138) who states that six of the identified settlements showed 17, 7, 4,
2, 4, and 8 house pits respectively. This is an average of 7. Kroeber
considers that the customary one-third reduction should apply and in
this instance with considerable justification, since there were no
living informants and the villages had not been inhabited since
the 1850's. However, the careful study of the Yurok by Waterman
demonstrated that the apparent ratio of contemporary house pits to
former known inhabited houses was approximately 10 to 9 rather than 3
to 2. It is hence legitimate to reduce the average value of houses per
village for the Chilula from 7 to 6. With 18 sites this means 108
homes. Applying the Yurok value of 7.5 persons per house instead of the
probable Hupa value of 10. we get a population of 810 persons. This is
somewhat greater than Kroeber's estimate of 500 to 600.
_Chilula ... 800_
THE MATTOLE
That portion of the Mattole living on Bear River have been studied by
Nomland (1938) through information supplied by a single very old
informant. The house and family relationships appear to resemble those
found among the Wiyot directly to the north, although no numerical data
of any kind are given. The data hitherto presented have yielded as
average number of houses per village, 6.0 for the Yurok. 4.5 for the
Wiyot, 6.8 for the Tolowa, and 6.0 for the Chilula. The mean of these
averages is 5.8, or let us say in round numbers 6, a value which seems
reasonable for those Athapascan tribes for which there are no direct
counts. The Yurok family number of 7.5 also appears applicable.
Merriam in his list entitled "Nekanne Tribe and Villages" mentions only
three villages on Bear River but Nomland (1938) in her more careful
examination of the territory found 8. Hence the population of this
group may be set at 360.
Apart from Bear River the Mattole territory included the drainages of
Davis Creek and the Mattole River, together with the west bank of the
Eel River for a short distance above the Wiyot. Davis Creek is much
smaller than Bear Creek and probably was sparsely settled. Nevertheless
Nomland's informant mentioned individuals who were from Davis Creek and
hence it must be assumed that there was at least one and very likely as
many as two villages there. The Mattole River was larger than Bear
River and has been well covered by Merriam in his list entitled "Bettol
or Pettol (Mattol) Tribe and Villages." He cites 10 named villages. In
addition, he includes the Kooske, who he says were a "very large band
and village ('hundreds of people') formerly on Koosky (or Cooskie)
Creek on or near the coast 2-1/2 or 3 miles southeast of Punta Gorda
lighthouse." He also cites two indentures for Indians of this tribe
which he found in the Eureka court house.
The 2 villages on Davis Creek and the 10 on Mattole River would yield
540 persons. If we accept Merriam's description of the Kooske tribe, we
may add another 300. The total for the Mattole would then be a
population of 1,200.
_Mattole ... 1,200_
THE WHILKUT
For information on the Whilkut we are indebted to Merriam for the
only village list extant. He covers the tribe, together with the
Chilula, in his list entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut
Camps and Villages," revised, according to a pencil notation of the
title sheet, in 1939.
Merriam gives 15 villages for the Hoechkienok or "Upper Redwood" tribe,
3 for the Kotinet or "Blue Lake and North Fork Mad River" tribe and 15
for the Mawenok, who lived "on Mad River from opposite Korbel up to the
ranch of John Ahlgren about 21 miles in air line." The Chilula and
Mattole were credited with 45 persons per village. The habitat of the
Whilkut lies on smaller streams and is generally less favorable than
that of the Chilula or the Mattole. Hence the number may be reduced to
40 per village. The total is then 1,320.
_Whilkut ... 1,300_
THE KATO
There are only two usable ethnographic sources of information
concerning villages among the Kato. The first is the rather casual
treatment given the group by Barrett (1908) in his monograph on the
Pomo. He lists 17 villages as having existed in the area comprising the
modern stretch running from Laytonville to Branscomb and a few miles
north and south thereof. No village sizes are given (pp. 281-283) and
no discussion of community organization. Merriam in his list "Kahto
Tribe and Villages" mentions the 17 villages of Barrett and adds 3
others derived from his own informants, making a total of 20.
Since there is no explicit information regarding village size, we may
adopt the value used for the Whilkut, _i.e._, 40 persons per village.
This would mean a population of 800.
