ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 16:3 THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE .NORTH COAST OF CALIFORNIA BY S. F. COOK UNIVERSITY -OF CALIFOR-NIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANQgLES 1956 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 Introduction. The Yurok k........... The Wiyot ............. The Karok k............ The Hupa ............. The Tolowa ............ The Athapascans ......... The Chilula ......... The Mattolee........ The Whilkutt........ The Kato .......... The Nongatl, the Lassik, and The Wailakii........ The Yuki ............. The Coast Yuki ....... The Yuki Proper ...... The Huchnom ........ The Athapascans and the Yuki The Pomo ............. Clear Lake Pomo...... Northern Pomo ....... Central Pomo ....... Southwestern Pomo..... Southern Pomo ....... Northeastern Pomo..... Summary. The Coast Miwok ......... The Wappo and the Lake Miwok Summary of Estimates ...... Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . * . . * . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . * . . . * . L the Sinkyone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 81 83 93 98 99 101 102 102 102 102 102 103 104 106 106 106 108 109 111 111 112 116 117 117 119 119 120 121 127 128 [iii] THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF CALIFORNIA BY S. F. COOK INTRODUCTION The present manuscript attempts a reassessment of ~aboriginal population of Northwestern California, kthe Oregon line to the Bay of San Francisco. There no natural and fixed limits to the territory. Its out- serves merely the purposes of convenience. For reason the individual units within the whole area are d, not upon natural ecological provinces such as mtain ranges, valleys, or river basins, but upon ethnic tribal" boundaries. Moreover, since there is no asary interrelationship between the component parts, isconsidered as a separate entity, and its popula- is computed separately. There is no final grand to- be added up, the significance of which transcends of any of the constituents. ce the objective here is the calculation of pure rs, it is irrelevant that the natural habitat, the of life, the reactions to environment of the various s and linguistic stocks vary enormously. Such a dis- d for the basic principles of ethnography and human gywill be tolerated only because the limitations of and time demand that the fundamental question was the population?" be answered before opening e problem of wh the population was no greater or ss. We must know how many people there were be- we can study their equilibrium with the physical or al environment. e outcome of this study is to augment markedly the usly estimated number of inhabitants in the region , and, by implication, the number in the whole The magnitude of the aboriginal population has iydiminished in our eyes for many years. I believe Powers who thought that the natives numbered as as 750,000 or more. Merriam thought there were 00. Kroeber, in the Handbook of California Indians, , p. 882) reduced it to 133,000. I myself in an ear- work (1943, pp. 161 et seq.) reviewed the evidence raised Kroeber's figure by no more than 10 per cent. ars to me that the trend toward assessing the na- population in continually diminishing terms is due to ration of two factors. e first is a tendency on the part of subsequent gen- ns to adopt a highly skeptical attitude toward all ments and testimony derived from earlier genera- Inherent in this point of view is the feeling. con- lyexpressed or unconsciously followed, that all beings contemporary with an event either lie de- ately or exaggerate without compunction. This fail- sothe argument runs, becomes most apparent when &umerical estimates are involved. Thus the soldier ably grossly magnifies the force of the enemy, the inflates the number of his flock, the farmer falsi- the size of his herds, the woodsman increases the I 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 circum- stances 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 ob- server without exception who reported on the size of In- dian villages or the numbers of Indians seen was guilty of inflating the values is no more justifiable than to ac- cuse 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 in- tellect 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. Other- wise 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 inten- tion 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 limita- tions. 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 fail- ure 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 [81] ANTHROPOLOGIC, 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 AL RECORDS merely wish to suggest that an undeviating adheren literal statements of informants may on occasion le population estimates which are too low. The same cretion and criticism should be accorded them as in' other direction should be accorded to the statements by contemporary white observers. 82 THE YUROK le first exhaustive and scholarly attempt to assess * al population was that of A. L. Kroeber (1925) in book of the Indians of California. He made a ularly careful study of and worked out his funda- alprinciples with the Yurok. Hence any reappraise- of the population problem in Northwest California begin with a thorough examination of all the evidence *ng to this tribe. ee primary avenues of approach are possible: gical, ethnographic, and archaeological. It is pro- to deal here with the second, or ethnographic ma- The principal sources are three in number; the nt chapter in the Handbook, the extensive mono- byWaterman (1920) and the village lists of Merriam Bibliography). All these investigators inspected the and interviewed many informants during the dec- 1900-1910. Hence their data have now become de- r calculating population from village data it is nec- yto know the number of houses per village and the r of inhabitants per house. Both these variables for their value upon numerous demographic and alfactors and hence must be determined separately early every tribe studied. Kroeber has paid special ion to the second variable, the number of inhabitants bouse, and has concluded that the best value for the is 7.5 persons. Since all the contemporary ac- s agree with this conclusion it may be accepted as ith regard to the number of houses per village it be admitted that this factor is subject to wide vari- both in locality and time. The number of house pits rved many years after the village itself has disap- is likely to be unreliable for many reasons, al- it may be used as a first approximation in default er data. A safer guide is the memory of reliable mants or actual house counts made by explorers or settlers. These are the sources of the values by Kroeber and Waterman. rthe Yurok there are five chief compilations of s, with and without house counts: 1. Kroeber. This author shows (1925, p. 18) a t of fifteen villages (four of them compound) iichhe says are ''recent counts of houses or use-pits recollected as inhabited." In addition shows on his map (p. 9) a number of other towns, me of which he regards, and so designates, as ing temporarily or intermittently inhabited and nce not to be included in any computation of per- nent population. The house counts from his list e shown in table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column aded "Kroeber, modern memories." 2. Kroeber. On page 18 as well as on page 16 given a census for the fifteen villages mentioned ove. This was made in 1852 by a "trader' named ork who lived many years in the vicinity. The nsus has all the appearance of veracity and may accepted as substantially accurate. It is shown table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column headed t'"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 circum- stantial. Second are his maps of a few villages, on which the house locations are drawn with much de- tail. 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 use- ful for establishing the existence of certain towns in the year 1866. 5. Merriam. The village lists for the Yurok fol- low Waterman and Kroeber quite closely. However, Merriam was able to locate several inhabited places which had escaped the attention of the other two in- vestigators. These villages have been added in table 2 (p. 92, herein) and a conservatively esti- mated 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 trans- ferred 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 "1" 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 num- ber is my own estimate. The third column shows the house number itself. In addition are shown the corres- ponding house numbers as taken from Kroeber's inform- ants ("modern memories") or from the census of 1852 as cited by Kroeber. The total number of houses is 412, which, at 7.5 per- sons per house, gives a population of 3,090. Some insight into the validity of the value thus ob- tained 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 desciriptions. [8 :i] mt? l1 84 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 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: Water- man, 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 maxi- mum 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 de- cision that house sites and pits must be reduced by a fac- tor of one-third in order to compute population. His con- clusions are summed up in the following paragraph (1925, p. 18): The Yurok recognize that a village normally con- tained 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 aban- doned when the Americans came and totally forgot- ten 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 I presumptive number of pits but on inhabited houses is this total which conforms so closely to the count by the census-takers of 1852 and also that shown oil Waterman's list. By Kroeber's own admission the a one-third reduction for these Yurok towns would only be unnecessary but would lead to entirely false clusions. 2. Kroeber is not clear whether he means hous existing on the ground in 1910 or pits which been visible had there been no destruction due to fl or mining subsequent to 1850. He states that, if t are included, then the number of house sites "may at'" 200 or more. But by implication he recomme the observed number be reduced by one-third. Now Waterman's maps the author shows for 19 towns th tual or approximate location of the pits visible or o wise known in the year 1909. There are 210 of the the same time the inhabited houses recollected by' ants for the same towns, as revised by him in his i page 206, is 192. Hence the true ratio of reduction one-third, or 1 in 3, but 18 in 210, or 1 in 11.7. It course possible to assume that 78 pits were destro between 1850 and 1909 so that the total number was instead of 210. Then, if the one-third reduction is plied, the result is 192 houses. Such an arithmetic ercise constitutes merely arguing in a circle. Ont basis of Waterman's concrete data it would appear sonable to make a 10 per cent reduction in those loc ties where information concerning number of house derived exclusively from pits remaining long after tation has ceased. 3. Certain considerations apply to absolute town apart from the problem of house number. In Water text descriptions there is no clear instance of a vil inhabited in 1909 which had been settled or originat er 1850, apart from relocations due to floods or mi On the other hand, there are numerous towns which clined or disappeared during the days of the Americ invasion and of which the memory was very hazy in minds of informants sixty years later. For instance: hopaw had been broken up by smallpox "in the early The village of rnr was being abandoned at the time coming of the whites. The inhabitants of keperor " died at once" and the site was deserted. When Wat saw otsepor the village had only three house pits, b formants well remembered several families living Waterman felt sure that srpr, espaw, and looleo h been larger in aboriginal times than informants seem to think. The region around Big Lagoon was once ml more populous than Waterman's data would indicate, one of these instances is in any way conclusive but t cumulative effect is considerable. It is quite possib therefore that along the entire northwest coast and ti Klamath basin the population began an abrupt decline inciding with the first arrival of permanent white set Such a condition would be in entire conformity with of the testimony derived from informants in 1910. YUROK. I t COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST TABLE 1 Analysis of Village Sites ecording to Kroeber, Waterman, and Merriam. Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to Water- (1920). The'column "Status" indicates whether the existence of a village at or about the year 1850 may be i'ded as certain (C), probable (P), or doubtful (D). 6dname ;omen-hipur. .1 omen . I i'ekwoi. welkwa . tsekwel. Status , . C I . C .... C .......... P Comment P. 228. Two groups of house pits. No further information avail- able to Waterman but regarded as a town by Kroeber (map. p. 9). 