me that the trend toward assessing the native population in continually diminishing terms is due to the operation of two factors.

The first is a tendency on the part of subsequent generations to adopt a highly skeptical attitude toward all statements and testimony derived from earlier generations. Inherent in this point of view is the feeling, consciously expressed or unconsciously followed, that all human beings contemporary with an event either lie deliberately or exaggerate without compunction. This failing, so the argument runs, becomes most apparent when any numerical estimates are involved. Thus the soldier inevitably grossly magnifies the force of the enemy, the priest inflates the number of his flock, the farmer falsifies the size of his herds, the woodsman increases the height of the tree—all just as the fisherman enlarges upon the big one which got away. That these individuals are frequently subject to an urge to exaggerate cannot for a moment be denied. Nevertheless, under many circumstances most men lack a desire to do so or, if they feel such desire, know how to curb it.

To maintain explicitly or by implication that every observer without exception who reported on the size of Indian villages or the numbers of Indians seen was guilty of inflating the values is no more justifiable than to accuse every man who makes a tax return of having cheated the government. Under our law each person is innocent until proved guilty. Similarly, within the range of his intellect and the scope of his senses a traveler or a settler or a miner or a soldier of one hundred years ago should be credited with telling the truth unless there is clear evidence from outside sources that he is prevaricating. Evidence of falsehood should be looked for and, if found, the account should be discounted or discredited. Otherwise it should be admitted at face value. It need not be stressed, of course, that the acceptance or the rejection of a given datum because it does or does not conform to a preconceived theory constitutes a major scientific crime.

In the assessment of the California population it may have come about through the years that the disinclination to agree with contemporary observation has been carried too far and that a more liberal attitude of mind is needed. If so, then the reduction of the population which has taken place in print may have overshot its mark and the figures may require revision upwards.

The second factor is methodological. Throughout the last half-century, and beginning with the pioneer work of Barrett and Kroeber, ethnographers have employed the informant method almost exclusively. It is not my intention to deprecate this procedure in any way or to imply that it has not proved an exceedingly valuable tool. I would like to suggest, however that it does carry certain limitations. I refer specifically to the inability of old men and women to remember and transmit quantitative facts over a great span of years. On the other hand, qualitative facts and ideas can persist in the mind with little or no blurring or alteration. Thus a man might retain clearly from his own memory, or through that of his parents, where a village was located, what its name was, and some of the people who lived there. Yet he might have no clear concept whatever how many persons inhabited the village or how many villages were known to the tribe. This failure to retain and transmit accurate knowledge of number or mensuration becomes intensified if the informant is required to reach across an intervening period of unrest and confusion, both physical and mental, to an era of stability long since vanished. Yet this is just what the informant is asked to do when he tries to tell about the geographic and demographic conditions existing one or more generations prior to his own youth.

I do not wish to advocate throwing out all informant testimony for these reasons—or, indeed, any of it. I merely wish to suggest that an undeviating adherence to literal statements of informants may on occasion lead to population estimates which are too low. The same discretion and criticism should be accorded them as in the other direction should be accorded to the statements left by contemporary white observers.

THE YUROK

The first exhaustive and scholarly attempt to assess aboriginal population was that of A. L. Kroeber (1925) in his Handbook of the Indians of California. He made a particularly careful study of and worked out his fundamental principles with the Yurok. Hence any reappraisement of the population problem in Northwest California must begin with a thorough examination of all the evidence pertaining to this tribe.

Three primary avenues of approach are possible: ecological, ethnographic, and archaeological. It is proposed to deal here with the second, or ethnographic material. The principal sources are three in number; the pertinent chapter in the Handbook, the extensive monograph by Waterman (1920) and the village lists of Merriam (see Bibliography). All these investigators inspected the terrain and interviewed many informants during the decade 1900-1910. Hence their data have now become definitive.

For calculating population from village data it is necessary to know the number of houses per village and the number of inhabitants per house. Both these variables depend for their value upon numerous demographic and cultural factors and hence must be determined separately for nearly every tribe studied. Kroeber has paid special attention to the second variable, the number of inhabitants per house, and has concluded that the best value for the Yurok is 7.5 persons. Since all the contemporary accounts agree with this conclusion it may be accepted as established.

With regard to the number of houses per village it must be admitted that this factor is subject to wide variation both in locality and time. The number of house pits observed many years after the village itself has disappeared is likely to be unreliable for many reasons, although it may be used as a first approximation in default of better data. A safer guide is the memory of reliable informants or actual house counts made by explorers or original settlers. These are the sources of the values given by Kroeber and Waterman.

For the Yurok there are five chief compilations of villages, with and without house counts:

1. Kroeber. This author shows (1925, p. 18) a list of fifteen villages (four of them compound) which he says are "recent counts of houses or house pits recollected as inhabited." In addition he shows on his map (p. 9) a number of other towns, some of which he regards, and so designates, as being temporarily or intermittently inhabited and hence not to be included in any computation of permanent population. The house counts from his list are shown in table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column headed "Kroeber, modern memories."

2. Kroeber. On page 18 as well as on page 16 is given a census for the fifteen villages mentioned above. This was made in 1852 by a "trader" named York who lived many years in the vicinity. The census has all the appearance of veracity and may be accepted as substantially accurate. It is shown in table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column headed "Kroeber, 1852 census".

3. Waterman. This author presents his findings, all from informants, in three ways. First are his textual descriptions, which are careful and circumstantial. Second are his maps of a few villages, on which the house locations are drawn with much detail. Third there is the summarizing list (1920, p. 206), in which most of the textual and other data are incorporated. With respect to house counts there are numerous discrepancies between text, list, and maps, some of which are difficult to reconcile. Since from the context it may be inferred that the list represents Waterman's final evaluation, it must be used as the basic source of information.

4. Waterman. With the list on page 206 is also given a list of villages derived from a map executed by a man named Randall, a county surveyor, in 1866. Although no house counts are given, the list is useful for establishing the existence of certain towns in the year 1866.

5. Merriam. The village lists for the Yurok follow Waterman and Kroeber quite closely. However, Merriam was able to locate several inhabited places which had escaped the attention of the other two investigators. These villages have been added in table 2 (p. 92, herein) and a conservatively estimated house count assigned to them.

In table 1 (pp. 85-91, herein) will be found a list of 78 villages, based primarily on Waterman's data. Under each village name are assembled such facts as I can find in the writings of Kroeber and Waterman bearing on the existence of the town. In the third column is placed my own evaluation of these facts in the form of a statement whether such existence should be regarded as certain, probable, or doubtful. The results have been then transferred to table 2 (p. 92, herein). In the first column of this second table is the arbitrary number assigned each town shown in table 1 (pp. 85-91, herein), the doubtful towns being omitted. In the second column is the source, where the letter "l" denotes that the house number is derived from Waterman's list on page 206, the letter "t" that the number was derived from Waterman's textual descriptions, and the letter "M" that the data were secured from Merriam's village lists. The letter "R" indicates that the town appeared on Randall's map of 1866 but was not adequately discussed by Waterman or Kroeber. The letter "p" indicates that the house number is my own estimate. The third column shows the house number itself. In addition are shown the corresponding house numbers as taken from Kroeber's informants ("modern memories") or from the census of 1852 as cited by Kroeber.

The total number of houses is 412, which, at 7.5 persons per house, gives a population of 3,090.

Some insight into the validity of the value thus obtained may be secured by cross checking the various sources for house number. As a basis for comparison the list in table 1 (pp. 85-91, herein) may be used, since it is constructed for the great majority of villages from Waterman's final estimate. There are 16 towns for which a number is given in Waterman's list (1920, p. 206) and for which a statement of house numbers derived directly from informants is to be found in his detailed descriptions. For these towns the list shows 88 houses and the text 101. Now, if the same ratio of house numbers (i.e., 88 to 101) is applied to the total population as derived from table 2 (p. 92, herein) the result is a population of 3,562 persons.

On his detailed maps Waterman shows the location of the houses in 19 villages. Presumably he checked these houses carefully with informants, for in many instances he appends the house names, although as a rule only the pits remained when he saw the sites. There are in all 210 houses, whereas in his list on page 206 for the same towns he gives 192 houses. The total population projected from the maps would then be 3,380.

In a similar manner Waterman's list may be compared with Kroeber's list from informants and from the 1852 census. For the pertinent towns the numbers are: Waterman, 163 houses; Kroeber's informants, 154; the 1852 census 141. Projecting to the full list in table 2 (p. 91, herein) the population values are respectively 2,918 and 2,671. Of all the extrapolations the most significant is that from the 1852 census for it demonstrates that at that date the Yurok population could not have fallen far short of 2,500, a figure set by Kroeber as the absolute maximum for aboriginal times. In 1852 the tribe had already suffered materially from the disturbance caused by white settlement and hence must not have represented the full pre-settlement value. The average of all five estimates is 3,124.

Kroeber states unequivocally that he cannot concede to the Yurok a population greater than 2,500. Yet the best ethnographic data we possess, much of it assembled by Kroeber himself, indicate a population of 3,100 to 3,200. The key to the controversy seems to lie in Kroeber's decision that house sites and pits must be reduced by a factor of one-third in order to compute population. His conclusions are summed up in the following paragraph (1925, p. 18):

The Yurok recognize that a village normally contained more named house sites than inhabited houses. Families died out, consolidated, or moved away. The pit of their dwelling remained and its name would also survive for a generation or two. If allowance is made for parts of villages washed out by floods and possibly by mining, or dwellings already abandoned when the Americans came and totally forgotten 60 years later, the number of houses sites on these 30 miles of river may be set at 200 or more in place of 173. In other words there were two houses to each three recognized house sites among the Yurok in native times.