Barrett and Merriam, however, give data only for the southernmost part
of the Kato range, including an area of approximately 150 square miles.
The remainder of the Kato territory extended some distance along the
upper waters of the South Fork of the Eel River and its area may be
reckoned as 100 square miles or 40 per cent of the entire Kato
territory. On the other hand, living conditions were not as good in
this portion of the range and the density was probably less than in the
vicinity of Laytonville and Branscomb. Hence we may add 300 persons
(rather than the full 40 per cent) and consider the total as 1,100.
With the Kato we arrive at an area where it becomes possible to utilize
historical and documentary, as well as ethnographic, sources of
information. For the period 1850-1856 there are three accounts left us
by white men who were direct observers, as distinguished from data
supplied from memory to modern white men by Indian informants. With
respect to the region north of San Francisco Bay these observations by
Americans must be regarded as supplementary to the basic ethnographic
material derived from Indians. Nevertheless they are of considerable
value in confirming, negating, or modifying the ethnographic data.
Two primary sources are pertinent here. The first is the expedition of
Colonel Redick M'Kee, one of the three "commissioners" sent out in 1851
to negotiate treaties with the California Indians. M'Kee went first to
Clear Lake, then up the Russian River, over to the Eel River watershed,
down to Humboldt Bay, and eventually up the Klamath and Trinity rivers.
Two records of this expedition were kept. The first, and far better
known, is the Journal of George Gibbs, which was later published by
Henry R. Schoolcraft (1860). The other is the Minutes of the
expedition, written by John M'Kee, a relative of the Colonel. These
Minutes, together with considerable correspondence, were published in
Senate Executive Document No. 4, 33rd Congress, Special Session (1853).
The second source is a report written by Major H. P. Heintzelman at the
request of Indian Agent Henley, in 1855. Major Heintzelman (1855) made
a survey of the tribes of Sonoma and Mendocino counties which might be
placed upon a reservation at the mouth of the Noyo River. He
interviewed numerous headmen, or chiefs, of community units and
reported on the Indian population. His total, for the territory
extending from the upper Eel River to San Francisco Bay was 21,200, a
figure in excess of the value conceded by ethnographers.
According to George Gibbs (1860, p. 118), the M'Kee expedition, on
August 30, 1852, reached the Batimdakia (spelled also Ba-tim-da-kia)
Valley, which was supposed to be at the head of the South Fork of the
Eel River. John M'Kee implies that this valley was on the Middle Fork
of the river but there is little doubt, judging from the route taken,
that it was actually Long Valley, on the east branch of the South Fork.
He says that the valley was inhabited by the Cabodilapo tribe and that
a careful count showed 497 Indians. Since not all the natives could be
located, John M'Kee estimated the actual population as 500 to 600. In a
letter from Redick M'Kee to the commissioner in Washington, dated
September 12, 1852 (1853, p. 185) it is stated that the population "may
be" 600. M'Kee's counts, particularly in the Clear Lake Region, are
generally regarded as too low. Hence his figure of 600 for Long Valley
must be considered conservative. It should also be borne in mind that
M'Kee saw only the east branch of the South Fork of the Eel River,
which takes its origin in Long Valley. He did not get over to the west
branch, which runs through Kato territory past Branscomb. Now Barrett
shows eleven villages on the east branch and its tributaries, or an
average of 55 persons per village. At the same rate the six villages on
the west branch would add 330 for a total of 930 in the southern range
of the Kato.
Heintzelman lists a group of seven names, representing Indian
communities, which he says are up to 35 miles north of the site
selected for the reservation, _i.e._, Fort Bragg, or the mouth of the
Noyo River. Heintzelman's distances and locations, as well as his
names, are exceedingly hazy. Some of the seven names mentioned may
refer to the northern Pomo, and some very likely pertain to the coast
Yuki. Nevertheless two are undoubtedly Kato: the _Car-toos_ and the
_Ba-tims_ (the former is cognate with Kato, and the latter must
refer to Batimdakia Valley). The aggregate population is 700, according
to Heintzelman. This is only slightly larger than M'Kee's 600. Allowing
for conservatism on the part of M'Kee and over-liberality by
Heintzelman, a fair estimate is 650. Alternatively, since Heintzelman
saw the country three years after M'Kee had passed through, and the
population may have diminished somewhat, the figure 700 secured by
Heintzelman may well refer to both branches of the South Fork of the
Eel.
