'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 }
K-X } 60 Mp
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.
_Sherman's_
_estimate_
_Serial_ _of house_ _Final_
_No._ _count_ _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.
Houses Houses Houses
from from from Houses
1851 Goddard's Gibb's by
No. and Name census map map 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.
[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.
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.