Let us now consider the following points.

1. With respect to the 173 house sites mentioned in the paragraph above Kroeber states on the same page (1925, p. 18): "Recent counts of houses and house pits recollected as inhabited, total over 170 for the Rekwoi-Kepel stretch." (Emphasis mine.) In other words the data furnished by Kroeber's informants and presented in the table on page 18 were not based upon the actual or presumptive number of pits but on inhabited houses. It is this total which conforms so closely to the count made by the census-takers of 1852 and also that shown on Waterman's list. By Kroeber's own admission therefore a one-third reduction for these Yurok towns would not only be unnecessary but would lead to entirely false conclusions.

2. Kroeber is not clear whether he means house pits existing on the ground in 1910 or pits which might have been visible had there been no destruction due to floods or mining subsequent to 1850. He states that, if the latter are included, then the number of house sites "may be set at" 200 or more. But by implication he recommends that the observed number be reduced by one-third. Now on Waterman's maps the author shows for 19 towns the actual or approximate location of the pits visible or otherwise known in the year 1909. There are 210 of these. At the same time the inhabited houses recollected by informants for the same towns, as revised by him in his list on page 206, is 192. Hence the true ratio of reduction is not one-third, or 1 in 3, but 18 in 210, or 1 in 11.7. It is of course possible to assume that 78 pits were destroyed between 1850 and 1909 so that the total number was 288 instead of 210. Then, if the one-third reduction is applied, the result is 192 houses. Such an arithmetical exercise constitutes merely arguing in a circle. On the basis of Waterman's concrete data it would appear reasonable to make a 10 per cent reduction in those localities where information concerning number of houses is derived exclusively from pits remaining long after habitation has ceased.

3. Certain considerations apply to absolute town size apart from the problem of house number. In Waterman's text descriptions there is no clear instance of a village inhabited in 1909 which had been settled or originated after 1850, apart from relocations due to floods or mining. On the other hand, there are numerous towns which declined or disappeared during the days of the American invasion and of which the memory was very hazy in the minds of informants sixty years later. For instance hopaw had been broken up by smallpox "in the early days." The village of rnr was being abandoned at the time of the coming of the whites. The inhabitants of keperor "all died at once" and the site was deserted. When Waterman saw otsepor the village had only three house pits, but informants well remembered several families living there. Waterman felt sure that srpr, espaw, and loolego had been larger in aboriginal times than informants seemed to think. The region around Big Lagoon was once much more populous than Waterman's data would indicate. No one of these instances is in any way conclusive but their cumulative effect is considerable. It is quite possible therefore that along the entire northwest coast and the Klamath basin the population began an abrupt decline coinciding with the first arrival of permanent white settlers. Such a condition would be in entire conformity with much of the testimony derived from informants in 1910.

YUROK ... 3,100

TABLE 1

Analysis of Village Sites

According to Kroeber, Waterman, and Merriam. Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to Waterman (1920). The column "Status" indicates whether the existence of a village at or about the year 1850 may be regarded as certain (C), probable (P), or doubtful (D).

No. and name Status Comment

1. omen-hipur C P. 228. Two groups of house pits. No further information available to Waterman but regarded as a town by Kroeber (map, p. 9).

2. omen C P. 230. Four house pits but designated as a town. It was known that a sweathouse existed and that the people bathed in the sea. Hence it was inhabited within the memory of informants. Shown by Kroeber as a town (map, p. 9).

3. rekwoi C P. 231. No question concerning this town.

4. welkwa C P. 232. No question.

5. tsekwel P P. 232. "This place was mentioned as a town site," but Waterman could get no satisfactory data. Since it was mentioned specifically as a town site by informants its existence may be regarded as probable. Mentioned by Kroeber (p. 10) somewhat doubtfully as a separate village.

6. tmri C P. 232. "Said to have been a village site." "Captain Jack belonged here." Hence it certainly was inhabited. The American town of Requa is located on the site and hence its organization has been lost. Kroeber states it as being somewhat doubtful as a separate village (p. 10) but shows it on his map as a village occupied only during certain periods.

7. awmennok P On Merriam's lists as a "village on north side of Klamath River at foot of Bowie's hill about 1 mile above present Requa."

8. kere P On Merriam's lists as a "village on south side Klamath about 2 miles from mouth."

9. kestitsa D See no. 11.

10. pegwolaw D See no. 11.

11. otweg D P. 227. These three villages were "referred to" but their location not pointed out by Waterman's informants. He suggests they may have been suburbs of rekwoi. Kroeber shows otwego as an intermittently occupied village on his map and calls it somewhat doubtful as a separate village on p. 10. kestitsa and pegwolaw he calls suburbs.

It is clear that a constellation of villages was located here aboriginally, centered around rekwoi. Waterman in his list assigns 25 houses to rekwoi, 9 to welkwa and none to the others. Regardless of their status of independence or permanency there are too many of these remembered sites to be ignored. Consequently 3 houses each are assigned to Waterman's two best authenticated sites, tsekwei and tmri, and to Merriam's sites awmennok and kere.

12. osegen C P. 234. A "small town." Informants recalled 3 houses and 2 sweathouses.

13. hopaw C P. 234. "The small pox raged here in the early days and practically broke up the village." This may be a clue to the status of the sites around rekwoi. If so, all modern informants may be too low in their estimates of houses in the area.

14. wokel C No question.

15. trwr C See no. 16.

16. ahlawsl C P. 235. According to Waterman this was a camp site. There were very old house pits dating from a time before the memory of informants at trwr. They had been all washed away in Waterman's time. Kroeber (p. 10) states that trwr was a camp site with no permanent houses.

On the other hand Merriam in his village list says: Terwer was "a village on north side of Klamath at Terwer Creek (old Klamath reservation); said to be 6 or 7 miles above present Requa." It was mentioned by Taylor in 1860. Regarding ahlawsl Merriam says that it was on the north bank close to terwer and may be regarded as the lower part of the latter village. It was called alaaca by Stevens in 1868. The existence of the combined town may hence be regarded as highly probable if not certain. In view of its apparent size 8 houses may be assigned to it.

17. yaktar P Merriam says that this was "a village on south bank Klamath River at mouth of McGarvey Creek. Waterman gives yoxwtr-wroi as name of McGarvey Creek but says nothing as to a village at its mouth."

18. saal C P. 235. An "important town" with 7 to 8 houses. Waterman, however, shows only 5 on his list.

19. turip C P. 235. A "town" lying on a flat. According to Waterman it was one of two sites but he could get no information on the second site because of local hostility. Some informants said turip itself had 8 houses and 3 sweathouses. On Randall's map (see Waterman, pp. 205 ff.) there is shown a town, called koppa, on the same flat as turip. This is not likely to be an error for saal, because the latter is across the river, but is very likely Waterman's second site. Waterman on p. 206 gives 6 houses for turip but in view of the second probable village I recommend increasing this to 8 and thus agree with Waterman's informants. Kroeber does not mention this matter.

20. stowen P P. 207. This is a "well known place" with Indians living there now, although they are not the descendants of the ancient population. However Waterman also says, on p. 235, that "the site is well known and may have been a settlement in former times." Furthermore, it is on the survey map Randall made in 1866. This map appears to have been accurately drawn and creates a strong presumption that the village was in existence in early times. It is reasonable to assign 3 houses to the site.

21. rliiken-pets C See no. 23.

22. howego P See no. 23.

23. tawchter P There is some confusion about these three places. Kroeber shows (map, p. 9) rliiken-pets as a place occupied intermittently, but does not mention howego or tawchter. The first (rliiken-pets) is stated by Waterman to have been the "site of a small settlement" where informants recalled 2 houses and a sweathouse. In the summer the people went to howego to camp and fish. On p. 237 howego is described as a "flat" with no houses mentioned, but on p. 207 Waterman says: "howego ... is a well known place ... but was not described to me as a town. Apparently there is an old town site there ... whose existence I did not hear of when on the spot." Further evidence lies in the fact that the place is shown on the map by Randall (p. 206) under the name of Herwahgah.

Merriam lists rliiken-pets as oleeken and says that it is a "former village ... about 3 miles below Blue Creek ... named from Oleeken Bar, at the upper end of which it is located." On his "Geographic List" of Yurok villages he describes Hawwagah as an "old camp" but on his later list entitled "Polikan (Yurok) Tribes, Bands and Settlements" he has interpolated in ink "former village." Tawchter he describes as a "village on north bank of Klamath right across from Hawwagah."

The weight of the evidence favors certainly two and probably three villages. Waterman ascribes (p. 207) 2 houses to rliiken-pets, to which may be added another 2 for tawchter. Across the river howego may also have had 4 houses.

24. rnr C P. 237. Waterman says this town was being abandoned before the coming of the whites but it is shown on Kroeber's map (p. 9) and also on Randall's map of 1866. Hence it must have persisted for at least twenty years after the white invasion.

25. nagil C See no. 28.

26. ayol C See no. 28.