For the Laytonville-Branscomb area we now have three estimates: by
derivation from purely ethnographic data, 800; from the M'Kee reports,
930; and from the Heintzelman report, 700. Regardless of minor detail,
the first method seems to yield results entirely consistent with direct
contemporary evaluation.
Adding 300 to account for the remaining Kato territory we may retain
the estimate of 1,100 for the tribe as a whole.
_Kato ... 1,100_
THE NONGATL, LASSIK, AND SINKYONE
For the three remaining northern Athapascan tribes we possess very
little data of a strictly ethnographic character. Neither Kroeber nor
Nomland (1935, 1938), who has studied some of these groups, have been
able to secure any pertinent information regarding villages. Nor has
Merriam been more successful. His list covering the region, under the
title "Athapaskan Tribes, Bands and Villages Speaking the Nungkahl
Language," mentions not more than two dozen villages in all and these
are very widely scattered.
The entire failure of competent investigators such as those mentioned
to come upon material traces of inhabited sites among these three
tribes might be taken as indicative of a very small population.
However, the existence of heavily inhabited areas to all sides of the
region held by these tribes makes it unlikely that there was any large
stretch of country which was devoid of a sizable Indian population. It
is much more probable that numerous villages of the Lassik, Nongatl,
and Sinkyone once did exist but that they were wiped out almost
completely by the white frontiersmen in the early 'fifties before any
observer left a record of them. As an indication of their fate may be
mentioned the tales told by Bledsoe (1885) in his "Indian Wars of the
Northwest" and by various witnesses in the Report to the California
Legislature (1860) on the "Mendocino War."
When we are presented with such an entire lack of direct data, we are
quite justified in falling back on the indirect area-density method.
Thus the densities are tabulated below for the five other Athapascan
tribes (including the Wailaki, considered subsequently) and for the
Coast Yuki, a tribe in the region for which we have very accurate
counts.
Approximate Density in
area in persons per
Tribe sq. mi. Population sq. mi.
Chilula 210 800 3.86
Mattole 210 1,200 5.72
Whilkut 250 1,320 5.28
Kato 270 1,100 4.07
Wailaki 575 3,347 5.82
Coast Yuki 150 756 5.04
----
Mean 4.96
The close correspondence in density of the six tribes listed is
noteworthy, and tends to lend confidence in the reliability of the
ethnographic source material upon which these estimates are based.
The areas with which we are dealing are reasonably large; they are also
relatively homogeneous in the ecological sense. All lie within the
redwood-transition belt (except the Wailaki, which border it on the
east), and all are characterized by small, perennial, salmon-bearing
streams, along which the Indian villages were placed. There is nothing
outstandingly different about the terrain occupied by the Lassik,
Nongatl, and Sinkyone, except that perhaps it lies somewhat higher on
the streams (but the Wailaki are still higher) and contains fewer flats
and open valleys. The three tribes being considered had respectively
325 square miles, 700 square miles, and 615 square miles of territory.
If the density was 4.96 persons per square mile the population would
have been, to correspond, 1,612; 3,472; and 3,050. If we allow for a
somewhat poorer habitat, these values may be reduced a little, say to
1,500; 3,300; and 2,900. It is difficult to see how the estimates can
be carried much lower.
_Nongatl, Lassik, and Sinkyone ... 7,700_
THE WAILAKI
The Wailaki were studied by Goddard (1923, 1924), who published two
papers concerning them. The first covered the main portion of the tribe
along the Eel River and the second the Pitch group which lived along
some of the tributaries of that river. Goddard found the Wailaki
proper, as they may be termed, to consist of 18 communities or
subtribes, each living in one to several villages, and the Pitch group
to consist of 4 subtribes. One peculiarity of the villages was that
they were inhabited only during the six winter months, the people in
the summer dispersing through the hills in search of small game and
plant food. Although the villages were occupied only half the year,
nevertheless they can be used for computation of population since there
were no other fixed abodes with which they can be confused.