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). P. 231. No question concerning this town. P. 232. No question. P. 232. "This place was mentioned as a town site," but Water- man could get no satisfactQry data. Since it was mentioned spe- cifically as a town site by informants its existence may be re- garded as probable. Mentioned by Kroeber (p. 10) somewhat doubtfully as a separate village. tmri. . C p Cawmennok kere . . kestitsa pegwolaw. otwego p D D D osegen.. .. C P. 232. "Said to have been a village site." "Captain Jack be- longed 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 oc- cupied only during certain periods. 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." On Merriam's lists as a "village on south side Klamath about 2 miles from mouth." See no. 11. See no. 11. P. 227. These three villages were "referred to" but their loca- tion 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 abo- riginally, centered around rekwoi. Waterman in his list assigns 25 houses to rekwoi, 9 to welkwa and none to the others. Regard- less 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, tsekwel and tmri, and to Merriam's sites awmennok and kere. P. 234. A "small town." Informants recalled 3 houses and 2 sweathouses. Kopaw ... C P. 234. "The small pox raged here in the early days and practi- cally 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. (continued on following page) I d I I I I I 85 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 1 (Continued) Analysis of Village Sites No. and name Status 14. wokel ......... . C 15. trwr .......... C 16. ahlawsl .......... C 17. yaktar.. ..... . .P 18. saal ....... .C 19. turip . . . . . . . . . . . .C 20. stowen . . . . . . . . . . .P 21. rliiken-pets 22. howego . . .C. .....C ..... .P 23. tawchter ..........P No question. See no. 16. P. 235. According to Waterman this was a camp site. There were very old house pits dating from a time before the memorya informants at trwr. They had been all washed away in Waterman 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. 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." P. 235. An "important town" with 7 to 8 houses. Waterman, however, shows only 5 on his list. 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 secondsite 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 men- tion this matter. P. 207. This is a "well known place" with Indians living there now, although they are not the descendants of the ancient popula- tion. 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. ThU map appears to have been accurately drawn and creates a strong presumption that the village was in existence in early times. Itil reasonable to assign 3 houses to the site. See no. 23. See no. 23. There is some confusion about these three places. Kroeber showi (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 86 Comment COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST TABLE 1 (Continued) Analysis of Village Sites Comment 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 "for- mer 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. 1124. rn. C > 25. nagil . . . . . . . . . . . . C I26. ayol. . . 7. 28. I '. ,ii II .......... C awpaw. . . P torah.. . P 29. srpr.. .. . C .30. tekta .. . . . . . . . . . . C 31. otsal.. .. . D 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. See no. 28. See no. 28. See no. 28. 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 Water- man saw him in 1909. Hence, allowing twenty-five years per gen- eration 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 a 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. P. 238. At one time of some importance. Contained 3 houses "in memory of people now living and had been larger than that." De- stroyed by flood in 1862. P. 239. Kroeber states (p. 10) that tekta had been occupied re- cently but did not seem to be an old site. This is directly contra- dicted 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. P. 240. "A former village site," now destroyed. "The present Indians know nothing about a town here." (continued on following page) sand name Status 87 No. and name Status 32. woxkero. C 33. woxtek . . . . . . . . . . . C 34. qootep ........... C 35. pekw an . . . . . . . . . . . C 36. yoxtr ........... C 37. sregon . . . . . . . . . . . C 38. kexkem ........... P 39. wererger ......... . P 40. meta ........... C 41. keperor . .. p 42. nohtskum ...........C 43. weiqem . . . . . . . . . . .P 44. himel ........... C ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 1 (Continued) Analysis of Village Sites Comments See no. 34. See no. 34. 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 P. 243. An 'important place." P. 244. No question. 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 belliger- ence and wealth." Its existence can therefore not be doubted. 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 Ser- ragon." 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. Merriam mentions this as a "village on north bank Klamath River,' across from Mettah and a little above it." At this spot Waterman;I shows on his map no. 11 an "old village site" (his key no. 117). Hence the existence of the village is probable. P. 245. No question. 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 bit that the people died of disease of epidemic character. (Cf. no. 13. P. 246. A town with only house pits remaining but of undoubted existence. 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. P. 247. This was a town, but the informants could barely re- member the houses. Waterman could not determine why the in- habitants 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 dis- tinct town on p. 10 and lists it jointly with murek on p. 18. It doubtless disappeared early as a separate entity. 45. m urek .C P. 247..No questionC 88 P. 247. No question. 89 COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST TABLE 1 (Continued) Analysis of Village Sites Status Comment A 46. saa . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 47. kepel . . 48. waase . . ......... C . .C...... . C merip. . . C 50. aukweya ...... 51, qenekpul ...... 52. tsetskwi ...... 3. qenek....... 54. wahsek. . p C C ......... C 55. weitspus ........ . . C rlrgr. . C C 57. pekwutul . 58. loolego. . ;59. aiqoo ...... . C 60. otsepor ....... C P. 248. No question. P. 248. No question. P. 249. A "fairly large town." The people were rich. P. 250. A small place with only one house name known. Its ex- istence, however is confirmed by Merriam. See no. 53. See no. 53. See no. 53. 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 sweat house." 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 habita- tions. 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). P. 254. No question. P. 257. No question. P. 258. '...always a small place" but several of its families were rich. On Kroeber's map. P. 258. "...slightly larger than rlrgr" but had some wealthy citizens. On Kroeber's map. 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. P. 259. Waterman says: "...at least two houses and a sweat house stood here." Kroeber (p. 10) considers aiqoo as a sub- division of otsepor but Merriam lists it as a separate village, under the name Ikocho. 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." (continued on following page) No. and name -; t,4:9. S,4 :l 56. 11 i k, I ANTH I No. and name Status 61. espaw ........... C 62. otmekworw. ..... 63. oreqw . 64. oraw ......... 65. sigwets s....... D C D C 66. hrgwrw .C........ . C 67. tsahpekw .C.. . . . . . . C 68. tsotskwi . 69. paar. 70. osloqw . C C C 71. kekem . . . . . . . . . . .P 72. maats.. ...... .C 73. opyuweg . . . . . . . . . .C 74. pinpaa........ 75. oketo. D p [ROPOLOGICAL RECORDS rABLE 1 (Continued) nalysis of Village Sites Comment 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". 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. P. 262. No question. P. 262. Waterman, Kroeber, and Merriam all agree that this was a camp site. P. 262. "....a suburb of oreqw. At least two houses and a sweat- house stood here and I think originally there may have been more. In view of Waterman's positive assertion the existence of the vil- lage may be admitted. P. 265. "One informant said there were seven houses and two sweat houses." P. 265. "Eleven house names were obtained." P. 265. "An important Indian village stood here, but has not been inhabited since more than a generation ago... One informant re- membered having seen twelve houses and two sweat houses here." See no. 75. See no. 75. See no. 75. See no. 75. See no. 75. See no. 75. 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 Water- man admits that his notes were scanty and contradictory. "Un- doubtedly 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 im- portant 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 men- tioned 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 locali- ty. 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 90 COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST TABLE 1 (Continued) Analysis of Village Sites t No. and name f, 76. olem. .77. tsurai. Status Comment 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. 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 ade- quate. ......C 78. srepor.. ..... C P. 271. No question. P. 272. Some informants told V'aterman that there were 4 houses and a sweathouse. On permanency of habitation he has no infor- mation. 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 men- tions Matskaw, a "village at mouth of Little River, on north side Its aboriginal existence may therefore be taken as at least highly probable. 91 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 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, House "modern No. Source Count memories" ...... .....tp ...... .....tp .... . .M p .... . .M p .1 .1 ..... ..RM p ...... ....Mp ...... .Rp1 .t .........Rp .........Rp .t .tp .... . .M p .... . .M p ...... .....tp .........1 .........M p .........M p .........tp 7 4 25 l 9Jf 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 8 3 5 8 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 13} 22 24 4 5 3 3 6 5 23+ 9 2 5 8+ 3 13 18 17+ 4 6 Kroeber, 1852 census No. 42. 1 43. . . * t 22+ 44 1 45 . . . . . . . . 46 . 1 47 . 1 48 . 1 49 . 1 50 . 1 6 5 . 1 2 52 . 1 53 . 1 54 . 1 2 55 . 1 14 56 .1 57 . 1 58 . 59 . 1 60 . 1 6 . 1 63 . 1 65. t 66 . 1 4 67 . 1 68 . 1 69. t 70. . t 24 71. t 20 72. 1 3 73. 1 7 75.. M 76. M 77. 1 6 78. t Kroeber, House "modern Source Count memories" 3 6 4 1 1 8 4 6 5 3 1 2 4 6 17 6 5 4 2 3 7 7 2 5 10 5 5 3 4 5 18 7 3 14 4 p p Ip Ip 4 21 ( 14 ( f 92 Kroeb 185', cens 4 14 6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 12 . 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19 . 20. 21. 22 . 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 32 . 33. 34 . 35 . 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. p THE WIYOT There are three primary ethnographic sources for the lation of the Wiyot. The first is the extensive mono- hby Loud (1918), the second a short paper by Nom- and Kroeber (1936). and the third the village lists of .rriam. Loud based his data on interviews with numerous in- ants together with a rather cursory visual inspec- of the region. He shows nearly two hundred sites of kinds on his map and differentiates by means of con- ional symbols between what he calls ''archaeological" "modern village" sites. By the latter he means lements which were occupied at approximately the of the American invasion of 1850. In his text he dis- es descriptively a few of the more important of the ern village" sites but for most of the smaller places furnishes no information other than inclusion on his I His coverage is fairly good for the valley of the River and for Humboldt Bay but his treatment of the eyof the Eel River is nearly worthless. Recognizing deficiency in Loud's data, Nomland and Kroeber se- dthe services of an informant who was born in 1860 s area and had lived there all his life. They were able to obtain a very complete list of sites, together a fairly accurate house count for each of them. This is therefore as reliable as we shall ever be able to and, unless we wish to discard this type of informa- completely, we must accept it as essentially correct. For the Mad River and Humboldt Bay areas the re- ly acquired village lists of Merriam form an admi- esupplement to Loud's compilation. Merriam went the ground personally and checked carefully Loud's s. He was thus able to clarify many of the obscuri- in the data furnished by the earlier investigator. re points of discrepancy arise between the two au- stherefore, more reliance may be placed upon Mer- The family number is taken by Kroeber (1925, p. 116) te same as for the Yurok, i.e., 7.5. Loud obtained ates for both house number and population for three es. Site 45 gave 13.5 persons per house, site 67 9, and site 112 gave 5. The average is slightly over figure which has no further significance than to in- ethat the Yurok value of 7.5 may be applied safely Wiyot. ith respect to Kroeber's principle of a one-third re- on in the number of houses the same considerations yaswith the Yurok data. There is nothing to indicate work of either Loud or Nomland and Kroeber that mants were not thinking in terms of inhabited houses rthan total deserted houses or house pits. Indeed ye in Loud's text three specific instances (nos. 7, nd Y) where the informant not only stated that the eswere occupied in the early days but also gave the of the persons living in all of them. It is difficult concile a one-third reduction with such data. table 3 (pp. 94-96, herein) are given a few notes, d mainly from Loud and supplemented from Mer- is list, which are of interest in determining the ex- ce and population of certain villages. All villages I are included the existence of which in approximately 1 850 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 Hand- book (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 popula- tion 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 aborigianl picture. For the Wiyot the evidence is still more impres- sive. None of Loud's white informants could go back of 1850 and one gets the impression that his Indian inform- ants 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 socie- ty. This state of affairs is reflected in many statements in Loud's text. (See also table 3, pp. 94-96, herein.) For in- stance 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 confu- sion of the period is reflected in too low values given by modern informants. If this is true, then it is quite pos- sible that the estimate given here of 3,300 Wiyot is actu- ally considerably lower than the true aboriginal popula- tion, rather than higher. WIYOT 3,3300 [93] - - - - - - - - - . - - - 6 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 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 in- cluded 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 Q; + -v T- T T a 1) I:: 1) PI -- -- 1-- +-,1 - h1, 1_D;- D -4 - +h, Aff-A A;r^ r. ZbZ. inese are locatea in tne tormer nig seno OI tne iviaa uiver. A pio- neer told Loud that there had once been 20 houses in the area. Another in- formant 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 the shores of Blue Lake. Loud K through X ..... . . . gives no specific data concerning them and some are individually doubtful. AA through AK ... . . . 