27. awpaw P See no. 28.

28. torah P Pp. 238 and 207. Informants of Waterman recalled 4 houses at nagil, settled by the great-grandmother of Weitschpek Frank. The latter was a man of approximately forty years of age when Waterman saw him in 1909. Hence, allowing twenty-five years per generation and assuming that the ancestor was twenty-five years old when the place was founded, it must have been settled definitely prior to 1850.

Regarding ayol, which Kroeber shows (map, p. 9) as a standard town, Waterman says it was a "small settlement." He thinks the place was early abandoned and resettled more recently. However Merriam refers to it as a "village—opposite mouth of Ahpah Creek" and identifies it with the jehehak on Randall's map.

Merriam refers to awpaw as a "village on south bank Klamath at mouth of Ah Pah Creek, opposite and straight west of oyawsl (ayol)." He also says that torah was an "old village on west side of Klamath, close to nigehl, opposite mouth of Blue Creek." It is also on Randall's map.

From the evidence of Randall and Merriam it appears probable that there were no less than four villages at this point on the river. Waterman gives 4 houses of nagil and 2 for ayol. The other two villages may be tentatively assigned 3 each.

29. srpr C P. 238. At one time of some importance. Contained 3 houses "in memory of people now living and had been larger than that." Destroyed by flood in 1862.

30. tekta C P. 239. Kroeber states (p. 10) that tekta had been occupied recently but did not seem to be an old site. This is directly contradicted by Waterman who calls it "an old town site." The name was frequently mentioned by his informants. Moreover he knew of a very old woman who was married from there as a girl and who "belongs" in tekta.

31. otsal D P. 240. "A former village site," now destroyed. "The present Indians know nothing about a town here."

32. woxkero C See no. 34.

33. woxtek C See no. 34.

34. qootep C P. 240. There is no question concerning the aboriginal existence of these towns. Confusion among modern informants has been due to population shifts caused by the flood of 1862, which damaged qootep.

35. pekwan C P. 243. An "important place."

36. yoxtr C P. 244. No question.

37. sregon C P. 244. Waterman says: "Everyone agrees that it has not been there very long." Some informants said it was settled by people from woxtek or pekwan. But Waterman says: "... it may have been built before either of the other places." The town is on Randall's map and is mentioned in the 1852 census. Moreover Kroeber says (p. 10) that it "... enjoyed a reputation for belligerence and wealth." Its existence can therefore not be doubted.

38. kexkem P P. 245. A site with house pits. The traces of habitation were "quite clear." But Waterman could get "no reference to the people." Kroeber considers (p. 8) that it was inhabited only from time to time. However Merriam lists a village called leggoonaw which was "on south bank of Klamath between Mettah and Serragon." This appears to be the exact location of Waterman's kexkem and it may well have been the same village. Its existence is thus probable and 3 houses may be ascribed to it.

39. wererger P Merriam mentions this as a "village on north bank Klamath River, across from Mettah and a little above it." At this spot Waterman shows on his map no. 11 an "old village site" (his key no. 117). Hence the existence of the village is probable.

40. meta C P. 245. No question.

41. keperor P P. 245. Numerous house pits but informants never saw the houses. "The inhabitants all died at once and so the site has never been used since." A reasonable conclusion is that a village existed but that the people died of disease of epidemic character. (Cf. no. 13.)

42. nohtskum C P. 246. A town with only house pits remaining but of undoubted existence.

43. weiqem P A site with 7 or 8 pits. Informants could not remember any houses. Some said it was a camp site but they had an elaborate legend to explain the house pits. The site is at the mouth of Roach Creek on the south bank of the river and hence a spot where one would normally expect a town to be located. Moreover the number of house pits is in excess of what would be anticipated for a mere camp site.

44. himel C P. 247. This was a town, but the informants could barely remember the houses. Waterman could not determine why the inhabitants had disappeared. Kroeber mentions the village as one which may have been inhabited intermittently or temporarily (p. 8) and shows it thus on his map. However, he refers to it as a distinct town on p. 10 and lists it jointly with murek on p. 18. It doubtless disappeared early as a separate entity.

45. murek C P. 247. No question.

46. saa C P. 248. No question.

47. kepel C P. 248. No question.

48. waase C P. 249. A "fairly large town." The people were rich.

49. merip C P. 250. A small place with only one house name known. Its existence, however is confirmed by Merriam.

50. aukweya P See no. 53.

51. qenekpul P See no. 53.

52. tsetskwi C See no. 53.

53. qenek C Some question exists concerning these four villages. Kroeber nowhere mentions aukweya, but shows qenekpul and tsetskwi as temporary or briefly occupied towns and qenek as a permanent town. Waterman says that aukweya was a "settlement, three houses and a sweathouse." There had been no houses for many years and the pits were washed out. qenekpul was important mythologically and was said to have been built by an old Indian from turip but there is no record of house pits or early habitations. tsetskwi was a settlement with 3 houses and a sweathouse. In the youth of one informant there had been at least one family head living there, who was very old. Merriam lists all four sites as villages.

There seems to be no serious question concerning the former existence of tsetskwi and qenek. It is highly probable that the other two sites were inhabited at the middle of the nineteenth century. Waterman in his list ascribes a total of 10 houses to the group, a reasonable figure (p. 206, see also pp. 251-252).

54. wahsek C P. 254. No question.

55. weitspus C P. 257. No question.

56. rlrgr C P. 258. "... always a small place" but several of its families were rich. On Kroeber's map.

57. pekwutul C P. 258. "... slightly larger than rlrgr" but had some wealthy citizens. On Kroeber's map.

58. loolego C P. 258. Shown on Kroeber's map as a standard town. Waterman says that 30 years before his visit, i.e., in 1879, 2 pits and a sweathouse were to be seen there. loolego "... must at one time have been considerably larger for these people made up one of four parties who carried on the public spectacles in the deer skin ceremony at weitspus. They could not have done this had they not been rather numerous.... They were obviously influential people." This condition must have obtained long before 1879 when only house pits were known. The site was destroyed by mining in the 1880's.

59. aiqoo C P. 259. Waterman says: "... at least two houses and a sweathouse stood here." Kroeber (p. 10) considers aiqoo as a subdivision of otsepor but Merriam lists it as a separate village, under the name Ikocho.

60. otsepor C In 1909 when Waterman saw it the village had merely three house pits. But an informant "... well remembers when several families ... lived here. They had fine large houses."

61. espaw C P. 261. No question as to existence. Informants remember 4 houses but Waterman thinks that "in aboriginal times the number must have been much larger".

62. otmekwor D P. 262. There are 5 house pits but Waterman thinks this is a true archaeological site, the inhabitants having moved across to oreqw several generations ago. On Kroeber's map as not a permanent settlement.

63. oreqw C P. 262. No question.

64. oraw D P. 262. Waterman, Kroeber, and Merriam all agree that this was a camp site.

65. sigwets C P. 262. "... a suburb of oreqw. At least two houses and a sweathouse stood here and I think originally there may have been more." In view of Waterman's positive assertion the existence of the village may be admitted.

66. hrgwrw C P. 265. "One informant said there were seven houses and two sweathouses."

67. tsahpekw C P. 265. "Eleven house names were obtained."

68. tsotskwi C P. 265. "An important Indian village stood here, but has not been inhabited since more than a generation ago.... One informant remembered having seen twelve houses and two sweathouses here."

69. paar C See no. 75.

70. osloqw C See no. 75.

71. kekem P See no. 75.

72. maats C See no. 75.

73. opyuweg C See no. 75.

74. pinpa D See no. 75.

75. oketo P Pp. 265-266. These villages were located on Big Lagoon. The latter "... was a center of population. At least six inhabited sites were to be found about its shores...." At the same time Waterman admits that his notes were scanty and contradictory. "Undoubtedly the list of place names which I obtained in this locality could easily be expanded threefold...." "Enormous numbers of water birds still frequent the lagoon and must have been an important resource for the natives."

The villages of paar, osloqw, maats and opyuweg are shown on Kroeber's map (p. 9) as standard towns although kekem is mentioned as probably transitory and pinpa is not mentioned at all. Waterman states that paar was a town of considerable size. With respect to osloqw he says: "A very aged informant had never seen houses here but her predecessors had." This indicates an early and rapid disintegration of the village complex in the locality. The existence of both maats and opyuweg at the time of white settlement is conceded by both Waterman and Kroeber. Waterman thinks that pinpa was simply a suburb of opyuweg since he could obtain no house names here. oketo is given by Waterman as the name, in Yurok, of Big Lagoon. It is listed by Kroeber however (p. 11) as a village (both as oketo and chwaltaike, its Hupa name). Merriam says that oketo is the "... Polikla name for Nererner village at Big Lagoon." Its existence therefore is highly probable.

If Waterman is correct in his opinion that there were originally six villages around Big Lagoon, then all those mentioned, except pinpa, may be included. For the first five Waterman gives a total of 35 houses, or 7 houses per village. If the same ratio is used, 7 houses may be assigned to oketo, making in all 42.

76. olem P P. 267. Waterman considers this a camp site but Merriam in his list of Yurok villages states it as "... Nererner name for their village at Patrick's Point." To assign 3 houses is probably adequate.

77. tsurai C P. 271. No question.