In addition to Goddard's monographs, we have a tribe list for a portion
of the Wailaki from Merriam entitled "Tsennahkennes Bands and
Rancherias." Both investigators surveyed independently 11 of the 18
subtribal areas and obtained the names of villages from informants. In
his list on page 109 and in his text Goddard identifies 53 inhabited
places. For two other subtribes, the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya,
he cites the villages by name in the textual descriptions on pages 106
and 107. There are a total of 18 for the two subtribes. Villages were
not determined at all for the five northern subtribes.
For the first 11 subtribes Merriam gives a total of 46 villages. Of
these, 30 can be identified with names furnished by Goddard, whereas 16
are in addition to Goddard's list. Goddard on the other hand gives 23
which were not secured by Merriam. Since both these workers operated
carefully through informants and both were thoroughly conversant with
the local dialects, we may accept the combined total of 69 villages,
large and small, occurring within the territory of Goddard's first, or
southernmost, 11 subtribes. The average is 6.27 villages per subtribe.
For the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, Merriam mentions only one
village each, that bearing the subtribal name. It is quite clear from
his list that he did not push his field investigations into these
groups. Hence we must fall back on Goddard's data, which include 18
villages in all. The average for the 13 subtribes therefore is 6.7
villages, and the total 87.
All the villages have long since been totally deserted and Goddard
could count only house pits. (Merriam made no counts of any kind.) He
did this for only two groups, the Baskaiya and the Slakaiya. Here he
found and mentions on pages 103 and 105 twenty sites containing house
pits. In all there were 92 pits but for two localities he 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.
Now since we are dealing here only with pits and not counts of houses
remembered by informants, a reduction according to the Kroeber
principle is justified for it is quite probable that all the houses
once standing on the pits were not simultaneously occupied. When
Kroeber has no other data, he recommends a reduction by one-sixth. I
think that in this instance it would be proper to reduce by one-fifth,
or 20 per cent. This would give an effective average of 4 houses per
village. In the 13 communities covered by Goddard and by Merriam there
were 87 villages, which at 4 houses per village would give a total of
348. No evidence is offered by either author to the effect that the
remaining 5 subtribes differed in any essential way from the first 13.
Hence we must ascribe to them 134 houses, making 482 in all.
We might use the Yurok family number 7.5, but Goddard's account carries
the implication that perhaps the Wailaki family was somewhat smaller,
suggesting a factor of 7.0 rather than 7.5. Goddard bases his estimates
upon a mean population of 15 to 30 persons per village. This would mean
4.5 persons per house, certainly too low a value for the aboriginal
social family. At four houses per village the family number would be
5.6, still probably somewhat too low. Perhaps a compromise is
advisable, say at 6.0. The average village size could be then put at 25
persons, a figure definitely lower than was assumed for the more
northerly Athapascan tribes but still one which seems to be indicated
by the social organization described by Goddard. The total population
of the Wailaki proper would then be 80 per cent of 482 houses
multiplied by 6.0 or 2,315 persons.
Goddard indicates on page 108 his belief that the villages were not
simultaneously inhabited. However, he adduces no evidence to favor this
view. On the contrary, he mentions in his text four villages which were
stated by informants _not_ to have been inhabited within their memory,
a circumstance which argues strongly that the villages they did claim
were actually active at the time to which they were referring, i.e.,
just before the white invasion. It would appear to the writer that
reducing the house count by 20 per cent and reducing the family number
from 7.5 to 6.0 quite adequately compensates for any errors in the
ennumeration of villages. Indeed the estimate here presented may be too
conservative.
With regard to the Pitch group Goddard (1924) shows that the subtribe
tokya-kiyahan had 15 villages. In fourteen of these he found 66 house
pits, an average of 4.72 per village. At tciancot-kiyahan there were 16
villages, 7 of which had 35 house pits, or an average of 5.0.
Todannan-kiyahan had 6 villages but the area was incompletely examined
and there were probably more. The area of tcocat-kiyahan was not seen
at all but there is certainly no reason why they should not have had at
least 6 villages. At four houses per village the total, surely an
underestimate, would be 172 and at 6.0 persons per house the population
would be 1,032.
For the entire Wailaki the indicated population is then 3,347 (or
rather 3,350), a figure much in excess of previous estimates but
justified by the data presented by Goddard and Merriam.
