_Wailaki (Eel and North Fork)._--The present list gives a total of 67
villages among the Eel River and North Fork Wailaki. For purposes of
calculating population I have excluded 13 of them (nos. 6, 9, 16, 31,
38, 40, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, 66, 67) because they are summer camps in
the hills, rock shelters used only briefly, or specialized fish-drying
camps. These places do not seem to have been used simultaneously with
the main villages. This list appears to be a substantially complete
count from Horseshoe Bend south, but it is clear that neither Merriam
nor Goddard visited the area north of this, and the village count
suffers as a result. There are about 16 river-miles south of Horseshoe
Bend, including both the main Eel and North Fork, and there are 49 main
villages on this stretch, yielding an average of 3.1 per river-mile. If
we apply this figure to the 7 river-miles above Horseshoe Bend, we get
21.7 villages for that stretch rather than 5, as given by ethnographers.
We may reduce this figure to 15, because this stretch of the river
appears to offer a less desirable location (Goddard, 1923_a_, p. 107).
This calculation gives a total of 69 villages for the entire group,
considerably less than Cook's total of 87 (Cook, 1956, p. 104). The
reason for the difference is that Cook bases his estimate on Goddard's
data, with the territory of the Wailaki extending above Kekawaka Creek,
whereas I have taken Kekawaka Creek as the boundary.
The house count per site for this group must be extrapolated from
Goddard's house-pit counts (1923_a_, pp. 103, 105) on the sites of
two of the tribelets. This figure has been calculated by Cook, who
takes Goddard's house-pit count for 20 sites as "92 pits." For two
localities, however, Goddard 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" (Cook, 1956, p. 104). Cook then reduces the figure by 20 per
cent to allow for the probability that not all the house pits represent
simultaneously occupied houses. His average number of houses per site is
4, which would not appear to be an overestimate. If we take this figure,
we have a total of 276 houses for the Wailaki as against Cook's figure
of 348, which was based on a greater area.
Cook takes 6 persons per house as the average density for the Wailaki.
This figure is arrived at in several ways. The figure of 7.5 per house
is well established for the Yurok and sets an upper limit for the
Wailaki area. Goddard appears to have based his population estimate on
a mean of 4.5 persons per house, almost certainly too low, and Cook
compromised at 6 per house. This figure is supported by independent
observation by Foster on the Round Valley Yuki (Cook, 1956, p. 107). The
social organization and the habitat of the Yuki and Wailaki are nearly
identical, so the population per house should be the same for both
groups.
Accepting the figure of 6 persons per house, we get a total population
of 1,656 for the Eel Wailaki and the North Fork Wailaki, as compared
with Cook's figure of 2,315 and Goddard's figure of between one and two
thousand.
_Pitch Wailaki._--Goddard (1924) records 33 villages for the Pitch
Wailaki. For two of the four tribelets, the count is virtually complete.
For a third tribelet, the T'odannañkiyahañ, Goddard lists 6 villages and
indicates that there were probably more (1924, p. 225). If, to allow for
these possible villages, we add 5 to the total above, we get a total of
38 villages for three tribelets, or an average of 12.7 per tribelet.
Although the fourth tribelet, the Tchokotkiyahañ, had a poorer habitat
than the other three (Goddard, 1924, p. 222), we may assume that it had
at least 8 villages, an estimate which is probably conservative in view
of its extensive territory. We then get a total of 46 villages for the
Pitch Wailaki.
Goddard counted house pits in 22 village sites and got an average of
5 per site. If we reduce this to 4 to account for unoccupied pits, we
have an estimate of 184 houses for the Pitch Wailaki, as against 172
estimated by Cook. On the basis of 6 persons per house this gives a
population of 1,104 as against 1,032 by Cook and between 650 and 800 by
Goddard.
For all Wailaki combined we get a total of 2,760. Cook's figure
is 3,350, Kroeber's is 1,000, and Goddard's is between 1,650 and
2,800--average of 2,225. The difference between the figure presented
here and Cook's figure is mostly due to the adjustment I have made in
the Wailaki boundary from the one used by Goddard.
