_Hupa Population, 1870[1]_
===============================================
| | |
Village | Males | Females | Houses
_______________|_________|___________|_________
|
Honsading | 25 30 9
Miskut | 32 49 6
Takimitlding | 51 74 20
Tsewenalding | 14 31 10
Medilding | 75 100 28
Djishtangading | 14 36 9
|_______________________________
|
Total | 211 320 82
_______________|_______________________________
[1] Kroeber, 1925_a_, p. 131.
That there was a decline in population between 1850 and 1870 is agreed
by all authorities. This fact makes it very attractive to accept Cook's
proposed density of 10 persons per house for the Hupa in aboriginal
times. But there are two objections to this procedure. For one thing,
the population figures for 1870 may be inaccurate. In the census of
that year, there were reported 874 Indians of all tribes on the Hoopa
Reservation (Kroeber, 1925a, p. 131). But in the same year another
agent reported only 649 Indians on the reservation. This is a 25 per
cent reduction, and if we reduce the population estimate of 640 by 25
per cent, we get 480 as the estimate for 1870 and a density per house
of 5.9. If we raise the population of 480 to account for the 1850-1870
reduction, we are again close to the figure 7.5 persons per house. This
calculation is presented merely to indicate that the figures are not
reliable.
The other objection to accepting Cook's proposed figure for density is
that the established figure for the Yurok is 7.5 persons per house.
According to Cook, this figure was based on an underlying assumption
that "the social family in the usual monogamous tribe included the
father, mother, children, and occasional close relatives" (Cook, 1956,
p. 99). As a matter of fact, Kroeber's estimate is not based on this
assumption but is an empirical estimate based on population counts
and house counts (Kroeber, 1925_a_, pp. 16-19), and the figure is
accepted wholeheartedly by Cook for the Yurok (1956, p. 83). But what
is certainly clear is that the social organization, house type, and
environment of the Hupa was virtually the same as that of the Yurok and
therefore the population density per house must have been the same. It
is therefore clear that we must accept either 7.5 persons per house or
10 persons per house as the population density for both the Hupa and the
Yurok, and the question becomes one of comparing the reliability of the
figures given for the Yurok with those given for the Hupa. Yurok figures
appear to be intrinsically more reliable and are also earlier and I have
therefore taken 7.5 persons per house as the density.
The population for the Hupa then comes to 1,475 as compared to 2,000
estimated by Cook and to less than 1,000 estimated by Kroeber.
_Whilkut._--The number of permanent villages among the Whilkut has
been estimated here at 69. This estimate excludes known summer camps
and other villages away from the main salmon streams. For the Chilula
Whilkut there are 23 villages. For the Kloki Whilkut there are 16
villages, including several which are not shown on the map but which
are listed by Merriam as being on upper Redwood Creek. Ten villages
have been taken from the North Fork Whilkut. Twenty villages are taken
from the Mad River Whilkut even though only 16 are given in the village
lists. Wherever both Merriam and Goddard worked the same area the
latter has recorded substantially more villages than the former. I have
therefore added 4 to the village count to make up for the presumptive
lack, thus bringing the total up to 69.
House-pit counts from the Chilula Whilkut are listed for six villages
by Kroeber (1925_a_, p. 138) as 17, 7, 4, 2, 4, 8, or an average of 7
per village. Kroeber reduces this average by a third, on the basis of
his estimates for the Yurok and Hupa, to arrive at a figure of 5 houses
per village. Cook (1956, p. 84) says the reduction should be only about
10 per cent, calculated on the basis of Waterman's study of the Yurok
(Waterman, 1920), and he compromises, making a reduction of a seventh to
use 6 as an average number of houses per village.
The sample used by Kroeber and Cook is so small that an estimate
based on it of the average number of house pits per village is liable
to considerable error. If we look at the figures for some of the
surrounding groups, we find an estimate of 11 houses per village for
the Hupa in Hoopa Valley, 4.5 for the Hupa outside the valley, 4 for
the Wailaki, 4.5 for the Wiyot (Cook, 1956, p. 102), and 5.4 for the
Lolangkok Sinkyone. The Whilkut terrain and culture is certainly more
nearly like the region outside Hoopa Valley than inside it, so we are
scarcely justified in estimating more than 5 houses per village.
On this basis we get a total of 345 houses for the Whilkut. Both Kroeber
and Cook use the Yurok figure of 7.5 persons per house in calculating
the population of this group. This figure may well be too high, and
perhaps it should be more nearly the same as the estimate for the
southern groups, but since I have no concrete evidence to support such a
contention, I have also used the Kroeber and Cook figure. This gives a
total population of 2,588 for the Whilkut.
Cook's figures for the groups which were formerly listed under the
Chilula and Whilkut were 800 and 1,300 making a total of 2,100.
Kroeber's figures were 600 and 400 for a total of 1,000. The difference
between Cook's figures and those given here is partly due to the fact
that Cook took the group on the North Fork of the Mad to be Wiyot,
whereas I have them as Whilkut. Also Cook made a reduction of a ninth
in his Mad River estimates because of the poor environment there. I
have not done this because the Mad River region does not seem to me
noticeably poorer than that along Redwood Creek.