_Wailaki ... 3,350_
_ATHAPASCAN TOTAL ... 15,450_
THE YUKI
THE COAST YUKI
The Coast Yuki have been the subject of an admirable ethnographic study
by Gifford (1939), who has assembled substantially all the data extant
in modern times pertaining to families and villages. He shows very
clearly that this tribe occupied its villages only in a transitory
manner, that it had summer beach camps and inland winter settlements.
To quote Gifford's words concerning the point (p. 296):
I use the terms camp, hamlet, and village interchangeably in this
paper. No site seems to have been occupied the year around. All
were more or less temporary. The presence of an assembly house
marked the more frequently occupied sites.
Hence it is necessary to examine Gifford's compilation of sites with as
much care as possible in order to determine how many villages can
properly be ascribed to the tribe.
It is also made clear in Gifford's paper that each of the eleven Coast
Yuki groups had its own headman and ceremonial house. Each group had a
frontage of seacoast together with a strip of territory which extended
inland to the eastern limit of the tribe. Within this territory the
group moved about with considerable freedom.
The following is a digest of the inhabited sites for the eleven groups.
The groups are numbered (but the names omitted) in the order in which
they appear on pages 296 to 303 of Gifford's paper.
1. One village is mentioned but no camp sites. For the group,
therefore, the maximum number of sites occupied at any given time
must be _one_.
2. Two "hamlets" are given by name. Since these are quite close
together and in the same terrain, it may be assumed that _two_
sites were simultaneously occupied.
3. Here are mentioned three camp sites and two villages (Esim
and Melhomikem), one with 7-9 houses and the other with 8
houses. There was also a village which had been settled after
the coming of the white man, with 6 houses. It appears clear that
aboriginally there were _two_ semipermanent sites and a number of
temporary settlements.
4. For this group Gifford mentions one beach village by name, one
inland village, name unknown, and three camp sites. Although the
beach and inland villages may not have been simultaneously
occupied, the existence of three additional camp sites implies more
people than would be contained in a single settlement at one time.
Hence it is reasonable to regard the group as consisting of at
least _two_ village units.
5. There was one inland village with 6 houses (Onbit), one beach
village (Lilpinkem) and one camp site with 8 houses. In view of the
single camp site we have to regard the group as having _one_ site
occupied at a given time.
6. Here was one winter village and one beach village with no camp
sites mentioned. Thus we may count _one_ occupied site.
7. For this group there are known two villages, two hamlets, and
one camp site, all with names. One hamlet had 3-4 houses and one
village had 5 houses. Since there is no information on the location
of the villages we may count all _four_.
8. _Three_ hamlets are mentioned by name.
9. _Two_ villages are mentioned by name.
10. _One_ village mentioned.
11. _One_ village mentioned.
The irreducible minimum number of villages therefore totals 20. It is
quite probable that some of the other sites might be or ought to be
counted but, since the evidence concerning them is equivocal, they will
not be included. The house counts for seven sites average 6.3 and since
we are here dealing with informants' memories of inhabited houses, not
house pits, this number need not be reduced. With respect to family
number, the Yurok value of 7.5 is probably too high. For the type of
culture characteristic of the Coast Yuki the more conservative value of
6.0 is probably better. This yields a population of 756, or
approximately 750. It is difficult to see how this estimate could be
reduced.
_Coast Yuki ... 750_
THE YUKI PROPER
Although the Yuki were a populous and important tribe, and although
Kroeber, in the Handbook, devoted three chapters to their culture, they
have been the subject of but one special study. Quite recently G. M.
Foster (1944) resurveyed their ethnography and worked out their village
organization in some detail. He utilized informants who were in their
seventies during the period of 1935 to 1940 and who thus were born no
earlier than 1860. Since the social and political organization of the
Yuki was completely disrupted during the 'fifties, particularly at
Round Valley, it is remarkable that Foster was able to secure so much
apparently quite accurate detail. It is true that certain specific
items of information derived by Kroeber from his informants of thirty
or thirty-five years earlier are more reliable than the comparable data
of Foster, nevertheless the over-all coverage by the latter is more
complete. Foster's account will therefore serve here as the basis for a
computation of population.