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, 0, 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 meana 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 Site 23 P. 274. "....accordingto tradition once had a large population." Loud thinks it was uninhabited by 1850 but Merriam lists it as a village. Estimate 4 houses. 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. 94 biltes nt, i, j, Bi . . . COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST TABLE 3 (Continued) Wiyot Sites listed by Loud (1918) Loud's Sites lte 3 .1 .......... Site 33 ........... . lite 34 .. .. .. .. .. . Comment P. 272. A summer camp according to Loud but a village according to Mer- riam. Allow 2 houses. P. 265. "This village was referred to as a '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. 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. Esti- mate 4 houses. Site 36. . . Stated by Merriam to be an archaeological site. Site 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Merriam. Estimate 2 houses. 8ite AL ... . . . . P. 273. According to an informant there were several houses in 1856 with one occupied. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 4 houses. Bite 45 .P. 272. According to an informant there were 2 houses and 25 to 30 inhabit- ants 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. . . . . .. . . . . . .P. 268. There were three to four houses in 1852. The inhabitants were driven out shortly afterward. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 3.5 houses. . . . . .. . . . . . .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 de- creased somewhat." Estimate 9 houses. . . . . .. . . . . . .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. Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. P. 269. There were 8 to 10 plank houses here in 1851. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 9 houses. . . . . .. . . . . . .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. Bite 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 settle- ment. Bite 80.. . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. Site 83 .. . . . . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. (continued on following page) lte 65 te 67 Bite 68 te 69 Bte 73 BIte 77 Site 84 ........... 95 96 Loud's Sit Site 86 . Site 88 . Site 90 . Site 91 . Site AM.. Site 92 . Site 93 . Site 98 . Site 100. Site 102 . Site 104 . Site 109. Site 112. Other site. ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS TABLE 3 (Continued) Wiyot Sites listed by Loud (1918) es Comment . .......... . P. 271. "..... a permanent village." Listed by Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . ..... ...... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . P. 273. A camping place, according to Loud, but a village on Merriam's lists Allow 2 houses. . .......... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . P. 271. Loud says camping place, Merriam village. Allow 2 houses. . .......... . Shown as archaelogical site on Loud's map but given by Merriam as a village, Allow 2 houses. . .......... . Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. . .......... . P. 269. The village had 10 houses and at least 51 inhabitants before the mas- sacre of 1860. s .... . . . . . . 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 eac The total then would be 15. 1 97 COOK ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST TABLE 4 Wiyot Settlements Mad River and Humboldt Bay Eel River iyot settlements according to Loud, Merriam, and Wland and Kroeber, covering the Mad River and Hum- Bay. The key designations are those given by Loud. house counts are from Loud with the exception of B and C which are from Nomland and Kroeber and everal sites from Merriam for which I have made my lestimates (indicated by the letters Mp.). In all in- aces where a range is given by informants (e.g., 2-4 Oes) the mean is placed in the table. Loud's no. 3........ 4and5.......... R . . . . . . . 7. . 8.......... H,I,J,9................. D-G K-X A. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... AA-AK. A............. . B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -C. 1 7. 19. 22.......... 31.......... 33.......... 34.......... 39.......... 45.......... -AL.......... 48.......... 58.......... 65.......... . . . . 67.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 68 69.. 73 . . . 77 79 80 .,, 83 84 86 88 . 90 91 AM 92 93 98 100 . . . 102 , 104 109,,, 112 Others . House count 3 Mp 12.5 3 Mp 11 3 Mp 20 60 Mp 8 4 5.5 4 12 4.5 3 4 2 8 4 2 2 4 2 9 3.5 9 3 3 9 6 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 0 15- Wiyot settlements on the Eel River as given to Nom- land 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 nu- merous 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. Serial No. 1..... 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.. 9. 10. 11 ..... 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.. 19. 20. 21.. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp 29. 30. 31. 32. Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Mp Sherman's estimate of house count few. few. 2-3 . . . . . 2 - 3 . . . . . 5-10 . . . . . 5- 10. 4-5. 1-2 . . . . . 1-2 . . . . . 10 plus .. 5-6 . . . . . several . . several 1-2 . . . . . 1-2. 5-10 . . . . . few . . . . - 0 ..... 5- 10. 0 ..... large "20" . several many . . many several several several several Final estimate 2 2 .... .... 2.5 2.5 7.5 ..... ... . 7.5 4.5 1.5 ... . . . . 1.5 .. . . . . 10 .... .... 5.5 4 4 1.5 ..... . . . . 1.5 ..... .... 7.5 2 0 7.5 0 10 4 8 8 4 4 4 4 .. ..... . no statement . .... .... . .. many . . ...... . inhabited . .... .. . ... many ......... 8 2 8 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Mp Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 99 I il t I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. Kroe- ber 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 dis- tinguished frequentlybetween 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 ob- viously 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 ma- terial 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 vi ation in individual detail, the total for Ned is 60 andt for Curtis is 57-60. The identity is remarkable. Co~ menting on this situation, Kroeber makes the followl very significant statement (p. 35. fn.): It is apparent that, for any particular settleme' no precise figure, even by a good informant, is ve reliable unless based on an enumeration of named houses. But for a larger series of settlements thl 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, see no necessity for a gross reduction of one-sixthol computed population. Kroeber's list shows 108 towns plus 10 mentioned Curtis as being in Karok territory on the Salmon Riv4 The first 84 villages were covered by Ned, who gave house counts for 61 of them. Using wherever possibl the houses actually seen, not merely heard of, by Ne4 get a total of 248. This is a little smaller thanKroeb total for the same sites of 254. In this group of 84 vt lages 9 have counts from Curtis but not from Ned, wi total of 24 houses. By Kroeber's own showing Curtie counts are as reliable in the aggregate as those of NE Sites 85 to 108 are derived only from Mrs. Jacops wt did not give counts. Kroeber proposes (pp. 34-35) to duce these to 15 settlements and assign an average vi of 4 houses per village. This seems entirely reaso and gives us 60 houses. We may now add the 10 vill on the Salmon River cited from Curtis by Kroeber an to be conservative, assign an average count of 3 houg each. The total of all Karok houses then becomes 36 At the customary 7.5 persons per house the populatiw the Karok is 2,715, or with sufficient accuracy, 2,700 KAROK ..... 2 [98] 11 THE HUPA kere are four sources of consequence for the Hupa ,ion. The first is the discussion to be found on 28 to 132 in the Handbook by Kroeber, which in- a census furnished to the government by the Yurok 1. The second is a monograph published byGoddard The third is a particularly exhaustive village list ed by Merriam. The fourth is a map drawn by in 1852, photostatic copies of which are to be found Merriam collection. towns of the Hupa fall naturally into two subdivi- the first comprising those in Hupa Valley proper ! second those above the valley which extended he main Trinity River and its South Fork. The icluded 12 villages which are mentioned by name dard and are shown on his map. For most of them ,cates houses by dots and solid squares which can be counted. Kroeber lists on page 129 the same ns and all but one of them appear on Merriam's [hese are numbered 1-12 in table 5, p. 100. herein.) no. 2, Dakis-hankut. is omitted by Merriam but n with houses by Goddard. Village no. 8, sding, is stated by Kroeber to have been 'unoccu- 1850." Goddard however merely says that it had serted for a long time. On the other hand it had ufficiently well known to the Yurok for them to name for it, and Merriam does not question its ce. These two villages may therefore be retained list. h regard to the second group Kroeber gives two s (nos. 13 and 14) as "permanent settlements." these come five towns (nos. 15 to 19 inclusive) I the main Trinity River, which are mentioned by yKroeber. Although they are mentioned "in early s" as being in the area Kroeber nevertheless does they should be added to his list. However, they ed by Merriam, for the same area, and three of e shown with house counts on Gibbs's map. Their ce seems therefore to be assured. They are lly the "5 other villages in and above Hupa Valley, fitively indentified" which are cited in the Yurok Kroeber on page 131. 20, Tjelding, is given by Kroeber as certain and uded by Merriam. The remaining villages, al- not specifically mentioned by Kroeber or Goddard. ren in his list by Merriam with the explicit state- at "these were permanent villages. There were everal camps along the south side of Trinity." Merriam is the only investigator who has made a gh examination of this area, his work must be ac- respect to house counts it is interesting to com- Pe six villages in Hupa Valley which occur, on the nd, on the Yurok list of Kroeber or on the Gibbs pd. on the other hand, on Goddard's map. The for- ive a total count for these towns of 82 houses, Is Goddard shows 78. The Yurok census and s map were formulated in 1851 and 1852 immedi- fter the advent of the whites. Goddard presumably t his data from informants in or about the year From the two sets of figures it is clear that God- cannot be too high and therefore those he gives for Is not covered by the earlier sources must be rea- sonably 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 vil- lages 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 in- habitants per house? Two lines of evidence become per- tinent 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 of half-married daughters, the wives of the sons, and the grandchildren. To these may be added un- married 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 so- cial family in the usual monogamous tribe included the father, mother, children, and occasional close relatives. This was the underlying assumption of Kroeber's esti- mate 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 impos- sible 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 aver- age number of persons per house would be 6.53. Mean- while 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, how- ever, we may calculate that in the absence of this male mortality and with a normal sex ratio of approximately [99] t ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS 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. Al- though Kroeber feels that there was no population decline, apart from the effect of warfare on the males just men- tioned, I cannot agree with him. In the face of the over- whelming 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. lt impracticable to set any sure figure on the decline bul value of 20 per cent would be very conservative, part larly in comparison with all the northwestern tribes. This would mean a population for the seven villages o 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 p sons to each Hupa house. If so the population would been 1,980. or approximately 2,000. It is entirely po ble that even this is too conservative an estimate. HU PA 2, 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 from 1851 census No. and Name Honsading: K, M, Go, Gi .. . . . . 