_Mattole._--The village lists of Merriam and Goddard give a total of 42
villages for the Mattole. I have excluded 5 of these from calculation of
population estimates, one because it is a summer camp and four others
because the frequency appears too great, in places along the coast, to
make simultaneous occupation likely. This leaves a total of 37, very
likely a conservative estimate since Goddard gives a number of names of
villages not located and therefore not included in our calculations.
Cook estimates 6 houses per village for the Mattole on the basis of
comparison with the Wiyot, Yurok, Tolowa, and Chilula. Goddard counted
house pits for a few sites of the Mattole and they appear to average
less than that. Not much reliance can be placed on this average, because
the sample was very small. However, the number of houses per site is
probably not as high as among the Yurok. I have compromised with a
figure of 5.4, the same as the estimate for the Sinkyone, the eastern
neighbors of the Mattole.
Cook takes Kroeber's Yurok figure of 7.5 persons per house in
calculating Mattole population. The social organization here is more
nearly like that of the southern Athabascans, so I have used 6 per
house. This figure gives a total population of 1,200 as against 840
figured by Cook for the Mattole exclusive of Bear River. The difference
here is due to the fact that Goddard's village lists were not available
to Cook. If they had been, he would have obtained a figure of 1,665, or
nearly double his actual estimate.
_Lolangkok Sinkyone._--For the Sinkyone on the northern part of the
South Fork of the Eel we have a nearly complete village count. South of
Larabee Creek Goddard and Merriam give a total of 46 villages. North
of Larabee Creek on the main Eel the village count is incomplete, but
Merriam gives 8 place names. That these place names represent village
names is clear from the Merriam place names farther south which can
be checked against Goddard's data. Together, these give a total of 54
villages but leave out the areas of Bull Creek and the upper Mattole
River. We may assume 5 villages in each of these, surely a conservative
estimate in view of the density of sites on Salmon Creek and South Fork.
We thus have an estimate of 64 villages for the Northern Sinkyone.
Goddard counted house pits in 24 of the sites he recorded. They come to
a total of 162 or 6.7 per village. If we reduce this by 20 per cent to
account for unoccupied pits, we get an average of 5.4 houses per site
or a total estimate of 346 houses among the Lolangkok Sinkyone. At 6
persons per house this estimate yields a total population of 2,076.
_Hupa._--In the present village list there are 11 villages in Hoopa
Valley and 16 above the valley on the main Trinity and on South Fork. Of
these sixteen, three have been rejected as being in Chimariko territory
(nos. 25, 26, 27). Cook has argued, reasonably, it appears, that the
villages in Hoopa Valley average 11 houses, whereas the villages above
the valley average 4.5 houses each. This average gives a total of 193
houses for the Hupa.
Cook has estimated that there is an average of 10 persons per house
among the Hupa. This figure is arrived at by the following line of
reasoning: according to a census taken in 1870 there was a total of 601
persons in 7 villages at that time, of which 232 were male and 359 were
female. This count indicates a disproportionate number of males and
Cook therefore calculates a population of twice the number of females,
or 718, as a more normal population. Goddard's data give the number of
houses for these villages as 92, a figure Cook takes as representing the
situation in 1850. This combination yields an average of 7.8 persons
per house. Since there had certainly been a decline in population
between 1850 and 1870, Cook proposes that the figure for the density of
population be raised to 10 persons per house.
But Goddard does not say what period his figures represent, so I
propose to follow a line of reasoning similar to that of Cook but to
use different figures. The number of houses for 6 villages in 1851 is
reported by Gibbs (see map, pl. 9). We may compare these to the 1870
population estimates as given by Kroeber (1925_a_, p. 131). If we
adjust for male attrition by calculating population as twice the female
population, or 640 (see table 1), we get a density per house of 7.8,
exactly the same figure that Cook gets.