78. srepor C P. 272. Some informants told Waterman that there were 4 houses and a sweathouse. On permanency of habitation he has no information. Kroeber on his map shows the site as a transitory village (p. 9) but on p. 113 he mentions Little River "... at whose mouth stood the Yurok town of Metskwo (srepor)." Merriam also mentions Matskaw, a "village at mouth of Little River, on north side ..." Its aboriginal existence may therefore be taken as at least highly probable.

TABLE 2

Numbers of Houses

The figures in the first column are for village sites as listed in table 1. Sources: R, Randall's map; 1. Waterman's list (1920. p. 206); t. Waterman's text (1920); M. Merriam's village lists; p, an estimate.

No. Source House Count Kroeber, "modern memories" Kroeber, 1852 census

1 l 7

2 t 4

3 l 25 23+ 22+

4 l 9

5 tp 3

6 tp 3

7 Mp 3

8 Mp 3

12 l 4

13 l 4 9 6

14 l 3 2 2

15 Mp 8

17 Mp 3

18 l 5 5 2

19 t 8 8+ 14

20 Rp 3

21 lp 4

22 Rp 4

24 l 3

25 t 4

26 t 2

27 Mp 3

28 Mp 3

29 l 3 3 4

30 tp 3

32 l 4 13 7

33 l 13

34 l 22 18 24

35 l 24 17+ 20

36 l 4 4 3

37 l 5 6 7

38 Mp 3

39 Mp 3

40 l 6 7 6

41 tp 5

42 l 3 4 4

43 tp 6

44 l 4 21 14

45 l 11

45 l 8 14 6

47 l 4

48 l 6

49 l 5

50 l 3

51 l 1

52 l 2

53 l 4

54 l 6

55 l 17

56 l 6

57 l 5

58 l 4

59 l 2

60 l 3

61 l 7

63 l 7

65 t 2

66 l 5

67 l 10

68 l 5

69 tp 5

70 tp 3

71 t 4

72 l 5

73 l 18

75 Mp 7

76 Mp 3

77 l 14

78 t 4

THE WIYOT

There are three primary ethnographic sources for the population of the Wiyot. The first is the extensive monograph by Loud (1918), the second a short paper by Nomland and Kroeber (1936), and the third the village lists of Merriam.

Loud based his data on interviews with numerous informants together with a rather cursory visual inspection of the region. He shows nearly two hundred sites of all kinds on his map and differentiates by means of conventional symbols between what he calls "archaeological" and "modern village" sites. By the latter he means settlements which were occupied at approximately the time of the American invasion of 1850. In his text he discusses descriptively a few of the more important of the "modern village" sites but for most of the smaller places he furnishes no information other than inclusion on his map. His coverage is fairly good for the valley of the Mad River and for Humboldt Bay but his treatment of the valley of the Eel River is nearly worthless. Recognizing this deficiency in Loud's data, Nomland and Kroeber secured the services of an informant who was born in 1860 in this area and had lived there all his life. They were thus able to obtain a very complete list of sites, together with a fairly accurate house count for each of them. This list is therefore as reliable as we shall ever be able to get and, unless we wish to discard this type of information completely, we must accept it as essentially correct.

For the Mad River and Humboldt Bay areas the recently acquired village lists of Merriam form an admirable supplement to Loud's compilation. Merriam went over the ground personally and checked carefully Loud's sites. He was thus able to clarify many of the obscurities in the data furnished by the earlier investigator. Where points of discrepancy arise between the two authors therefore, more reliance may be placed upon Merriam.

The family number is taken by Kroeber (1925. p. 116) as the same as for the Yurok, i.e., 7.5. Loud obtained estimates for both house number and population for three villages. Site 45 gave 13.5 persons per house, site 67 gave 9, and site 112 gave 5. The average is slightly over 9, a figure which has no further significance than to indicate that the Yurok value of 7.5 may be applied safely to the Wiyot.

With respect to Kroeber's principle of a one-third reduction in the number of houses the same considerations apply as with the Yurok data. There is nothing to indicate in the work of either Loud or Nomland and Kroeber that informants were not thinking in terms of inhabited houses rather than total deserted houses or house pits. Indeed we have in Loud's text three specific instances (nos. 7, 67, and Y) where the informant not only stated that the houses were occupied in the early days but also gave the names of the persons living in all of them. It is difficult to reconcile a one-third reduction with such data.

In table 3 (pp. 94-96, herein) are given a few notes, gleaned mainly from Loud and supplemented from Merriam's list, which are of interest in determining the existence and population of certain villages. All villages are included the existence of which in approximately 1850 Loud regards as reasonably certain. To these are added several of Loud's doubtful sites, the validity of which has been confirmed by Merriam, plus five villages missed by Loud but discovered by Merriam. The house counts for those towns confirmed or discovered by Merriam have had to be estimated. The number has been taken rather uniformly as 2 or 3 in order to maintain as conservative a standard as possible. For 22 of the larger and better known sites Loud's informants gave an average of 6.5 houses. Hence an average of 3 for those whose names and locations only were known seems in no way excessive.

In table 4 (p. 97, herein) are shown the best estimates for the Mad River and Humboldt Bay areas from Loud and Merriam and for the Eel River valley from Nomland and Kroeber. The total is 440. At 7.5 persons per house this means a population of 3,300 inhabitants for the Wiyot. The corresponding figure given by Kroeber in the Handbook (p. 116) is "perhaps 800 or not over 1,000." Loud states on page 302: "If asked to give an extreme figure for the native population ... the writer would say 1,500, and consider any higher figure pure folly." The present writer, however, stands by the figure of approximately 3,300, insofar as the estimate is based on ethnographic material.

It was suggested in connection with the Yurok that this tribe was already undergoing some reduction in population at the time of the first entry of Americans en masse in 1850 and that the best memory of informants in the decade 1900-1910 could not give us the truly aboriginal picture. For the Wiyot the evidence is still more impressive. None of Loud's white informants could go back of 1850 and one gets the impression that his Indian informants could do little better. John Sherman, the informant of Nomland and Kroeber, was born in 1860, subsequent to ten years of massacre and disintegration of native society. This state of affairs is reflected in many statements in Loud's text. (See also table 3, pp. 94-96, herein.) For instance several strikingly large and recent graveyards are mentioned, a statement which can refer only to the period of 1850 or immediately before. Site 22, according to tradition, had once possessed a large population, and site 23 was said to have been a "regular rancheria" one hundred years previously (that is, previous to 1918). Nevertheless the population of these towns could not be included in the present estimate because no informant living in this century could remember houses there. Site 68 had been declining prior to 1850, the inhabitants either dying or moving elsewhere. The tremendous destruction of population after 1850 is everywhere evident in Loud's account and it is not too much to suppose that the confusion of the period is reflected in too low values given by modern informants. If this is true, then it is quite possible that the estimate given here of 3,300 Wiyot is actually considerably lower than the true aboriginal population, rather than higher.

WIYOT ... 3,300

TABLE 3

Wiyot Sites listed by Loud (1918)

Notes and comment with respect to some of Loud's sites. Page numbers unless otherwise specified refer to Loud (1918). The notation "Merriam" indicates that the site was checked and accepted by Merriam, who included it in his village list of the Wiyot. The letter A signifies that Merriam had obtained an Athapascan name for the site, thus confirming its existence as an entity known to the neighboring tribes in pre-American times.

Loud's Sites Comment

Site 3 Merriam

Site 4 Merriam (A)

Site 5 Merriam (A)

Site 6 Merriam (A)

Site 7 P. 259. There were 11 houses, all occupied, the names of the families known to Loud's informant.

Site 8 Merriam

Sites H, I, J, 9 P. 262. These are located in the former Big Bend of the Mad River. A pioneer told Loud that there had once been 20 houses in the area. Another informant said that site I had been "one of the largest villages" and "... had a large graveyard." Site 9 was said by Curtis (Nomland and Kroeber, p. 44) to have had 5 houses. Loud's informant gave it 5 or 6. Hence the estimate of the pioneer appears quite reasonable. Merriam lists all four sites with their Wiyot and Athapascan names.

Sites D through G K through X AA through AK These sites extend along Mad River and around the shores of Blue Lake. Loud gives no specific data concerning them and some are individually doubtful. However, Loud says that the houses were scattered along both banks of the river and the shores of the lake. "That is, about every mile there was an Indian house or two." Although Loud was not very accurate in the location of the sites, it is quite probable that scattered homes existed in at least the ratio of one dwelling to each site mentioned. Hence it is reasonable to ascribe a minimum of at least one house per site. This would yield a total of 29 houses.

Loud's data were checked and revised by Merriam, who appears to have done a more careful piece of work on this area than Loud. Merriam confirms and gives Wiyot and Athapascan names for Loud's villages E, G, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, AA, AB, AC, and AG, or 20 villages in all. The minimum number of houses which can be ascribed to a "village" is 2. On the other hand several of the 20 sites must have contained more than the minimum and therefore it would be legitimate to set the average at 3. This would mean a total of 60 houses for the entire area covered by these villages.

Site Y P. 265. The site had 4 houses, all occupied, the names of the occupants known to Loud's informant. Merriam (A).

Site Z P. 274. This town was destroyed by the Chilula just prior to 1850. The whites found 30 to 40 fresh graves. Merriam says it was the "chief village in vicinity of Blue Lake at time of Chilula attack."