9 Dakis-hankut: K, Go. Kinchuwikut: K, M, Go . . . . . . . Cheindekotding: K, M, Go. Miskut: K, M, Go, Gi . . . . . . . . 6 Takimitlding: K, M, Go, Gi .. . . . 20 Tsewenalding: K, M, Go, Gi . . . . 10 Totltsasding: K, M, Go . Medilding: K, M, Go, Gi .. . . . . 28 Djishtangading: K, M, Go, Gi . . Howunkut: K, M, Go. Haslinding: K, M, Go . Kachwunding: K. Mingkutme: K. Sehachpeya: K, Gi, M . Waugullewatl: K, Gi, M . Ahelta: K, M. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Sokeakeit: K, M. Tashuanta: K. M, Gi. Tjelding: K, M ........ . . . 3 Tiltswetchaki: M. Chilchtaltung: M. Ostantung: M. Hlitchchoochtung: M . Klokumne: K, M. Tahchoochtung: M . Houses from Goddard's map 11 7 8 12 11 14 6 23 13 14 9 Houses from Gibbs's map Houses by estimate 9 6 20 10 28 9 4 3 8 4.5 4.5 6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. t 100 THE TOLOWA Apart from the discussion by Kroeber in the Handbook .124 - 125) there have been two published attempts to rerate the! villages of the Tolowa. One of these was Waterman (1925) and the other by Drucker (1937). Of 'these the treatment by Drucker is the most complete ce he had the advantage of a knowledge of the earlier Fk. Although he may have missed settlements in the prior, for present purposes we must accept his list as orking basis. Drucker mentions 23 villages, all located on the coast Vulong the lower reaches of the Smith River. Kroeber kes 10 sites from which he computes the population, at PYurok rate of 45 inhabitants per village, as 450. berman gives 14 places, which, at the same rate, would I1d 630. Drucker has house counts for 13 of his villages, atotal of 88 houses or 6.76 houses per village. At Yurok count of 7.5 persons per house, which Kroeber sapplies to the Tolowa, the average population per ege would be 51. Kroeber's estimate of 45 is thus k close. There is no good reason to suppose, in view he lack of any good evidence to the contrary that the er 10 villages of Drucker were smaller than those for ,chhe gave house counts. Thus we may add 68 houses, ldng a total of 156 and a population of 1,186. Kroeber of course reduce by one-third but the reasons for doing are no more compelling with this than with any tr tribe. Drucker (p. 226) states that his house counts are as o to 50 years ago. This means, first, that the houses e described to him by informants as known to them in youth to be inhabited (hence no reduction necessary) second,that the counts represent the situation during period of 1885 to 1895. Now the counts published for all the tribes hitherto idered were based upon the conditions obtaining at oximately 1850, 35 to 45 years earlier. In other s, Drucker's figures cannot in any sense represent aboriginal state, for there must have been a marked e in population and in number of houses among the wabetween 1850 and 1890. The implication is, star- as it may seem, that the population estimate given e is much too low. Bore idea of what may have happened can be secured brief reconsideration of Waterman's Yurok data. It be remembered that Waterman shows detailed maps 9villages, including not only houses once standing 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 ma- terially 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 consider- ation 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 numer- ous 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 be- cause 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 pro- tected 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 set- tled 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 [101] - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - T., - THE ATHAPASCANS THE CHILULA With the Chilula we encounter the first of the small Athapascan tribes of Northwestern California. Their vil- lages have been studied intensively by Goddard (1910), who lists 18 but gives no house counts.* Merriam, who re-examined Goddard's report likewise finds 18 sure vil- lages plus 21 summer camps and 2 places of indetermi- nate character. Merriam deviated from Kroeber very widely in his tribal names for the Athapascan groups. It is probably preferable to retain Kroeber's terminology without prej- udice 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 Arrange- ment of Hwilkut Camps and Villages." He thus includes the Chilula among the Whilkut. The closest approach to a house count is reported by Kroeber (1925, p. 138) who states that six of the identi- fied settlements showed 17, 7, 4, 2, 4, and 8 house pits respectively. This is an average of 7. Kroeber consid- ers 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 sup- plied by a single very old informant. The house and fam- ily 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 *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. 7.5 also appears applicable. Merriam in his list entitled "Nekanne Tribe and lagess" mentions only three villages on Bear River Nomland (1938) in her more careful examination of territory found 8. Hence the population of this grou be set at 360. Apart from Bear River the Mattole territory inc the drainages of Davis Creek and the Mattole River, gether with the west bank of the Eel River for a sho distance above the Wiyot. Davis Creek is much sm than Bear Creek and probably was sparsely settled. Nevertheless Nomland's informant mentioned indiv who were from Davis Creek and hence it must be as sumed that there was at least one and very likely a many as two villages there. The Mattole River was than Bear River and has been well covered by Merr' in his list entitled ''Bettol or Pettol (Mattol) Tribe Villages." He cites 10 named villages. In addition, includes the Kooske, who he says were a "very larg band and village ('hundreds of people') formerly on Koosky (or Cooskie) Creek on or near the coast 2-1 3 miles southeast of Punta Gorda lighthouse." He cites two indentures for Indians of this tribe which found in the Eureka court house. The 2 villages on Davis Creek and the 10 on Mat River would yield 540 persons. If we accept Merri description of the Kooske tribe, we may add anothe The total for the Mattole would then be a population. 1,200. Mattole . . . . . . THE WHI LKUT For information on the Whilkut we are indebted t Merriam for the only village list extant. He covers' tribe, together with the Chilula, in his list entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut Camps and Vii lages,'" revised, according to a pencil notation of thE title sheet, in 1939. Merriam gives 15 villages for the Hoechkienok oi "Upper Redwood" tribe, 3 for the Kotinet or "Blue2 and North Fork Mad River" tribe and 15 for the M who lived "on Mad River from opposite Korbel upt~ ranch of John Ahlgren about 21 miles in air line." Chilula and Mattole were credited with 45 persons p village. The habitat of the Whilkut lies on smaller streams and is generally less favorable than that of Chilula or the Mattole. Hence the number may be zl duced to 40 per village. The total is then 1,320. Whilkut THE KATO There are only two usable ethnographic sources formation concerning villages among the Kato. The is the rather casual treatment given the group by Bi [102] COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST IS) in his monograph on the Pomo. He lists 17 villages kaving existed in the area comprising the modern tch running from Laytonville to Branscomb and a few Os north and south thereof. No village sizes are given 281 - 283) and no discussion of community organiza- Merriam in his list "Kahto Tribe and Villages" Lions the 17 villages of Barrett and adds 3 others de- d from his own informants, making a total of 20. ince there is no explicit information regarding vil- size, we may adopt the value used for the Whilkut, 40 persons per village. This would mean a popula- ~of 800. arrett and Merriam, however, give data only for the Ohernmost part of the Kato range, including an area pproximately 150 square miles. The remainder of Kato territory extended some distance along the up- waters of the South Fork of the Eel River and its area be reckoned as 100 square miles or 40 per cent of entire Kato territory. On the other hand, living con- nswere not as good in this portion of the range and iensity was probably less than in the vicinity of Lay- ille and Branscomb. Hence we may add 300 persons ber than the full 40 per cent) and consider the total ,100. iththe Kato we arrive at an area where it becomes ible to utilize historical and documentary, as well as graphic, sources of information. For the period )-1856 there are three accounts left us by white men were direct observers, as distinguished from data lied from memory to modern white men by Indian in- ts. With respect to the region north of San Fran- Bay these observations by Americans must be re- led as supplementary to the basic ethnographic ma- lderived from Indians. Nevertheless they are of iderable value in confirming, negating, or modifying ethnographic data. wo primary sources are pertinent here. The first is txpedition of Colonel Redick M'Kee, one of the three missioners" sent out in 1851 to negotiate treaties the California Indians. M'Kee went first to Clear e,then up the Russian River, over to the Eel River shed, down to Humboldt Bay, and eventually up the th and Trinity rivers. Two records of this expedi- were kept. The first, and far better known, is the l of George Gibbs, which was later published by yR. Schoolcraft (1860). The other is the Minutes of pedition, written by John M'Kee, a relative of the l. These Minutes, together with considerable cor- odence, were published in Senate Executive Docu- No. 4, 33rd Congress, Special Session (1853). he second source is a report written by Major H. P. zelman at the request of Indian Agent Henley, in Major Heintzelman (1855) made a survey of the s of Sonoma and Mendocino counties which might be d upon a reservation at the mouth of the Noyo River. erviewed numerous headmen, or chiefs, of com- tyunits and reported on the Indian population. His , for the territory extending from the upper Eel rto San Francisco Bay was 21,200, a figure in ex- of the value conceded by ethnographers. ccordingto George Gibbs (1860, p. 118), the M'Kee ition, on August 30, 1852, reached the Batimdakia lRed also Ba-tim-da-kia) Valley, which was supposed at the head of the South Fork of the Eel River. John e implies that this valley was on the Middle Fork of iver but there is little doubt, judging from the route that it was actually Long Valley, on the east branch South Fork. He says that the valley was inhabited 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 re- garded as too low. Hence his figure of 600 for Long Val- ley 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, represent- ing 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 ex- ceedingly 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 undoubtedlyKato: 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 Heintzel- man. This is only slightly larger than M'Kee's 600. Al- lowing for conservatism on the part of M'Kee and over- liberality by Heintzelman, a fair estimate is 650. Alter- natively, 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 inhab- ited sites among these three tribes might be taken as in- dicative of a very small population. However, the ex- istence of heavily inhabited areas to all sides of the re- gion held by these tribes makes it unlikely that there was any large stretch of country which was devoid of a sizable I 103 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Indian population. It is much more probable ti ous villages of the Lassik, Nongatl. and Sinkyc exist but that they were wiped out almost comr the white frontiersmen in the early 'fifties bef( server left a record of them. As an indication fate may be mentioned the tales told by Bledsc his "Indian Wars of the Northwest" and by vai nesses in the Report to the California Legislat on the "Mendocino War." When we are presented with such an entire direct data, we are quite justified in falling ba indirect area-density method. Thus the densit tabulated below for the five other Athapascan t cluding the Wailaki, considered subsequently) Coast Yuki, a tribe in the region for which we accurate counts. Approximate area in Tribe sq. mi. Chilula Mattole Whilkut Kato . Wailaki Coast Yuki 210 210 250 270 575 150 Population 800 1,200 1,320 1,100 3,347 756 Mean The close correspondence in density of the listed is noteworthy, and tends to lend confider reliability of the ethnographic source materia] which these estimates are based. The areas with which we are dealing are re large; they are also relatively homogeneous in logical sense. All