There is no disagreement on the western boundary of the Hupa. It
runs north and south along Bald Hills Ridge, dividing the drainages
of Redwood Creek and the Trinity River. Merriam gives the Hupa
two divisions--the Tin-nung-hen-na-o, or Hupa proper, and the
Ts´[)a]-nung-wh[)a], or Southern Hupa. The line dividing these two
groups lies just north of the main Trinity to the east of South Fork and
along Madden Creek to the west of South Fork. Kroeber (1925_a_, p. 129)
and Goddard (1903_a_, p. 7) do not give any support for a linguistic
division, as indicated by Merriam, but there does seem to have been some
cultural difference.
In the division of the territory west of the Hupa Merriam differs
radically from Kroeber and Goddard, although all three scholars divide
the area between two groups. Kroeber and Goddard call the northernmost
group Chilula, an anglicization of the Yurok word tsulu-la meaning "Bald
Hills people," and the southern, Whilkut, from the Hupa word hoilkut-hoi
meaning "Redwood Creek people" or "upper Redwood Creek people."
Merriam calls the first of his two divisions Hoilkut and says that they
lived on Redwood Creek and on the North Fork of the Mad. This group he
further subdivides into three parts: one, living on lower Redwood Creek,
corresponds to the Chilula of Kroeber and Goddard; another, on upper
Redwood Creek, corresponds to part of Kroeber's Whilkut; and a third, on
the North Fork of the Mad River, corresponds to a part of Loud's Wiyot.
Merriam calls his second division Ma-we-nok. They live in the drainage
of the main Mad River and correspond to a part of Kroeber's Whilkut.
It would appear that, except for Goddard's Chilula information (Goddard,
1914_a_), Merriam's data are the most detailed and therefore preferable.
He had informants from lower Redwood Creek, from the North Fork of the
Mad River, and from the main Mad River. For this reason I have accepted
his boundaries. I therefore propose that all the peoples previously
included under the terms Whilkut or Chilula be called Whilkut. This
seems justified by Merriam's statements, on the one hand, that the
Mad River Ma-we-nok differed but little in speach from their Whilkut
neighbors, and, on the other hand, that the other groups in the area
called themselves hoilkut or terms related to this.
[Illustration: Map 1. Athabascan boundaries: Kroeber vs. Baumhoff.]
[Illustration: Map 2. Athabascan boundaries: Baumhoff.]
[Illustration: Map 3. Athabascan boundaries: Merriam vs. Baumhoff.]
[Illustration: Map 4. Athabascan boundaries: various authors vs.
Baumhoff.]
If this proposal is accepted, the Whilkut may then be divided into
four subgroups--the Chilula Whilkut, the Kloki Whilkut, the Mad River
Whilkut, and the North Fork Whilkut. The Chilula Whilkut would occupy
essentially the territory assigned to the Chilula by Goddard and
Kroeber--the drainage of Redwood Creek from about ten miles southeast
of Orick to about a mile above the mouth of Minor Creek. Above them are
the Kloki Whilkut, occupying the upper drainage of Redwood Creek. The
name Kloki Whilkut means "prairie" Whilkut, a name used by these people
for themselves, according to Merriam, and derived from the prairies that
occur on upper Redwood Creek. The Mad River Whilkut would be the group
in the drainage of Mad River from the mouth of North Fork as far up as
Bug Creek above Iaqua Buttes. The North Fork Whilkut would then be the
group in the entire drainage of the North Fork of the Mad River.
The northern boundary of the Nongatl begins in the west near Kneeland
at the Wiyot boundary and runs southeast around Iaqua Buttes and the
drainage of the Mad River, then northeast to Grouse Creek. Kroeber and
Merriam agree on this boundary east of Iaqua Buttes, but west of that
landmark Merriam's line takes a northeast-southwest direction whereas
Kroeber's line runs due east-west. I have accepted Merriam's line here
because he has more detailed information than Kroeber on the neighboring
Whilkut. Neither has much information on the Nongatl themselves.
One of the main interior lines of the Athabascans is the one which,
running north and south along the South Fork of the Eel, divides the
coastal groups on the west from the interior peoples to the east. It
begins at the mouth of the Van Duzen on the main Eel and runs south
along the Eel as far as Scotia, dividing the Nongatl from the Bear
River group. At Scotia it coincides with the Sinkyone-Nongatl boundary
and then continues in a southerly direction but, instead of lying
immediately on the river, it drifts slightly to the east to include also
the land adjacent to the stream. It continues thus near to, but off, the
main Eel until it crosses the river at about McCann, a few miles above
the mouth of South Fork. After crossing the main Eel, the line goes
south, including the immediate river valley of the South Fork of the Eel
in Sinkyone territory, until it turns west to cross South Fork at the
mouth of Hollow Tree Creek, continuing to the coast at Usal Creek.