Site 14 P. 272. Stated by Loud to be a camping place but called a village by Merriam. Status doubtful.

Site 17 Merriam.

Site 19 Merriam.

Site 22 P. 274. "... according to tradition once had a large population." Loud thinks it was uninhabited by 1850 but Merriam lists it as a village. Estimate 4 houses.

Site 23 P. 274. "... said to be a regular rancheria one hundred years ago." Nomland and Kroeber (p. 42) say it has been uninhabited in modern times and Merriam considers it an archaeological site.

Site 31 P. 272. A summer camp according to Loud but a village according to Merriam. Allow 2 houses.

Site 33 P. 265. "This village was referred to as a 'regular rancheria' when the whites first came, a statement which is confirmed by the number of skeletons that have been found here with white man's articles buried with them." Listed by Merriam. Estimate 8 houses.

Site 34 P. 265. Loud found no houses and only 2 house pits. However in 1890 there were 20 graves which were visited by relatives. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 4 houses.

Site 36 Stated by Merriam to be an archaeological site.

Site 39 Merriam. Estimate 2 houses.

Site AL P. 273. According to an informant there were several houses in 1856 with one occupied. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 4 houses.

Site 45 P. 272. According to an informant there were 2 houses and 25 to 30 inhabitants in 1852. Deserted in 1860.

Site 48 Merriam. Estimate 2 houses.

Site 58 P. 268. The site was known to pioneers, who said it had 8 to 10 houses in 1858. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 9 houses.

Site 65 P. 268. There were three to four houses in 1852. The inhabitants were driven out shortly afterward. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 3.5 houses.

Site 67 P. 266. An informant said there were 9 houses once, all occupied, the names of the persons being known to him. Robert Gunther told Loud that in 1860 there were 6 houses left with 50 to 60 persons.

P. 268. "Estimates of population ... in 1850 have been placed much higher, but after the introduction of certain diseases by the whites, the population decreased somewhat." Estimate 9 houses.

Site 68 The village had been declining prior to 1850. At the time the population was one-third that of site 67. The last family moved in 1857 when a white man took up the land. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 69 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 73 P. 269. There were 8 to 10 plank houses here in 1851. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 9 houses.

Site 77 P. 270. White informants say there were not more than half-a-dozen houses, although an Indian says many people used to live here. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 6 houses.

Site 79 Nomland and Kroeber (p. 43) say this was one of the two largest Wiyot towns, hence there were at least 10 houses. It was destroyed in 1850 by white settlement.

Site 80 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 83 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 84 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 86 P. 271. "... a permanent village." Listed by Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 88 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 90 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 91 P. 273. A camping place, according to Loud, but a village on Merriam's lists. Allow 2 houses.

Site AM Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 92 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 93 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 98 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 100 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 102 P. 271. Loud says camping place, Merriam village. Allow 2 houses.

Site 104 Shown as archaeological site on Loud's map but given by Merriam as a village. Allow 2 houses.

Site 109 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses.

Site 112 P. 269. The village had 10 houses and at least 51 inhabitants before the massacre of 1860.

Other sites In addition to the above sites found by Loud there are five listed by name by Merriam. These should be included and assigned an average of 3 houses each. The total then would be 15.

TABLE 4

Wiyot Settlements

Mad River and Humboldt Bay

Wiyot settlements according to Loud, Merriam, and Nomland and Kroeber, covering the Mad River and Humboldt Bay. The key designations are those given by Loud. The house counts are from Loud with the exception of sites B and C which are from Nomland and Kroeber and of several sites from Merriam for which I have made my own estimates (indicated by the letters Mp.). In all instances where a range is given by informants (e.g., 2-4 houses) the mean is placed in the table.

Loud's no. House count

3 3 Mp

4 and 5 12.5

6 3 Mp

7 11

8 3 Mp

H, I, J, 9 20

D-G 60 Mp

K-X

AA-AK

A 8

B 4

C 5.5

Y 4

Z 12

17 4.5

19 3 Mp

22 4 Mp

31 2 Mp

33 8 Mp

34 4 Mp

39 2 Mp

45 2

AL 4 Mp

48 2 Mp

58 9

65 3.5

67 9

68 3

69 3 Mp

73 9

77 6

79 10

80 3 Mp

83 3 Mp

84 3 Mp

86 3 Mp

88 3 Mp

90 3 Mp

91 2 Mp

AM 3 Mp

92 3 Mp

93 3 Mp

98 3 Mp

100 3 Mp

102 2 Mp

104 2 Mp

109 3 Mp

112 10

Others 15 Mp

Total 299

Eel River

Wiyot settlements on the Eel River as given to Nomland and Kroeber by the informant John Sherman. The villages are numbered consecutively from the list on pages 40 to 42 of their paper (1936). The list here is cut off at village no. 32, which Kroeber, following Powers, puts as the limit of the Wiyot. The presence of the Wiyot racial group above this point is controversial. For numerous towns the informant uses the non-specific terms "few," "many," etc. These expressions have been transformed arbitrarily, but I think conservatively, into numerical form as follows: Few = 2; several = 4; many = 8; large = 10.

Serial No. Sherman's estimate of house count Final estimate

1. few 2

2. few 2

3. 2-3 2.5

4. 2-3 2.5

5. 5-10 7.5

6. 5-10 7.5

7. 4-5 4.5

8. 1-2 1.5

9. 1-2 1.5

10. 10 plus 10

11. 5-6 5.5

12. several 4

13. several 4

14. 1-2 1.5

15. 1-2 1.5

16. 5-10 7.5

17. few 2

18. 0 0

19. 5-10 7.5

20. 0 0

21. large "20" 10

22. several 4

23. many 8

24. many 8

25. several 4

26. several 4

27. several 4

28. several 4

29. no statement

30. many 8

31. inhabited 2

32. many 8

Total 139

THE KAROK

The village distribution of the Karok was treated briefly by Kroeber in the Handbook, pages 99 to 102, and far more exhaustively in a later paper (1936). For the latter he secured the services of two good informants, a very elderly Indian man named Ned and a woman, Mary Jacops, with whom he examined the area carefully. The list set forth on pages 30 to 34 of his publication must be regarded as definitive. It is true that Merriam has a very complete list of Karok villages but his names vary linguistically from those of Kroeber to such an extent that, save in a few instances, it is extremely difficult to reconcile them. However, since Merriam's total is 115 for the same territory where Kroeber finds 108 and since Merriam does not give house counts the Kroeber list may be used exclusively.

Ned gave house counts but Mrs. Jacops did not. Kroeber amplified wherever possible with data from Curtis (cited by Kroeber, p. 30, as The North American Indian, 13:222). Ned's counts were very cautious since he distinguished frequently between the number of houses he had seen at a given site and the number he had heard were there. On the basis of such distinctions Kroeber reduces the total count by a factor of one-sixth. He states (p. 35):

Among the Yurok ... two occupied houses may be reckoned for each three house sites recognized when full detailed data are at hand. They are obviously not detailed for the Karok.

I must take issue with two points. With the Karok the counts were not based upon house sites recognized but on the memory of inhabited houses by informants. Hence the house site or pit theory cannot apply. In the second place, a reasonably thorough examination of the published material on the Yurok, Wiyot, and the Karok shows that the data for the Karok presented by Kroeber represents the fullest detail of all with respect to the number of houses.

Apropos of the same question it is of interest to point out the house counts given by Ned for the fifteen villages also provided with counts by Curtis for 1860. Kroeber has tabulated these himself and shows that, despite variation in individual detail, the total for Ned is 60 and that for Curtis is 57-60. The identity is remarkable. Commenting on this situation, Kroeber makes the following very significant statement (p. 35. fn.):

It is apparent that, for any particular settlement, no precise figure, even by a good informant, is very reliable unless based on an enumeration of named houses. But for a larger series of settlements the particular variations, resulting from changes of residence or difference of times referred to, tend to cancel each other out and to yield comparable and fairly reliable totals.

(Emphasis mine.) The present writer, consequently, can see no necessity for a gross reduction of one-sixth of the computed population.

Kroeber's list shows 108 towns plus 10 mentioned by Curtis as being in Karok territory on the Salmon River. The first 84 villages were covered by Ned, who gave house counts for 61 of them. Using wherever possible the houses actually seen, not merely heard of, by Ned we get a total of 248. This is a little smaller than Kroeber's total for the same sites of 254. In this group of 84 villages 9 have counts from Curtis but not from Ned, with a total of 24 houses. By Kroeber's own showing Curtis' counts are as reliable in the aggregate as those of Ned. Sites 85 to 108 are derived only from Mrs. Jacops who did not give counts. Kroeber proposes (pp. 34-35) to reduce these to 15 settlements and assign an average value of 4 houses per village. This seems entirely reasonable, and gives us 60 houses. We may now add the 10 villages on the Salmon River cited from Curtis by Kroeber and, to be conservative, assign an average count of 3 houses each. The total of all Karok houses then becomes 362. At the customary 7.5 persons per house the population of the Karok is 2,715. or with sufficient accuracy, 2,700.

KAROK ... 2,700

THE HUPA

There are four sources of consequence for the Hupa population. The first is the discussion to be found on pages 128 to 132 in the Handbook by Kroeber, which includes a census furnished to the government by the Yurok in 1851. The second is a monograph published by Goddard (1903). The third is a particularly exhaustive village list compiled by Merriam. The fourth is a map drawn by Gibbs in 1852, photostatic copies of which are to be found in the Merriam collection.