lie within the redwood-tran (except the Wailaki. which border it on the eas are characterized by small, perennial, salmor streams, along which the Indian villages were There is nothing outstandingly different about occupied by the Lassik, Nongatl, and Sinkyone, that perhaps it lies somewhat higher on the sti the Wailaki are still higher) and contains fewe open valleys. The three tribes being consider spectively 325 square miles, 700 square miles square miles of territory. If the density was i sons per square mile the population would hav correspond, 1,612; 3,472; and 3,050. If we allc somewhat poorer habitat, these values may be little, say to 1,500; 3,300; and 2,900. It is diff how the estimates can be carried much lower. Nongatl, Lassik, and Sinkyone THE WAILAKI The Wailaki were studied by Goddard (1923 published two papers concerning them. The fi the main portion of the tribe along the Eel Rivi second the Pitch group which lived along some utaries of that river. Goddard found the Waila as they may be termed, to consist of 18 comm subtribes, each living in one to several village Pitch group to consist of 4 subtribes. One pec the villages was that they were inhabited only i six winter months, the people in the summer d hat numer- through the hills in search of small game and plant )ne once did Although the villages were occupied only half the ye pletely by nevertheless they can be used for computation of po Dre any ob- tion since there were no other fixed abodes with whi i of their they can be confused. )e (1885) in In addition to Goddard's monographs, we have at rious wit- list for a portion of the Wailaki from Merriam entitl ture (1860) "Tsennahkennes Bands and Rancherias." Both inve gators surveyed independently 11 of the 18 subtribal lack of areas and obtained the names of villages frominfor .ck on the In his list on page 109 and in his text Goddard identi ties are 53 inhabited places. For two other subtribes, the C tribes (in- kaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, he cites the villages by and for the in the textual descriptions on pages 106 and 107. T have very are a total of 18 for the two subtribes. Villages wer not determined at all for the five northern subtribes. For the first 1 1 subtribes Merriam gives a total Density in villages. Of these, 30 can be identified with names )ersons per nished by Goddard, whereas 16 are in addition toGodd sq. mi. list. Goddard on the other hand gives 23 which were secured by Merriam. Since both these workers oper 3.86 carefully through informants and both were thorougl 5.72 conversant with the local dialects, we may accept the 5.2 8 combined total of 69 villages, large and small, occu 4.07 within the territory of Goddard's first, or southern1 5.82 11 subtribes. The average is 6.27 villages per subt 5.04 For the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, Merriam mentions only one village each, that bearing the subt 4.96 name. It is quite clear from his list that he did not his field investigations into these groups. Hence we six tribes fall back on Goddard's data, which include 18 villages nce in the all. The average for the 13 subtribes therefore is 6., I upon villages, and the total 87. All the villages have long since been totally dese asonably and Goddard could count only house pits. (Merriam i the eco- no counts of any kind.) He did this for only two grou isition belt the Baskaiya and the Slakaiya. Here he found and me 4t), and all tions on pages 103 and 105 twenty sites containing ho i-bearing pits. In all there were 92 pits but for two localities placed. specifies a certain number plus "several" others. If the terrain allow 4 to represent "several" in each of these, then, except the total number of pits is 100 and the average per sit reams (but or village is 5.0. r flats and Now since we are dealing here only with pits and ed had re- counts of houses remembered by informants, a redu ;, and 615 according to the Kroeber principle is justified for it 4.96 per- quite probable that all the houses once standing onti e been, to pits were not simultaneously occupied. When Kroebel ow for a has no other data, he recommends a reduction by oner reduced a sixth. I think that in this instance it would be proper icult to see reduce by one-fifth, or 20 per cent. This would give effective average of 4 houses per village. In the 13 c~ munities covered by Goddard and by Merriam there . . . 7,700 87 villages, which at 4 houses per village would giv total of 348. No evidence is offered by either author the effect that the remaining 5 subtribes differed in essential way from the first 13. Hence we must ascri to them 134 houses, making 482 in all. We might use the Yurok family number 7.5. but GO 1924), who dard's account carries the implication that perhapst rst covered Wailaki family was somewhat smaller, suggesting af4 er and the tor of 7.0 rather than 7.5. Goddard bases his estimat of the trib- upon a mean population of 15 to 30 persons per villal ki proper, This would mean 4.5 persons per house, certainly too unities or a value for the aboriginal social family. At four houM Xs, and the per village the family number would be 5.6, still prob ouliarity of somewhat too low. Perhaps a compromise is advisab during the say at 6.0. The average village size could be then put lispersing 25 persons, a figure definitely lower than was assume I r I 104 COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST more northerly Athapascan tribes but still one seems to be indicated by the social organization bed by Goddard. The total population of the Wailaki r would then be 80 per cent of 482 houses multiplied or 2,315 persons. Idard indicates on page 108 his belief that the vil- were not simultaneously inhabited. However, he es no evidence to favor this view. On the contrary, ntions in his text four villages which were stated yrmants not to have been inhabited within their ry, a circumstance which argues strongly that the r they did claim were actually active at the time to they were referring, i.e., just before the white in- . It would appear to the writer that reducing the count by 20 per cent and reducing the family num- Dam 7.5 to 6.0 quite adequately compensates for any 's in the ennumeration of villages. Indeed the esti- ere presented may be too conservative. Ith regard to the Pitch group Goddard (1924) shows that the subtribe tokya-kiyahan had 15 villages. In four- teen 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 incom- pletely 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 previ- ous estimates but justified by the data presented by God- dard and Merriam. Wailaki 3,350 ATHAPASCAN TOTAL .15,450 105 i THE Y1 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 pertain- ing to families and villages. He shows very clearly that this tribe occupied its villages only in a transitory man- ner, 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 inter- changeably 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 deter- mine 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 simul- taneously 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 ap- pears clear that aboriginally there were two semipermanent sites and a number of tempo- rary settlements. 4. For this group Gifford mentions one beach vil- lage 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 con- tained in a single settlement at one time. Hence it is reasonable to regard the group as consist- ing 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 vil- UKI lage with no camp sites mentioned. Thus we may count one occupied site. 7. For this group there are known two villages, tw' hamlets, and one camp site, all with names. hamlet had 3-4 houses and one village had 5 houses. Since there is no information on the lo cation 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 ther totals 20. It is quite probable that some of the other might be or ought to be counted but, since the eviden concerning them is equivocal, they will not be includ The house counts for seven sites average 6.3 and sini we are here dealing with informants' memories of i ited houses, not house pits, this number need not be r duced. With respect to family number, the Yurok val of 7.5 is probably too high. For the type of culture c acteristic of the Coast Yuki the more conservative v of 6.0 is probably better. This yields a population of or approximately 750. It is difficult to see how this mate could be reduced. Coast Yuki. THE YUKI PROPER Although the Yuki were a populous and important ti and although Kroeber, in the Handbook, devoted three ters to their culture, they have been the subject of bu special study. Quite recently G. M. Foster (1944) rei veyed their ethnography and worked out their village ganization in some detail. He utilized informants w14 were in their seventies during the period of 1935 to 1 and who thus were born no earlier than 1860. Since t social and political organization of the Yuki was comr pletely disrupted during the 'fifties, particularly at Valley. it is remarkable that Foster was able to seciq so much apparently quite accurate detail. It is true certain specific items of information derived by Kro from his informants of thirty or thirty-five years ear are more reliable than the comparable data of Foster nevertheless the over-all coverage by the latter is m complete. Foster's account will therefore serve her$ the basis for a computation of population. There were eight major subdivisions or subtribes, spelling of whose names and the precise boundaries whose territories are slightly differently presentedb Kroeber and Foster. Merely for convenience the des( tion of Foster is followed here. Of the eight subtribel most numerous and most important were the Ukomna who inhabited most of Round Valley. Next in import, were the Witukomnom directly to the south. Most of, Foster's work was devoted to these two groups. With respect to village organization Kroeber bro out the basic fact that the tribe was organized by co munities, rather than separate and wholly independe villages (1925, pp. 161-162). [106] - COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST The community always might and usually did embrace several settlements.... If designated it was referred to by the name of the principal vil- lage. This place name therefore designates at one time a cluster of several little towns and on other occasions one of these towns. rster went one step further and clarified the internal ganization of the community. He showed that within h cluster there was always a principal village of rela- ely large size called the nohot with a constellation of all hamlets or, as he usually puts it, ''rancherias" zmediately adjacent. The former he likens to a host the latter to a group of parasites. The nohot might ntain as many as twenty-five houses and as many as Oinhabitants. There might be anywhere from "2 to 6 8" rancherias per nohot. (See p. 176.) It is therefore ssible, for certain subtribes, to obtain some idea con- trning population from the list of inhabited places re- embered by Foster's informants, particularly since mster usually specifies what type of village is meant. s list is quite complete for the Witukomnom and the mnom and partially so for the Tanom. Kroeber (1925, 1.163-164) gives parallel data for a part of the Ukom- m, which can be to some extent brought into concord- cewith Foster's list. The question of local population is difficult because in yone instance does Foster mention a specific figure: largest nohot, which he says contained 25 houses and Opeople. It is of interest that elsewhere he states that etypical Yuki house would hold 4 to 8 persons. Thus appears to accept without reservation a family number 16. Now of course the average nohot was smaller and ust have been intermediate between the maximum pos- ble with twenty-five houses and the smaller villages iich must have contained four or five. The halfway lint is fifteen, a number which may be accepted with a irdegree of confidence. The nohot population would enbe taken as ninety. The parasitic village or ranch- iawas definitely smaller. It could not have approached houses yet by far the greater number of rancheria's ust have had more than one or two. A reasonable com- omise would be 4 houses and 25 inhabitants. V ith re- pect to the number of these hamlets per community the definite "2 to 6 to 8" may be set at four. Hence the *mmunity may be regarded as having on the average 190 babitants during pre-invasion times. There is no clear idence to justify a larger estimate and on the other nd the whole context of both Kroeber's and Foster's Iscussion gives the impression of a group approaching Opersons in number. This is somewhat but not ma- rially greater than the mean number for the 22 sub- ibes of the Wailaki according to Goddard's data. That slue was 153 and the subtribe among the Wailaki appears phave been very similar to the community among the Luki. For the Witukomnom Foster lists 15 places, of which are designated as nohots and 6 as "small.'' Two points reapparent. First, the informants of Foster were re- illing the important villages which they had seen or been ,Dld about but had forgotten the minor sites, hence the teat preponderance of nohots. In the second place, it is anecessary for purposes of calculation to know the imes or the number of the peripheral ''parasitic" ancherias if we know the primary towns, the