This section of the Athabascan boundary has been much disputed. It seems
certain that the western side of the Eel from the mouth of the Van Duzen
to Scotia was Bear River territory. This distribution is attested by
Powers (1877, p. 107), who says that the Bear River group owned as far
south as the mouth of South Fork, by Nomland's Bear River informant
(1938, map 1), by Kroeber, and by Goddard, who says (1929, p. 291),
"There was, however, one village at the mouth of Van Duzen creek which
was allied to Bear River both in its dialect and politically." This
evidence is fully in accordance with that of Merriam.
The eastern side of the river along this stretch goes to the Nongatl by
default. Kroeber claims it for the Bear River people and Nomland's Wiyot
informant claimed it for the Wiyot (Nomland and Kroeber, 1936, map 1)
but except for these sources possession is denied by Wiyot, Bear River,
and Sinkyone alike.
South of Scotia the area is also in dispute. Nomland and Kroeber claim
that the eastern side of the Eel from Scotia to the mouth of South Fork
is Nongatl. They say (1936, p. 40):
In any event, Eel river from Scotia to Larrabee was not
Mattole, as Kroeber has it in map 1 of his Handbook, nor was it
Sinkyone. Nomland's Bear River, Mattole, and Sinkyone informants
were positive on the point. If Athabascan, the stretch in question
belonged to the Nongatl (Saia). Otherwise it was Wiyot.
Merriam, on the contrary claims that this territory was definitely
Sinkyone.
We must evaluate the statements of the informants involved before
reaching a decision on this point. Nomland's Bear River informant was
evidently not particularly accurate on boundaries, for she placed
the northern boundary of the Bear River group at Fleener Creek when
it was almost certainly at Bear River Ridge (see p. 163). Therefore
her testimony may be questioned on the present point also. Nomland's
Sinkyone informants were from the Shelter Cove Sinkyone of the Briceland
area to the south, and furthermore only one of them was said to be
reliable. Merriam, however, presents detailed evidence in the form
of place names obtained from George Burt, a very good informant who
was born and raised among the northern Sinkyone at Bull Creek. I have
therefore accepted the evidence of George Burt via Merriam, even though
several of Nomland's informants deny it.
Actually, I have accepted Merriam's line as far south as Phillipsville
on the South Fork of the Eel, even though it conflicts somewhat with the
lines of Nomland and Kroeber. Merriam's information for this stretch of
South Fork is supported in detail by Goddard's village lists. South of
Phillipsville, Merriam's line runs along South Fork itself instead of
lying slightly east of it. This line is contradicted by Goddard, whose
informant, a native of the region, gave Goddard village names on both
sides of the river as far south as Garberville. I have accepted the line
indicated by Goddard's information along this stretch.
South of Garberville I have relied heavily on Nomland. She had three
informants from the Shelter Cove Sinkyone--Sally Bell, Tom Bell, and
Jack Woodman, of whom she considered only the last reliable. Merriam
seems to have relied entirely on Sally Bell for information about this
group and his information should therefore be somewhat discounted.
The Bear River-Mattole boundary is not disputed. Merriam and Nomland
agree that it begins on the coast at Davis Creek and then follows the
ridge east to the headwaters of Bear River. The two authors do not agree
on the Bear River-Sinkyone line. Nomland's boundary goes due east from
Bear River headwaters to strike the South Fork of the Eel a few miles
above its mouth. Merriam's line instead goes north to intercept the main
Eel at Scotia. I have accepted Merriam's version on the basis of George
Burt's evidence, even though Kroeber agrees with Nomland.
The Mattole-Sinkyone boundary begins at Spanish Flat on the coast
and goes northeast from there, crossing the Mattole River just above
the mouth of Upper North Fork, Mattole River, and continuing in that
direction to the headwaters of the Bear River. I have altered Merriam's
map on this point. It shows the Mattole-Sinkyone line reaching the
coast at Big Flat, a point about six miles down the coast from Spanish
Flat. Merriam's notes say, however, that the line ends at Spanish Flat.
Merriam's line crosses the Mattole River near the town of Upper Mattole
about five miles below the mouth of Upper North Fork, but Goddard's
Mattole informant gave him villages as far up as the mouth of Upper
North Fork and I have considered this fact to be decisive. Nomland's
Mattole-Sinkyone line reaches the coast at Four Mile Creek, about five
miles up the coast from Merriam's line at Spanish Flat. This line of
Nomland's is probably a tribelet boundary, which Merriam and Goddard
give as occurring at about that point (see Mattole Tribelets). Otherwise
Nomland's boundary agrees with that of Merriam.
Merriam's line dividing the northern or Lolangkok Sinkyone from the
southern or Shelter Cove Sinkyone begins in the east on South Fork Eel
about a mile or two above the mouth of Salmon Creek, runs west from
there through Kings Peak, and crosses the Mattole River just north of
Ettersberg, intersecting the Mattole line a few miles from the coast.