The towns of the Hupa fall naturally into two subdivisions, the first comprising those in Hupa Valley proper and the second those above the valley which extended along the main Trinity River and its South Fork. The first included 12 villages which are mentioned by name by Goddard and are shown on his map. For most of them he indicates houses by dots and solid squares which can easily be counted. Kroeber lists on page 129 the same 12 towns and all but one of them appear on Merriam's list. (These are numbered 1-12 in table 5. p. 100, herein.) Village no. 2, Dakis-hankut, is omitted by Merriam but is shown with houses by Goddard. Village no. 8, Totltsasding, is stated by Kroeber to have been "unoccupied in 1850." Goddard however merely says that it had been deserted for a long time. On the other hand it had been sufficiently well known to the Yurok for them to have a name for it, and Merriam does not question its existence. These two villages may therefore be retained in the list.

With regard to the second group Kroeber gives two villages (nos. 13 and 14) as "permanent settlements." Above these come five towns (nos. 15 to 19 inclusive) lying on the main Trinity River, which are mentioned by name by Kroeber. Although they are mentioned "in early sources" as being in the area Kroeber nevertheless does not think they should be added to his list. However, they are cited by Merriam, for the same area, and three of them are shown with house counts on Gibbs's map. Their existence seems therefore to be assured. They are probably the "5 other villages in and above Hupa Valley, not positively identified" which are cited in the Yurok list by Kroeber on page 131.

No. 20, Tjelding, is given by Kroeber as certain and is included by Merriam. The remaining villages, although not specifically mentioned by Kroeber or Goddard, are given in his list by Merriam with the explicit statement that "these were permanent villages. There were also several camps along the south side of Trinity." Since Merriam is the only investigator who has made a thorough examination of this area, his work must be accepted.

With respect to house counts it is interesting to compare the six villages in Hupa Valley which occur, on the one hand, on the Yurok list of Kroeber or on the Gibbs map and, on the other hand, on Goddard's map. The former give a total count for these towns of 82 houses, whereas Goddard shows 78. The Yurok census and Gibbs's map were formulated in 1851 and 1852 immediately after the advent of the whites. Goddard presumably derived his data from informants in or about the year 1900. From the two sets of figures it is clear that Goddard's cannot be too high and therefore those he gives for villages not covered by the earlier sources must be reasonably reliable. Goddard's total for 11 sites is 128, or an average of 11.6 houses per settlement. In default of other information this value, rounded off to 11, may be applied to no. 8.

Passing to the second group, we find that the five villages above Hupa Valley on the main Trinity River are shown on the 1851 census list as having 23 houses. The map by Gibbs assigns house counts to three of these, nos. 15, 16, and 19 with 4, 3, and 6 houses respectively. The average from the census is 4.6 houses per village and that from Gibbs is 4.3. We may accept from these data the value 4.5 as representing the mean house count for villages outside Hupa Valley proper. This is notably lower than the mean for the valley itself but is consistent with the poorer, more remote terrain.

Using Goddard's counts and the 1851 census where possible and supplementing by the estimate given above for the other villages we get a total of 198 houses for the Hupa. At 7.5 persons per house the population would have been 1,485. This is considerably above Kroeber's "barely 1.000" (p. 130).

A further question presents itself at this point. Should we accept without reservation the Yurok value of 7.5 inhabitants per house? Two lines of evidence become pertinent here. Goddard in describing Hupa society makes the following statements (p. 58):

A typical family consisted of the man and his sons, the wife or wives of the man, the unmarried or half-married daughters, the wives of the sons, and the grandchildren. To these may be added unmarried or widowed brothers or sisters of the man and his wife.... All the children born in the same house called each other brothers and sisters, whether they were children of the same parents or not.

(Emphasis mine.) To this Kroeber adds (p. 132): "The ultimate basis of this life is obviously blood kinship, but the immediately controlling factor is the association of common residence; in a word, the house." Now the social family in the usual monogamous tribe included the father, mother, children, and occasional close relatives. This was the underlying assumption of Kroeber's estimate of 7.5 persons as the social family among the Yurok. Here, very clearly, the social family was far more extensive, perhaps in occasional instances as much as double the Yurok value. At any rate the value 7.5 seems definitely too low.

Another approach is through the data furnished by Kroeber on page 131 of the Handbook. Here he shows a population census taken from seven villages in the year 1870 (the last item "sawmill" may be deleted as impossible to place). The total is 601 persons. Goddard's data show for these same seven villages a house count of 92 for the years centering around 1850. The direct average number of persons per house would be 6.53. Meanwhile Kroeber points out the disparity between the sexes: 232 males and 359 females. This he attributes to warfare alone, a dubious conclusion. Regardless of cause, however, we may calculate that in the absence of this male mortality and with a normal sex ratio of approximately unity the population would have been twice the female number or 718. The average number per house under such conditions would then have been 7.80.

It must be borne in mind that the population count is of 1870 and the house count is of 1850 or earlier. Although Kroeber feels that there was no population decline, apart from the effect of warfare on the males just mentioned, I cannot agree with him. In the face of the overwhelming evidence for a tremendous decline subsequent to 1850 on the part of the Indian population throughout all California it is impossible to concede complete immunity to any one tribe no matter how well protected it might have been. Consequently, we must allow for a reduction from 1850 to 1870 even on the part of the females. It is impracticable to set any sure figure on the decline but a value of 20 per cent would be very conservative, particularly in comparison with all the northwestern tribes. This would mean a population for the seven villages of 879, or say 900 in 1850. On this basis the number of persons per house becomes 9.78.

I think therefore we are justified in ascribing 10 persons to each Hupa house. If so the population would have been 1,980, or approximately 2,000. It is entirely possible that even this is too conservative an estimate.

HUPA ... 2,000

TABLE 5

Hupa Villages

According to Kroeber (K), Goddard (Go), Gibbs (Gi), and Merriam (M). The numbering is purely arbitrary and is based on Kroeber's list. The house counts are from Goddard's map, the Yurok census of 1851 as cited by Kroeber (p. 131), and the 1852 map of Gibbs.

No. and Name Houses from 1851 census Houses from Goddard's map Houses from Gibb's map Houses by estimate

1. Honsading: K, M, Go, Gi 9 11 9

2. Dakis-hankut: K, Go 7

3. Kinchuwikut: K, M, Go 8

4. Cheindekotding: K, M, Go 12

5. Miskut: K, M, Go, Gi 6 11 6

6. Takimitlding: K, M, Go, Gi 20 14 20

7. Tsewenalding: K, M, Go, Gi 10 6 10

8. Totltsasding: K, M, Go 8

9. Medilding: K, M, Go, Gi 28 23 28

10. Djishtangading: K, M, Go, Gi 13 9

11. Howunkut: K, M, Go 14

12. Haslinding: K, M, Go 9

13. Kachwunding: K 4.5

14. Mingkutme: K 4.5

15. Sehachpeya: K, Gi, M 4

16. Waugullewatl: K, Gi, M 3

17. Ahelta: K, M 23

18. Sokeakeit: K, M

19. Tashuanta: K, M, Gi 6

20. Tjelding: K, M 3

21. Tiltswetchaki: M 4.5

22. Chilchtaltung: M 4.5

23. Ostantung: M 4.5

24. Hlitchchoochtung: M 4.5

25. Klokumne: K, M 4.5

26. Tahchoochtung: M 4.5

THE TOLOWA

Apart from the discussion by Kroeber in the Handbook (pp. 124-125) there have been two published attempts to enumerate the villages of the Tolowa. One of these was by Waterman (1925) and the other by Drucker (1937). Of all these the treatment by Drucker is the most complete since he had the advantage of a knowledge of the earlier work. Although he may have missed settlements in the interior, for present purposes we must accept his list as a working basis.

Drucker mentions 23 villages, all located on the coast or along the lower reaches of the Smith River. Kroeber gives 10 sites from which he computes the population, at the Yurok rate of 45 inhabitants per village, as 450. Waterman gives 14 places, which, at the same rate, would yield 630. Drucker has house counts for 13 of his villages, with a total of 88 houses or 6.76 houses per village. At the Yurok count of 7.5 persons per house, which Kroeber says applies to the Tolowa, the average population per village would be 51. Kroeber's estimate of 45 is thus quite close. There is no good reason to suppose, in view of the lack of any good evidence to the contrary that the other 10 villages of Drucker were smaller than those for which he gave house counts. Thus we may add 68 houses, making a total of 156 and a population of 1,186. Kroeber would of course reduce by one-third but the reasons for so doing are no more compelling with this than with any other tribe.

Drucker (p. 226) states that his house counts are as of 40 to 50 years ago. This means, first, that the houses were described to him by informants as known to them in their youth to be inhabited (hence no reduction necessary) and, second, that the counts represent the situation during the period of 1885 to 1895.

Now the counts published for all the tribes hitherto considered were based upon the conditions obtaining at approximately 1850, 35 to 45 years earlier. In other words, Drucker's figures cannot in any sense represent the aboriginal state, for there must have been a marked decline in population and in number of houses among the Tolowa between 1850 and 1890. The implication is, startling as it may seem, that the population estimate given above is much too low.