nohots, for, bowing a nohot, we know a community. Thus we may nmediately set the population of the Witukomnom as at east 1,710 persons. If the informants gave incomplete ata, then the number would be higher. For the Ukomnom Foster lists 38 place names, most but not all of which lay in Round Valley. Of these 6 are specified as nohots. This would yield as a first approxi- mation a population of 1,140. But for the Ukomnom we have some help from Kroeber. Many of Foster's remain- ing places are designated merely "rancheria," since his informants could remember no further details. For one of them, Kroeber says that there was a dance house pres- ent, which makes the site a nohot instead of a rancheria. Kroeber's group B includes the village of Pomo, which is not mentioned by Foster. This was the seat of a head chief, and therefore a nohot. In addition. Kroeber includes in this group 6 villages in Williams Valley. Foster says regarding ''Flint Valley," by which he is evidently refer- ring to the same locality, that his informants could re- member no villages. This seems to be an instance where Kroeber's earlier informants could recall villages which Foster's later ones had forgotten, for there is no ground for doubting the accuracy of Kroeber's work. There is no implication that any of these sites was large, hence they may be regarded as the small type of village with about 25 persons apiece. We can therefore count 8 nohots plus 6 rancherias, which gives a population of 1,670 for the entire group. A further check on the Ukomnom is provided by Foster's map of Round Valley (p. 158). In the valley proper he shows 37 inhabited villages, of which 25 are named and 12 are unnamed. Of the former, 7 are known to have been nohots. Taking the nohots at 90 persons and the other sites at 25 persons, one gets a total population of 1,380. A balance of 300 is by no means excessive for Williams Valley and the peripheral hills. Incidentally, this figure for Round Valley yields a density of roughly 45 persons per square mile, one which surpasses any other in California but one which is quite in accord with all the accounts of early settlers and explorers. The Tanom, living on the Eel River to the northwest, are credited by Kroeber with six "divisions," the names for which he gives. Foster lists also six names, which he says are "probably districts named after the princi- pal rancheria" (p. 159). There is no doubt that both authors are referring to communities or, as Kroeber calls them, "political units." Hence at 190 persons their aggregate population would have been 1,140. For the other five subtribes we have very little direct information. Among the Huitinom Foster knows of two nohots and two rancherias, all at considerable distances from each other. The country was rugged but the area large and served by Black Butte Creek, a fishing stream with several tributaries. Two nohots and two rancherias would indicate a minimum of 330 people. It would not be excessive to place the number at 400. The Suksaltatamnom lived to the northeast on the head- waters of the South Fork Eel River, close to the Pitch Wailaki. They are all dead and nothing whatever is known of their villages. Their number may be tentatively placed at 400, since in all other respects their habitat resem- bled that of the Huitinom. On Onkolukomnom lived to the southeast in a large area centering around Lake Pillsbury. There are none left but Foster thinks (p. 160) "they are undoubtedly nu- merous." Certainly they must have exceeded the two preceding subtribes and an estimate of 600 should not be too much. The Lalkutnom and the Ontitnom lived close together south and west of Round Valley. Regarding the former Foster says there were "a number of nohots and ranch- erias." If we allow four to be "a number" and assume that the rancherias were all subordinate to the nohots, I : 107 108 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS the population would have been 760, a not excessive esti- mate. The Ontitnom, as far as Foster could determine, consisted of one nohot or, let us say, 200 persons. Yuki proper ...... . 6.880 THE HUCHNOM This important subdivision of the Yukian stock lived along the South Eel River and its affluents from a point below the junction with Outlet Creek to the head of Potter Valley. at which region they merged with the Pomo. They were a river people, with their villages all placed on the banks of the Eel and one or two of the larger tributaries. The original modern ethnographic account of the Huch- nom was by Barrett (1908), whose description of villages is accepted almost verbatim by Kroeber in the Handbook (pp. 202-203). A more recent account, derived from one informant, is given by Foster (1944, pp. 225 ff., App. 1). Barrett describes and shows on his map 13 villages, of which 11 are on the Eel and 2 on Tomki Creek. Of the former 5 are located close together along the boundary between the Huchnom and the Northern Pomo. This ter- ritory is shown on Foster's map as being within the con- fines of the Pomo; hence some confusion might arise, were it not that both Barrett and Kroeber are very posi- tive in ascribing the sites to the Huchnom, not the Pomo. Barrett's map is undoubtedly more accurate for this area than Foster's. Barrett calls all these "old village sites," as opposed, for example. to modern inhabited villages. He makes no distinction as to size. Kroeber in taking over Barrett's list refers to them as "main settlements." Foster states (p. 227) that "village organization and society in general were about like the Yuki." Hence it could be inferred that the 13 places were all of the nohot type, and thus that a total population of 2.470 is implied. This may not, however, be entirely justified. Kroeber says settlements not communities and Barrett says vil- lages. Reference therefore may have been to individual dwelling places not to groups or constellations. Foster begs the question entirely by referring merely to the work of the previous investigators as "ample." On the other hand, if the Huchnom organization was similar to that of the Yuki, as Foster avers, then at least some of the names mentioned must have been community capitals, or nohots, the smaller villages peripheral to which have been forgotten. We have a few additional items which are helpful. The northernmost village, cipomul, is said by Foster's in- formant to have been the residence of a "captain." Hence it was a principal village or nohot. Three villages are stated by Barrett (and so shown on his map) as having been located on both banks of the Eel River. Such exten- sion suggests a size greater than that of a small para- sitic hamlet, whether or not they may be regarded as nohots. Moreover the distribution of Barrett's sites along the river is interesting. According to his map, the line of 1 1 villages along the stream, disregarding minor meanderings of the latter, extended about 40 miles. Frorn the northern border and going upstream there are 6 vil- lages in the first 25 miles, the minimum distance be- tween any two being 3 miles. Since the usual distance be- I tween a primary village and its satellites among the according to Foster, is not more than a mile or two, of these 6 settlements can have been of the second type. The cluster of 4 named towns along the 5 mile river at the extreme south were quite close together, not more than 2 of them may have been of this type. the headwaters to the extreme east there was one de nitely isolated village, which may be placed in the 1 category. as may also the two sites on Tomki Creek] the 13 places given by Barrett there is therefore re to believe that at least 11 were of the nohot variety. Indirect confirmation of this conclusion comes fr comparison of the Huchnom village distribution with of the subtribes of the Yuki proper. The Tanom had nohots scattered along approximately 20 miles of th River and the Witukomnom had 4 or 5 along some 15 miles of stream valley. The Huchnom territory was about 270 square miles and, judging roughly fromth maps of Foster and Barrett, the Tanom and the Wit nom areas were approximately 200 square miles ea The Tanom possessed at least 6 nohots and theWit nom 9 (Foster's data). Hence the average area cove per nohot would be 33 for the Tanom and 22 for the tukomnom. If we allow 11 primary villages or nohot the Huchnom the average area covered by each woul 25, entirely within the same range. Now the charact of the terrain for the three groups did not differ in essential respect. Hence there is no reason to sup that the population density of the Huchnom, computed a riparian or area basis, was any less than that of t other two subtribes. Furthermore I can see no evid pointing to a smaller individual community or village population among the Huchnom. Eleven nohots or vi constellations would yield a total population of 2,090, s approximately 2,100, an estimate somewhat smaller the one given previously but one which I can find no son for further reducing. Some confirmation of the figure derived from vill data is contained in the survey of Heintzelman (1855) mentions as one of his principal divisions the Bi-lo- name which is the same as Balokai. The latter were Pomo of Potter Valley, according to Kroeber and al Barrett (p. 128). This group, Heintzelman says, inc 3,000 persons. However, he breaks them down into smaller divisions and says that "these Indians resid tween Clear Lake and the heads of Eel, Russian and Trinity Rivers." The six divisions are: Tar-toos, dam, Po-ma Pomes, Si-nras, Di-no-kis, and Du-che- calla-os. The Si-dam and Po-ma Pomes are undoubo Potter valley Pomo. The Si-mas, according to a per communication received from Dr. Barrett, are prob Yuki from the region of the headwaters of the South River (the tcimaia mentioned in the Ethnogeographyo the Pomo, 1908, p. 247). The Di-no-kis and the Du-d calla-os Dr. Barrett is unable to identify. The Tar-t are undoubtedly Huchnom (see Barrett's monograph,1 p. 256; also confirmed by personal communication). I number is given by Heintzelman as 1,600. This value 1855, bespeaks an aboriginal population not far from 2,000. Hence again the ethnographic method is suppo: by the estimate of the contemporary observer. n Huchnom 2 YUKI TOTAL.9 I' THE ATHAPASCANS AND THE YUKI If we total all the Yukian divisions, including the Coast kiand the Huchnom, we get 9,730 persons. Similarly, Athapascan tribes collectively give 15,450. The com- ed total is 25,180. Some of the groups, such as the nom and Huchnom, may have been overestimated, but swill be compensated by underestimates for other ups, such as the Onkolukomnom. If we accept as valid published ethnographic data of Barrett, Kroeber, ter. and Gifford, together with the manuscript mater- of Merriam, it is very difficult to fix the population the Athapascan and Yukian stocks at a figure much be- 25,000. Inthis connection it is interesting to consider the esti- tes of Heintzelman, because his figures for the Kato for the Huchnom have been shown to conform in gen- r ato those derived from village lists. Many of Heintzelman's Indian names cannot now be ntified and his localities are frequently vague and ob- e. However, a reasonably clear line can be drawn een the Pomo and those tribes living north of the mo. The first five groups mentioned in the report are un- uivocally Pomo. Then come the "Bi-lo-ki, Po-mes" hthe six divisions previously mentioned called Tar- s, Si-dam, Po-ma Pomes, Si-mas, Di-no-kis, and Du- -calla-os. The Si-dam and Po-ma Pomes are Potter lley Pomo. The Tar-toos are Huchnom. The Si-mas probably southeastern Yuki. The Di-no-kis and Du- -calla-os cannot be identified by Dr. Barrett (personal mmunication) and are therefore probably not Pomo. ce the whole group was said by Heintzelman to reside etween Clear Lake and the heads of Eel, Russian and nity Rivers" these two unidentified divisions may be cribed to the Yuki. The numerical aggregate of the rYukian divisions is 2,450. Following the Bi-lo-ki on Heintzelman's list are the -che-pomas who inhabit the east part of Kinamoo Val- and the "Eel River Mountains,'' 40 miles northeast of proposed site, i.e., Fort Bragg. Covelo is almost ex- ly40 airline miles northeast of Fort Bragg. Barrett 908, p. 249, fn.) says that the Pomo name for Round ley is maca-kai. and quotes another variant, Me-sha- . In a personal communication he states his belief t Round Valley is here referred to. Along with the -che-pomas Heintzelman lists the Be-dar-ke- sill, ch he says are found in the south part of Trinity uty and the north part of Mendocino County, 50 miles mFort Bragg. Since the name cannot be identified, people may be allocated on the basis of location alone the southern part of the Wailaki. The aggregate popu- onofthese two groups is given as 2,100. The next seven names on Heintzelman's list are the -toos, Ba-tims, Kab-in-a-toos, Kon-ispilla, Koss-ill- h-u-pomas, Kam-ill-el-pomas, and So-as. These are stated to be north of the selected site, Fort Bragg, ththe most remote tribe 35 miles away. In his textual ement Heintzelman says that he went up the coast as as Cape Mendocino, but from his times and distances appears more likely that he reached approximately the lendocino - Humboldt County line before turning east- rd and going inland. This would bring him just about Dor 40 miles above Fort Bragg. It has already been pointed out that the first two names of this