This line as given is the same as Merriam's, except that his begins in
the east at Redwood Creek instead of at Salmon Creek. The change here is
based on Goddard's village list, which indicates the present line.
The Lassik-Nongatl line begins in the east just below Ruth on the Mad
River. It goes west from there around the headwaters of the Van Duzen
River until it crosses the Eel at the mouth of Dobbyn Creek and thence
west to the Sinkyone line. Kroeber and Merriam agree on the eastern
part of this line but Essene disagrees with them, including a much
larger portion of the drainage of the Mad and Van Duzen rivers in Lassik
territory. I am at a loss to explain this version, since Essene's
informant from the Lassik was the same one consulted by Merriam. It is
not clear that Essene's boundaries were obtained from his informants,
and this fact may explain the discrepancy. I have accepted the
Kroeber-Merriam line here. To the west of this, Kroeber's line, instead
of crossing the Eel, follows the river toward the northwest, so none
of the main Eel River valley falls in Nongatl territory. Goddard gives
villages on the main Eel which are said to be allied with others in the
Blocksburg region, so the Nongatl must have claimed at least a small
section of the Eel. I have therefore accepted the Merriam version.
The Wailaki-Lassik boundary begins in the east at the head of the Mad
River and runs west to the North Fork of the Eel, which it crosses at
the mouth of Salt Creek. It follows Salt Creek for a short way and
then goes west to Kekawaka Creek, which it follows to its mouth on the
main Eel. It crosses the Eel here and then goes west to intersect the
Sinkyone boundary at the East Branch of the South Fork of the Eel. The
boundary as given here is identical with the one given by Merriam,
except that he includes part of the drainage of the Mad within Wailaki
territory whereas Kroeber does not. I have accepted Kroeber's version,
because it is supported in a negative way by Goddard (1924), who fails
to include any Mad River drainage in Pitch Wailaki territory.
West of this area, Kroeber's boundary runs considerably north of
Merriam's and of the boundary I have accepted. Merriam's line seems
preferable because it is supported by Goddard and because Merriam's
information is more specific than Kroeber's.
According to the information of Merriam and Goddard, the Wailaki may
be divided into three groups--the Eel River Wailaki, the North Fork
Wailaki, and the Pitch Wailaki. The eastern group, the Pitch Wailaki,
occupy the drainage of North Fork Eel River above Asbill Creek, Hulls
Creek, and Casoose Creek. Their western boundary begins in the north
on Salt Creek near its confluence with North Fork Eel. It runs south
from this point along Salt Creek and beyond it, crossing the North Fork
of the Eel just above the mouth of Asbill Creek and intersecting the
Yuki-Wailaki line near Summit Valley. The northern border of the North
Fork Wailaki begins in the west on the main Eel River at the mouth of
Cottonwood Creek, about three miles north of the mouth of North Fork
Eel, and runs from there eastward for about six miles, where it hits the
western boundary of the Pitch Wailaki. The western boundary of the North
Fork Wailaki is the main Eel River from the mouth of Cottonwood Creek
south to the Yuki line near Bell Springs Railroad Station.
The Kato-Wailaki line runs from the head of Blue Rock Creek in the
east to the mouth of Hollow Tree Creek on the South Fork of the Eel in
the west. This is Kroeber's version of the boundary. Merriam's version
places the line somewhat south of this, beginning at Rattlesnake Creek
in the west and going eastward south of Blue Rock Creek. Since I have
ceded the drainage of Blue Rock Creek to the Yuki (see p. 160) in
accordance with the views of Kroeber, I must, as a corollary, accept the
northern boundary of the Kato as given by him.
The net result of the foregoing discussion is that the line surrounding
the Athabascan peoples of Northwestern California remains much the
same as Kroeber showed it in 1925, whereas the tribal boundaries are
considerably changed. In the north, the Chilula and Whilkut occupy
almost entirely different areas and the Hupa have been divided into two
subgroups. On the coast, the Bear River and Mattole are divided, but
this division had been shown by Goddard and Nomland previously. The
Sinkyone have been divided into two subgroups and the Wailaki into three.
A really major difference is the accretion of territory by the Nongatl.
This group is one about which least is known and this may be the reason
why the map shows their territory as so extensive. It is very likely
that data from a few good informants would show that the Nongatl
actually comprise several distinct groups. There is a hint of this in
Essene's account of Lassik war stories (1942, p. 91). He notes that
the Nai'aitci, centering near the town of Bridgeville, were distinct
from the Blocksburg people. Both of these groups are placed within the
Nongatl area. No doubt more detailed information than we possess would
show that the area which we have labeled Nongatl was actually occupied
by two, three, or even more distinct groups.