Some idea of what may have happened can be secured by a brief reconsideration of Waterman's Yurok data. It will be remembered that Waterman shows detailed maps of 19 villages, including not only houses once standing but also houses standing and inhabited when he saw them in 1909. The ratio of the former to the latter is 189 to 38. There were of course many more houses standing in 1890 than in 1909, although the population did not decline materially during these particular twenty years. Hence the ratio found by Waterman for the Yurok cannot be applied directly to the Tolowa. Nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that a count made among the Yurok in 1890 would have shown that not more than half as many houses were being inhabited then as had been in 1850. If so, Drucker's total of 156 might be doubled, giving 312 and a population of 2,372. Such an estimate may appear totally at variance with the other known facts pertaining to the tribe but I am inclined to adhere to it.

Further support for such a view comes from consideration of relative population decline since 1850. On page 19 of the Handbook Kroeber cites the federal census of 1910 as showing 668 persons for the Yurok and on page 130 over 600 for the Hupa. He thinks that the Hupa were less numerous than the Karok and the latter less numerous than the Yurok. With respect to the Karok he says (p. 102): "It is also clear that the proportional loss of the Karok in the past 65 years has been relatively mild, possibly not exceeding one half." In another connection he discusses at some length the reasons why the Hupa suffered less than many other tribes—primarily because of their protected position and the lack of mining in their area. Now the Wiyot in 1910 had 150 people and the Tolowa 120. If their loss had been of the order of one half, as Kroeber feels is the case with the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa, then the population of the Wiyot in 1850 would have been in the vicinity of 300 and the Tolowa 240. Actually, in his original estimates Kroeber did set the figures for these tribes not much higher: 800 for the Wiyot and 450 for the Tolowa. Kroeber thus defeats his own argument with respect to the small decline and protected position of the Karok and Hupa. For the position of the Wiyot and the Tolowa were the most exposed to white influence of any of the Northwestern tribes. They were located on the fertile, commercial, and well settled coast. Many types of evidence point to their early and rapid disintegration and almost extinction. They should have suffered the worst losses and did. Hence it is not as far fetched as it might seem at first sight to ascribe to the Tolowa a population in 1850 of nearly 2,400.

TOLOWA ... 2,400

THE ATHAPASCANS

THE CHILULA

With the Chilula we encounter the first of the small Athapascan tribes of Northwestern California. Their villages have been studied intensively by Goddard (1910), who lists 18 but gives no house counts. ¹ Merriam, who re-examined Goddard's report likewise finds 18 sure villages plus 21 summer camps and 2 places of indeterminate character.

Merriam deviated from Kroeber very widely in his tribal names for the Athapascan groups. It is probably preferable to retain Kroeber's terminology without prejudice to Merriam simply because Kroeber's names are at the present time much the more widely accepted and used. Merriam's material pertaining to the Chilula is to be found in his manuscript entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut Camps and Villages." He thus includes the Chilula among the Whilkut.

The closest approach to a house count is reported by Kroeber (1925, p. 138) who states that six of the identified settlements showed 17, 7, 4, 2, 4, and 8 house pits respectively. This is an average of 7. Kroeber considers that the customary one-third reduction should apply and in this instance with considerable justification, since there were no living informants and the villages had not been inhabited since the 1850's. However, the careful study of the Yurok by Waterman demonstrated that the apparent ratio of contemporary house pits to former known inhabited houses was approximately 10 to 9 rather than 3 to 2. It is hence legitimate to reduce the average value of houses per village for the Chilula from 7 to 6. With 18 sites this means 108 homes. Applying the Yurok value of 7.5 persons per house instead of the probable Hupa value of 10. we get a population of 810 persons. This is somewhat greater than Kroeber's estimate of 500 to 600.

Chilula ... 800

¹ Since completion of this manuscript, Mr. Martin R. Baumhoff of the Department of Anthropology has discovered village lists filed many years ago by Pliny E. Goddard, which cover Athapascan territory in addition to that held by the Wailaki. Mr. Baumhoff is now analyzing the new data and his results will probably necessitate an upward revision of the population figures given here.

THE MATTOLE

That portion of the Mattole living on Bear River have been studied by Nomland (1938) through information supplied by a single very old informant. The house and family relationships appear to resemble those found among the Wiyot directly to the north, although no numerical data of any kind are given. The data hitherto presented have yielded as average number of houses per village, 6.0 for the Yurok. 4.5 for the Wiyot, 6.8 for the Tolowa, and 6.0 for the Chilula. The mean of these averages is 5.8, or let us say in round numbers 6, a value which seems reasonable for those Athapascan tribes for which there are no direct counts. The Yurok family number of 7.5 also appears applicable.

Merriam in his list entitled "Nekanne Tribe and Villages" mentions only three villages on Bear River but Nomland (1938) in her more careful examination of the territory found 8. Hence the population of this group may be set at 360.

Apart from Bear River the Mattole territory included the drainages of Davis Creek and the Mattole River, together with the west bank of the Eel River for a short distance above the Wiyot. Davis Creek is much smaller than Bear Creek and probably was sparsely settled. Nevertheless Nomland's informant mentioned individuals who were from Davis Creek and hence it must be assumed that there was at least one and very likely as many as two villages there. The Mattole River was larger than Bear River and has been well covered by Merriam in his list entitled "Bettol or Pettol (Mattol) Tribe and Villages." He cites 10 named villages. In addition, he includes the Kooske, who he says were a "very large band and village ('hundreds of people') formerly on Koosky (or Cooskie) Creek on or near the coast 2-1/2 or 3 miles southeast of Punta Gorda lighthouse." He also cites two indentures for Indians of this tribe which he found in the Eureka court house.

The 2 villages on Davis Creek and the 10 on Mattole River would yield 540 persons. If we accept Merriam's description of the Kooske tribe, we may add another 300. The total for the Mattole would then be a population of 1,200.

Mattole ... 1,200

THE WHILKUT

For information on the Whilkut we are indebted to Merriam for the only village list extant. He covers the tribe, together with the Chilula, in his list entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut Camps and Villages," revised, according to a pencil notation of the title sheet, in 1939.

Merriam gives 15 villages for the Hoechkienok or "Upper Redwood" tribe, 3 for the Kotinet or "Blue Lake and North Fork Mad River" tribe and 15 for the Mawenok, who lived "on Mad River from opposite Korbel up to the ranch of John Ahlgren about 21 miles in air line." The Chilula and Mattole were credited with 45 persons per village. The habitat of the Whilkut lies on smaller streams and is generally less favorable than that of the Chilula or the Mattole. Hence the number may be reduced to 40 per village. The total is then 1,320.

Whilkut ... 1,300

THE KATO

There are only two usable ethnographic sources of information concerning villages among the Kato. The first is the rather casual treatment given the group by Barrett (1908) in his monograph on the Pomo. He lists 17 villages as having existed in the area comprising the modern stretch running from Laytonville to Branscomb and a few miles north and south thereof. No village sizes are given (pp. 281-283) and no discussion of community organization. Merriam in his list "Kahto Tribe and Villages" mentions the 17 villages of Barrett and adds 3 others derived from his own informants, making a total of 20.

Since there is no explicit information regarding village size, we may adopt the value used for the Whilkut, i.e., 40 persons per village. This would mean a population of 800.

Barrett and Merriam, however, give data only for the southernmost part of the Kato range, including an area of approximately 150 square miles. The remainder of the Kato territory extended some distance along the upper waters of the South Fork of the Eel River and its area may be reckoned as 100 square miles or 40 per cent of the entire Kato territory. On the other hand, living conditions were not as good in this portion of the range and the density was probably less than in the vicinity of Laytonville and Branscomb. Hence we may add 300 persons (rather than the full 40 per cent) and consider the total as 1,100.

With the Kato we arrive at an area where it becomes possible to utilize historical and documentary, as well as ethnographic, sources of information. For the period 1850-1856 there are three accounts left us by white men who were direct observers, as distinguished from data supplied from memory to modern white men by Indian informants. With respect to the region north of San Francisco Bay these observations by Americans must be regarded as supplementary to the basic ethnographic material derived from Indians. Nevertheless they are of considerable value in confirming, negating, or modifying the ethnographic data.

Two primary sources are pertinent here. The first is the expedition of Colonel Redick M'Kee, one of the three "commissioners" sent out in 1851 to negotiate treaties with the California Indians. M'Kee went first to Clear Lake, then up the Russian River, over to the Eel River watershed, down to Humboldt Bay, and eventually up the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Two records of this expedition were kept. The first, and far better known, is the Journal of George Gibbs, which was later published by Henry R. Schoolcraft (1860). The other is the Minutes of the expedition, written by John M'Kee, a relative of the Colonel. These Minutes, together with considerable correspondence, were published in Senate Executive Document No. 4, 33rd Congress, Special Session (1853).

The second source is a report written by Major H. P. Heintzelman at the request of Indian Agent Henley, in 1855. Major Heintzelman (1855) made a survey of the tribes of Sonoma and Mendocino counties which might be placed upon a reservation at the mouth of the Noyo River. He interviewed numerous headmen, or chiefs, of community units and reported on the Indian population. His total, for the territory extending from the upper Eel River to San Francisco Bay was 21,200, a figure in excess of the value conceded by ethnographers.