group, Car-toos and Ba-tims, refer to the Kato. Dr. Barrett thinks that the third name, Kab-in-a-toos, may possibly be the Kabenapo of Clear Lake. He says (personal communication): We know that the Lake people visited the coast. Perhaps Heintzelman encountered some of these kabenapo over on a salt-gathering expedition to some point on the coast north of Fort Bragg. If Barrett is correct, then this tribe must be excluded from the present ennumeration. The Kon-is-illa cannot be traced, yet the name has definite similarity to the Coast Yuki name (Pomo form) Kabesillah, as given by Kroeber in the Handbook (p. 212). Koss-ill-man-u-pomas cannot be identified, but Barrett says that Kam-ill-el- pomas is the same as kamalal pomo, a name given by the Pomo to the Coast Yuki (1908, p. 260). The term So-as is thought by Barrett to refer to the village sosatca in Sherwood Valley. All these groups are clearly stated by Heintzelman to lie north of Fort Bragg. Nevertheless, in view of the possibility that Kah-in-a-toos may represent Clear Lake inhabitants and that the So-as may be a village in Sher- wood Valley, and hence be Pomo, these two divisions may be ommitted from consideration. The remainder may with considerable safety be ascribed either to the Coast Yuki, the Kato, or perhaps the Sinkyone on the coast above the Yuki. The total for the five divisions is 1,700 persons. The next five names on Heintzelman's list are quite definitely Northern Pomo. Then come, as the last two tribes, the Ki-pomas and the Yo-sol-pomas. The former were said to inhabit Kinomo Valley, 40 miles from Fort Bragg, and the latter to live on the coast 50 miles north of Fort Bragg. According to Barrett, the Ki-pomas are probably the Kai Pomo of Powers (1908, p. 279, fn.). If so, they lived not in Kinomo Valley (Round Valley) but in the area between the headwaters of the South Fork of the Eel River and the Middle Fork of the Eel. Thus they must have been Athapascan, whether Kato. Sinkyone or Wailaki, it is now impossible to say. The Yo-sol-pomas are probably the Yu-sal Pomo of Powers, who were an Athapascan people near Usal, on the coast above Westport (see Barrett, 1908, p. 260). The Ki-pomas and the Yo-sol-pomas had a combined population of 2,200. Thereafter Heintzelman says: "From the Yo-sol-pomas to Eel River on the north, and east to the ridge from Humboldt to Kin-a-moo Valley there cannot be less than four thousand...... The area thus delineated is very ambiguous. It may be taken roughly, however, as embracing -- according to the gen- eral map in Kroeber's Handbook -- the southern third of the territory of the Mattole and Sinkyone, together with that of the Kato and the Wailaki. To this must be added the region which includes all branches of the Yuki. The population estimates based upon the village lists of the ethnographers are as follows: one-third the Sinky- one, 970; one-third the Mattole, 400; the Kato, 1,100, the W-iilaki, 3,350; and the Yuki as a whole, 9,730. The gen- eral total is 15,550. By comparison Heintzelman'sfigure [109] 1. I. I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS for approximately the same area is 12,450. Considering the imponderable and unassessable factors involved in both computations the correspondence is remarkably close, particularly in view of the fact that Heintzel was not in the region until 1855, at which time the lation was by no means aboriginal. 110 THE POMO MFrom a poverty of ethnographic material with the &re northerly tribes we pass to an embarassment of s with the Pomo. (Barrett, 1908; Gifford, 1923, 1926; tord and Kroeber, 1937; Kniffen, 1939; Stewart, 1943). first major study was that of Barrett in 1908. rett's principal contribution was a painstakingly com- list of Pomo tribes, villages, and camp sites as re- edby his informants during the years 1903 to 1906. wever he missed the significance of the Pomo com- ty style of social organization with its implications evaluation of village size and importance and hence able population. Moreover, many of his place names e since been shown to be wrongly applied. His work mains therefore chiefly valuable as a compilation and eck list against more recent and more critical work. Gifford's two papers (1923, 1926) stand as models of estigation of a single social unit, the village of Cigom. y are useful in a wider sense as a point of departure a basis for comparison with other communities, par- arly in the Clear Lake region. The work of Gifford Kroeber (1937), although primarily dealing with cul- al matters, contains much pertinent information con- nring the sixteen communities investigated together th several paragraphs pertinent to the population prob- Kniffen (1939) made a careful study of the geographi- and ecological status of certain selected groups: the ar Lake area, the Kacha of Russian River, and the st Pomo. Steward (1943) reviewed the boundaries villages of all groups except a few on Clear Lake, ing also the ecological approach. When one attempts to establish what were the Pomo mmunity groups and chief villages, he encounters a at deal of divergence of opinion on detail among these estigators, due largely to differences among inform- s. Without extensive field work, which might in fact be impossible, many of the discrepancies cannot be solved. On the whole, the later students appear to have me closer to the truth and are probably more reliable. CLEAR LAKE POMO Gifford said (1937, p. 122) that there were 11 com- nties on Clear Lake. Kniffen reorganized them to e 12, after which Stewart returned to a count of 11. s last number, therefore, may be accepted as final. ch of them consisted of a single principal village of siderable size. A classical example is Cigom. Other abited spots within the community area have usually n recognized but whether they were permanent or fting villages or camp sites usually is not clear. For s reason the population has been discussed by ethnog- phers since Barrett simply on the basis of the group, hout much reference to the number of sites known to e existed. The single exception I would make to this cedure is to take account of the number (not neces- ily the names and location) of the villages known to e possessed assembly houses, since the presence of se implies some degree of permanence. A community hone capital village and several such accessory sites would, other things being equal, create the presumption of a larger aggregate population than a community with a capital village and one or no subsidiaries. There is a more definite population estimate for the Clear Lake region than we have for many other native groups. L. L. Palmer in his History of Napa and Lake Counties (1881), cites figures for the aboriginal popula- tion of the Clear Lake communities which he obtained from an informant who could well remember the days be- fore the advent of the white man. These figures have been subject to some disparaging criticism by more mod- ern students. The chief objection advanced is that the book is one of the many county histories which appeared as commercial ventures in the 1880's and which, on the whole, were very carelessly written. Palmer, however, as his text shows, was much interested in the fate of the natives and took considerable pains to secure informants who could give him data. There is no ground for impugn- ing either his honesty or his competence. Moreover, it is difficult to see why informants seventy years ago should be any less reliable than they are now. Hence I can see no reason for not accepting his figures as they stand, subject to the limitations of his informant's knowl- edge. With regard to those limitations it should be noted that the informant was a native of the Kulanapo community on the west side of the lake. He should therefore have had closest acquaintance with his own people and the adjacent group, the Habenapo. His figure for the Kulanapo was 500, a value which Kniffen attacks on the ground that Palmer's informant intentionally exaggerated the impor- tance of his own group. This is a wholly gratuitous as- sumption and inconsistent with the fact that, since more was known at that time about the west-shore people, his figures could easily have been checked, had they been widely at variance with the facts. In the second place. the figure for the Habenapo was given as 300. Now Barrett (1908, p. 194) quotes even more specificallyfrom Palmer: The Hoo-la-na-po (Kulanapo) tribe was just be- low the present site of Lakeport.... At one time there were two hundred and twenty warriors, and five hundred all told in the rancheria. They are now reduced to sixty. Sal-vo-di-no was their chief before the present one, Augustine. If we are going to discredit the testimony of the chief con- cerning his own village thirty years previously, we had better throw out along with it the information secured from septuagenarians who have to recount at second hand what their forefathers told them. Some confirmation of Palmer's figure for the Habenapo is given by Barrett (1908, p. 195), who mentions a state- ment from the Report of the Commissioner for Indian Affairs in 1858 referring to the Lupilomi. The latter in turn are identified by Barrett as the Habenapo. The Commissioner said: "Upon the Lupillomi ranch, near Clear Lake, there are some three hundred Indians." Al- though by 1858 there may have been some reduction and mixing of population. the identity is striking. Although the figures of Palmer's informant may be [l111] I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS relied upon for his home territory at the southwestern corner of the Lake, for the north, east, and southeast shores he may have been inaccurate, being less familiar with those sections. The chief evidence for such a con- clusion lies in the discrepancy between his figure for Cigom and that secured by Gifford after a meticulous and exhaustive examination of every individual who had lived in the village. Palmer's figure is 160 whereas Gifford's is 235. Thus Palmer's informant clearly underestimated, by a ratio of 2 to 3. Hence it is not unreasonable to in- crease Palmer's figures for the communities remote from the area of his informant. If we ignore for the moment Palmer's data and neglect individual differences between communities, it would be possible to take Gifford's figure of 235 for Cigom as rep- resenting the average for a Clear Lake community. The population of the area would then be 2,585. Let us, how- ever examine the eleven communities individually (fol- lowing Stewart's outline, 1943, App. 1, pp. 57 - 59). 1. Bachelor Valley and Tule Lake. Stewart gives Cinal as the principal village with Homtcati and Xaro as villages with assembly houses. In his text on page 41 he says that these villages plus Mamamamau "were occu- pied under the leadership of one chief." Hence there were at least three secondary or subsidiary "occupied" villages. In addition, in footnote 30 to page 41 he points out that Kniffen had set apart a portion of the area under the name of Yobotui. Kniffen (1939, p. 368) gives the Yobotui the status of an independent group and shows a principal village under that name on his map. The group, whether single (Stewart) or compound (Kniffen), was clearly of quite large size. This is in line with Palmer, whose informant gave a population of 120 for most of the group but set apart Yobotui with an additional 150. Stew- art's group, with two possible main and two or three sub- sidiary villages, is credited by Palmer with 270 people. Since the area lay in the extreme north, this estimate may be raised, in conformity with the Cigom case, by 50 per cent, making 405. 2. Scott's Valley. There were two groups here just prior to white settlement. The first was designated as the Boalke, Boilkai, or Yimaba, with one principal vil- lage Karaka (Stewart) or two "significant winter villages," Noboral and Karaka (Kniffen). Palmer's informant said they had 180 people and, since they lived near him, his figure may be accepted without change. The other group were the Komli, which are placed as a separate group by Stewart. All authorities agree, however, that they were Russian River natives who in relatively recent times migrated to Scott's Valley. Palmer says they had 90 peo- ple, a reasonable figure. The total for the two groups is thus 270. 3. Upper Lake. Here was a well defined group, with only one village, Xowalek. The History of Lake County gives them 150, which because of the distance from Lake- port may be increased to 225. 4. Another group in the same vicinity was the Danoxa, with a principal village of the same name plus either two or three villages with assembly houses. Palmer says they had 100 inhabitants, which may be increased to 150. From the number of villages it might be supposed that Danoxa was larger than Xowalek. But in giving the fig- ures Palmer's informant may have confused the two groups; 375 seems a reasonable value for the two to- gether. 5. Clear Lake, east. Gifford's value of 235 may be accepted without further comment for Cigom. 6. Lakeport. The status of the Kulanapo has already been discussed. Palmer's figure of 500 seems reasonable. 7. Kelseyville. The Habenapo are assigned a pOpl tion of 300. 8. 