Produced by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF CALIFORNIA
BY
S. F. COOK
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS
Vol. 16, No. 3
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS
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.
_Kroeber_, _Kroeber_,
_House_ _"modern_ _1852_
_No._ _Source_ _Count_ _memories"_ _census_
1 l 7
2 t 4
3 l 25 } }
4 l 9 } 23+} 22+
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 } }
33 l 13 } 13 } 7
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 } }
45 l 11 } 21 } 14
45 l 8 } }
47 l 4 } 14 } 6
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 These sites extend along Mad River and around
K through X the shores of Blue Lake. Loud gives no
AA through AK 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.