According to George Gibbs (1860, p. 118), the M'Kee expedition, on August 30, 1852, reached the Batimdakia (spelled also Ba-tim-da-kia) Valley, which was supposed to be at the head of the South Fork of the Eel River. John M'Kee implies that this valley was on the Middle Fork of the river but there is little doubt, judging from the route taken, that it was actually Long Valley, on the east branch of the South Fork. He says that the valley was inhabited by the Cabodilapo tribe and that a careful count showed 497 Indians. Since not all the natives could be located, John M'Kee estimated the actual population as 500 to 600. In a letter from Redick M'Kee to the commissioner in Washington, dated September 12, 1852 (1853, p. 185) it is stated that the population "may be" 600. M'Kee's counts, particularly in the Clear Lake Region, are generally regarded as too low. Hence his figure of 600 for Long Valley must be considered conservative. It should also be borne in mind that M'Kee saw only the east branch of the South Fork of the Eel River, which takes its origin in Long Valley. He did not get over to the west branch, which runs through Kato territory past Branscomb. Now Barrett shows eleven villages on the east branch and its tributaries, or an average of 55 persons per village. At the same rate the six villages on the west branch would add 330 for a total of 930 in the southern range of the Kato.

Heintzelman lists a group of seven names, representing Indian communities, which he says are up to 35 miles north of the site selected for the reservation, i.e., Fort Bragg, or the mouth of the Noyo River. Heintzelman's distances and locations, as well as his names, are exceedingly hazy. Some of the seven names mentioned may refer to the northern Pomo, and some very likely pertain to the coast Yuki. Nevertheless two are undoubtedly Kato: the Car-toos and the Ba-tims (the former is cognate with Kato, and the latter must refer to Batimdakia Valley). The aggregate population is 700, according to Heintzelman. This is only slightly larger than M'Kee's 600. Allowing for conservatism on the part of M'Kee and over-liberality by Heintzelman, a fair estimate is 650. Alternatively, since Heintzelman saw the country three years after M'Kee had passed through, and the population may have diminished somewhat, the figure 700 secured by Heintzelman may well refer to both branches of the South Fork of the Eel.

For the Laytonville-Branscomb area we now have three estimates: by derivation from purely ethnographic data, 800; from the M'Kee reports, 930; and from the Heintzelman report, 700. Regardless of minor detail, the first method seems to yield results entirely consistent with direct contemporary evaluation.

Adding 300 to account for the remaining Kato territory we may retain the estimate of 1,100 for the tribe as a whole.

Kato ... 1,100

THE NONGATL, LASSIK, AND SINKYONE

For the three remaining northern Athapascan tribes we possess very little data of a strictly ethnographic character. Neither Kroeber nor Nomland (1935, 1938), who has studied some of these groups, have been able to secure any pertinent information regarding villages. Nor has Merriam been more successful. His list covering the region, under the title "Athapaskan Tribes, Bands and Villages Speaking the Nungkahl Language," mentions not more than two dozen villages in all and these are very widely scattered.

The entire failure of competent investigators such as those mentioned to come upon material traces of inhabited sites among these three tribes might be taken as indicative of a very small population. However, the existence of heavily inhabited areas to all sides of the region held by these tribes makes it unlikely that there was any large stretch of country which was devoid of a sizable Indian population. It is much more probable that numerous villages of the Lassik, Nongatl, and Sinkyone once did exist but that they were wiped out almost completely by the white frontiersmen in the early 'fifties before any observer left a record of them. As an indication of their fate may be mentioned the tales told by Bledsoe (1885) in his "Indian Wars of the Northwest" and by various witnesses in the Report to the California Legislature (1860) on the "Mendocino War."

When we are presented with such an entire lack of direct data, we are quite justified in falling back on the indirect area-density method. Thus the densities are tabulated below for the five other Athapascan tribes (including the Wailaki, considered subsequently) and for the Coast Yuki, a tribe in the region for which we have very accurate counts.

Tribe Approximate area in sq. mi. Population Density in persons per sq. mi.

Chilula 210 800 3.86

Mattole 210 1,200 5.72

Whilkut 250 1,320 5.28

Kato 270 1,100 4.07

Wailaki 575 3,347 5.82

Coast Yuki 150 756 5.04

Mean 4.96

The close correspondence in density of the six tribes listed is noteworthy, and tends to lend confidence in the reliability of the ethnographic source material upon which these estimates are based.

The areas with which we are dealing are reasonably large; they are also relatively homogeneous in the ecological sense. All lie within the redwood-transition belt (except the Wailaki, which border it on the east), and all are characterized by small, perennial, salmon-bearing streams, along which the Indian villages were placed. There is nothing outstandingly different about the terrain occupied by the Lassik, Nongatl, and Sinkyone, except that perhaps it lies somewhat higher on the streams (but the Wailaki are still higher) and contains fewer flats and open valleys. The three tribes being considered had respectively 325 square miles, 700 square miles, and 615 square miles of territory. If the density was 4.96 persons per square mile the population would have been, to correspond, 1,612; 3,472; and 3,050. If we allow for a somewhat poorer habitat, these values may be reduced a little, say to 1,500; 3,300; and 2,900. It is difficult to see how the estimates can be carried much lower.

Nongatl, Lassik, and Sinkyone ... 7,700

THE WAILAKI

The Wailaki were studied by Goddard (1923, 1924), who published two papers concerning them. The first covered the main portion of the tribe along the Eel River and the second the Pitch group which lived along some of the tributaries of that river. Goddard found the Wailaki proper, as they may be termed, to consist of 18 communities or subtribes, each living in one to several villages, and the Pitch group to consist of 4 subtribes. One peculiarity of the villages was that they were inhabited only during the six winter months, the people in the summer dispersing through the hills in search of small game and plant food. Although the villages were occupied only half the year, nevertheless they can be used for computation of population since there were no other fixed abodes with which they can be confused.

In addition to Goddard's monographs, we have a tribe list for a portion of the Wailaki from Merriam entitled "Tsennahkennes Bands and Rancherias." Both investigators surveyed independently 11 of the 18 subtribal areas and obtained the names of villages from informants. In his list on page 109 and in his text Goddard identifies 53 inhabited places. For two other subtribes, the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, he cites the villages by name in the textual descriptions on pages 106 and 107. There are a total of 18 for the two subtribes. Villages were not determined at all for the five northern subtribes.

For the first 11 subtribes Merriam gives a total of 46 villages. Of these, 30 can be identified with names furnished by Goddard, whereas 16 are in addition to Goddard's list. Goddard on the other hand gives 23 which were not secured by Merriam. Since both these workers operated carefully through informants and both were thoroughly conversant with the local dialects, we may accept the combined total of 69 villages, large and small, occurring within the territory of Goddard's first, or southernmost, 11 subtribes. The average is 6.27 villages per subtribe. For the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, Merriam mentions only one village each, that bearing the subtribal name. It is quite clear from his list that he did not push his field investigations into these groups. Hence we must fall back on Goddard's data, which include 18 villages in all. The average for the 13 subtribes therefore is 6.7 villages, and the total 87.

All the villages have long since been totally deserted and Goddard could count only house pits. (Merriam made no counts of any kind.) He did this for only two groups, the Baskaiya and the Slakaiya. Here he found and mentions on pages 103 and 105 twenty sites containing house pits. In all there were 92 pits but for two localities he specifies a certain number plus "several" others. If we allow 4 to represent "several" in each of these, then, the total number of pits is 100 and the average per site or village is 5.0.

Now since we are dealing here only with pits and not counts of houses remembered by informants, a reduction according to the Kroeber principle is justified for it is quite probable that all the houses once standing on the pits were not simultaneously occupied. When Kroeber has no other data, he recommends a reduction by one-sixth. I think that in this instance it would be proper to reduce by one-fifth, or 20 per cent. This would give an effective average of 4 houses per village. In the 13 communities covered by Goddard and by Merriam there were 87 villages, which at 4 houses per village would give a total of 348. No evidence is offered by either author to the effect that the remaining 5 subtribes differed in any essential way from the first 13. Hence we must ascribe to them 134 houses, making 482 in all.

We might use the Yurok family number 7.5, but Goddard's account carries the implication that perhaps the Wailaki family was somewhat smaller, suggesting a factor of 7.0 rather than 7.5. Goddard bases his estimates upon a mean population of 15 to 30 persons per village. This would mean 4.5 persons per house, certainly too low a value for the aboriginal social family. At four houses per village the family number would be 5.6, still probably somewhat too low. Perhaps a compromise is advisable, say at 6.0. The average village size could be then put at 25 persons, a figure definitely lower than was assumed for the more northerly Athapascan tribes but still one which seems to be indicated by the social organization described by Goddard. The total population of the Wailaki proper would then be 80 per cent of 482 houses multiplied by 6.0 or 2,315 persons.

Goddard indicates on page 108 his belief that the villages were not simultaneously inhabited. However, he adduces no evidence to favor this view. On the contrary, he mentions in his text four villages which were stated by informants not to have been inhabited within their memory, a circumstance which argues strongly that the villages they did claim were actually active at the time to which they were referring, i.e., just before the white invasion. It would appear to the writer that reducing the house count by 20 per cent and reducing the family number from 7.5 to 6.0 quite adequately compensates for any errors in the ennumeration of villages. Indeed the estimate here presented may be too conservative.