9, and 10. Lower Lake. The three groups inhal ing the entire region of the southeast were the Kamd Elem, and Koi. Each had a principal village plus fro two to four others with assembly houses. They are h the same terrain with and appear to be quite similar Cigom. Palmer gives for the three a total populatio 390, which, if increased by 50 per cent, would mean If. on the other hand, we regard them as being of the same character as Cigom we could multiply 235 by get 705. A curious contributory bit of evidence can be der' from Gifford's study of land ownership in this area( Gifford shows that the ownership of property at Cig was communal but at Kamdot, Elem, and Koi, it was family matter. He lists very carefully the exact ow ship of the tribal real estate. There were 22 tracts longing to the village of Cigom but 85 belonging tofa of Elem, 38 to families of Koi, and 57 to families of dot. From this we can derive the minimum number families for these places, for the tracts were simul ously owned by different families. Using a factor of persons per family the population of Elem would be In this connection it is of interest that Gifford durin same investigation found that two subsidiary villages were occupied simultaneously with the main village. he states (p. 86): "A second mainland overflow villi which was once contemporaneously inhabited with in Elem and mainland Behepkobel, was Mucokol ....". phasis mine.) A principal village the size of Cigom larger plus two accessory villages of only 100 each' bring the population to 435. Thus there can be little that Elem had fully 500 inhabitants. On the basis of ily number the figures for Koi and Kamdot would be spectively 228 and 342, or, say, 230 and 340. According to the data above the total population o Clear Lake basin was 3,155, which may be rounded 3,150. When Kroeber originally formulated an estin of the population of the Pomo communities, based lI upon Barrett's study, he set the average per commu at 100. Later (Gifford and Kroeber, 1937, p. 119) he duced the probable number of communities and rese population limits at 75-300, with a likely average of The average we get here is 287, considerably larger, Kroeber would allow. However, all the available ed seems to support the conclusion that, for the Clear region at least, the community size was somewhat l than stated by Kroeber. A puzzling secondary question is what disposition make of the Lileek, the small Wappo group associat with the Habenapo. These people came very late an tled among the Habenapo. probably after the effect white invasion farther south had begun to be felt. P informant said there were about 100 of them. They be added to the Habenapo but, in view of the doubt c cerning their origin and history, it is perhaps best t regard them entirely. Clear Lake Pomo NORTHERN POMO For the remainder of the Pomo we have no such clearly defined body of knowledge as for the Clear I group. Thus it is necessary to consider each subdivi or subtribe separately. As a preliminary step, howe I - 1 12 I COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST esirable to discuss the problem of house and family ir in so far as it relates to the Pomo. Gifford's analysis of Cigom we possess a remark- borough treatment of the demography of a single I, one which may be taken as representative of the ' tribe, with the exception of the portion lying along ast. At Cigom Gifford found 47 social groups or Is and 235 persons. The mean is 5.0 persons per , However this figure represents the period of md immediately thereafter, when the Clear Lake tion had already for several years suffered from ~t with the whites. Hence the aboriginal value must men higher. Indeed Gifford's study gives an amaz- ture of the demographic dissolution of the Pomo in dnineteenth century. Ong the 47 families there were 57 persons who Sescribed as "son" or "daughter" and were obvi- t or below the age of puberty at the period the in- s were recalling. This means only 1.21 children lily, far below the minimum number (2.0) neces- r replacement. Clearly the population was de- rapidly at that time. If there were 1.21 children family number was 5.0, the average number of l was 3.79. For simple equilibrium or stability, O we must assume existed in pre-white times, at children must be found in every family. Thus with ults there would have to have been a family number or say, 6.80 merely to maintain the population. bring the relative richness of the environment and ~te elaborate culture of the Pomo an average of 7.0 Do means excessive for the aboriginal Pomo. t the Clear Lake Pomo were in a deplorable state ime described by Gifford is attested by the state- of his informants concerning the subsequent fate i7 children mentioned in the text. Of these, 29, or br cent, "died young." Such a tremendous child ilty is quite consistent with our entire picture of tcontact decline in Indian population but is wholly hence with any reasonable concept of aboriginal con- Cigom Gifford found 20 houses, mostly of the multi- e so common among the Pomo. Three of the held 4 families, three held 3. twelve held 2, and Id 1. The average is 2.35 families per house or. Ls of persons, 11.75 per house. This is of course gnthe 1850 value of 5.0 persons per family. If we Xn aboriginal number of 7.0 persons per family, h number per house becomes 16.45 instead of 11.75. is study of Redwood Valley Kniffen (1939. pp. 373- ts the population at 125 and the number of houses rThis would mean 10.4 persons per house, quite $o Gifford's value for Cigom in or near 1850. is chapter on the Pomo Stephen Powers (1877) de- I the village of Senel (Sanel, Shanel) in the Russian alley (p. 168 and map). He shows on his map 104 and 5 assembly houses. The houses were large mtained according to his estimate 20-30 persons This estimate seems much too high. However, on rounds he puts the former population at 1,500 in- ts, a figure which is arrived at entirely independ- yan informant of Stewart (1943. p. 45). Indeed comments with reference to Powers that "my tion estimate and description closely approximate This means for 104 houses a mean of 14.42 occu- average of the three sets of data available give ersons per house, a figure which may be rounded 14.0 in view of the probability that Kniffen's esti- s a little low. It is noteworthy, furthermore, that neither Gifford nor Powers gives any indication that all the houses in the villages respectively studied were not simultaneously occupied. Indeed, with the multifamily system it is difficult to see how they could stand deserted for a considerable period of time. The Potter Valley groups.-Stewart paid particular attention to the Potter Valley groups and determined the central or capital villages to have been Canel, Sedam, and Pomo. Stewart also says that, whereas Canel was the main village in its area, Yamo was the most populous. Sedam was one of the largest villages in the valley and Pomo was somewhat smaller. By comparison with the Clear Lake towns it is appropriate to consider the three principal towns (including Yamo with Canel) as having approximately 200 inhabitants each, or 600 in all. The next question concerns peripheral or outlying villages, of which there were certainly a considerable number. Stew- art says that the Canel were "distributed" among 12 vil- lages (including Yamo). Moreover "my informant (JSm) insisted that these villages were all occupied at the same time . . . each having a 'curing' sweat house; however all were under one chief, and there was only one cere- monial or 'devil' house" (p. 40). Barrett (1908, fn. 129, p. 142) says his informant called three of these villages camps only. At the same time Barrett lists 9 villages, excluding Kachabida and Canekai, 6 of which correspond to villages of Stewart. Merriam lists 10 villages, only one of which is in addition to those of Barrett or Stewart. Although there is some overlap, it seems clear that there were at least 12 villages apart from Canel, Sedam, and Pomo. Of these Yamo has already been considered. Kachabida, mentioned by Barrett and Merriam, was one of those which migrated to the Clear Lake region shortly before 1850 and must therefore be excluded, since its people have already been counted among the Clear Lake Pomo. Canekai lay several miles to the northeast in the hills. It is simply shown by Stewart on his map as lying in the territory of Sedam. Merriam, however, calls it a "small tribe," the shanel-kaah, and cites Gibbs (1860). who men- tioned the group under the name of the Shanelkaya. Evi- dently a fair-sized village or minor subtribe once existed in the area. At least 100 persons must be ascribed to it. Deducting Yamo, Kachabida, and Canekai and three of Stewart's villages which Barrett said were camp sites there remain 11 villages supported by the word of at least one of the three above-mentioned authorities. Five are given by all three of them, 4 by two of them and 2 by one alone. It is safe therefore to allow 10 villages in addition to the 5 already accepted (i.e., Canel, Sedam, Pomo, Yamo, and Canekai). Concerning the size we have no data but they must all have been relatively small. Three houses each would seem a reasonable estimate, yielding at the Pomo rate of 14 persons per house 42 inhabitants for each village or 420 for the aggregate. Thus, counting 600 for Canel. Sedam, Pomo. and Yamo, 100 for Canekai, and 420 for the balance, we get 1,120 as the best estimate for the Potter Valley subtribes. Calpella and Redwood Valleys.-This area is divided by Stewart into two subtribes, the Masut of Calpella and the Katca of Redwood Valley. This course is also follow- ed by Kniffen who made a special investigation of the Kacha (Katca). On the other hand Merriam included both groups in his tribe, the Mah-soo-tah-ka-ah (his manu- script entitled "Northern Pomo"). The Kacha tribe all lived in the village given as Kacha by Kniffen and as Kabelal by Barrett, Merriam, and Stew- art. Kniffen says "there must have been about 125 people in the valley...", but gives no supporting data. He does. I 113 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS on the other hand, mention that the village had 12 houses (1939. p. 375). At the aboriginal Pomo number of 14.0 there should have been 168 instead of 125 inhabitants. It is quite possible that Kniffen was thinking in terms of the early 1850's and hence made a low estimate. It appears to the present writer that 170 is preferable. Masut is given by Barrett and Stewart as a village but by Merriam as a tribe. Another village near by, Chom- cha-de-lah (Merriam) or Chomchadila (Powers, Kroeber) is admitted by Stewart and in fact given as the main vil- lage in his appendix (p. 57). Stewart also adds two vil- lages, Diskabel and Kobida. It is evident that there were several villages closely clustered together. Stewart thinks there were four. Of these Masut and Chom-chah- de-lah were apparently large and the others perhaps small. We may allow 150 each for the larger ones and 50 each for the smaller, making 400 in all. The village of Matuku lay in the same territory. This is given the status of tribe by Merriam but was involved in the migrational movements between the Calpella re- gion and Clear Lake. Hence its population is difficult to evaluate. Perhaps 100 persons will be adequate. In near-by Coyote Valley lived the tribe called by Powers the Shodokaipomo. This seems to be the general name for the subtribe and perhaps also for one of their villages (Barrett and Merriam). In addition, Merriam, following Barrett, lists Shah-chahm-kah-oo (called Sha- shamkau by Kroeber). Powers (1877) in commenting on this group has this to say: "Mr. Christy states that there were between three hundred and four hundred (people) when he arrived." Since there is no specific reason to doubt Mr. Christy's word, we may set the population of the subtribe at 350. The total for the entire area is 1,020. There are for the Calpella-Redwood Valley region 8 reasonably well authenticated villages, as follows: Kabelal (Barrett, Merriam, Stewart) Masut (Barrett, Stewart) Chom- cha-de-lah (Powers, Barrett, Merriam, Stewart, Kroeber) Matuku (Barrett, Merriam, Stewart) Shodo-kai (Barrett, Merriam, Powers) Shah-chahm-kah-oo (Barrett, Merriam, Kroeber) Diskabel (Stewart) Kobida (Stewart) Of these five may be regarded as principal villages and hence large; the others may have been small. The aver- age for all together is 127 persons per village. If we allow 175 persons for each of the larger ones, we must assume 50 for the smaller. These figures seem of the correct order of magnitude. Willits Valley.-The tribe inhabiting Willits Valley ex- tended from the inland valleys clear to the coast. Stewart makes it clear, however, in contradistinction to Barrett, that they had no permanent villages actually on the coast before they moved in that direction ahead of the American advance to the north. The Northern Pomo thus, unlike the Coast Yuki, lived a long distance inland and traveled to the seashore only as occasion demanded from time to time. Stewart lists 9 village sites: Mitom, the principal vil- lage; Tsamonda, a small village; Nabo; Talel, with 8 dwelling pits; Tsaka, with 8 pits; Bakau; Cotsiu; Kacebal; and one of unknown name. He says that there is no evi- dence that all these were occupied at the same time, but "several must have been occupied simultaneously be- cause five were occupied by the parents of Indians still living. " Much light is thrown on the situation in Willits V and adjacent areas by the work of Merriam (in the script "Northern Pomo"). Merriam splits the nativ to three dialectic subgroups: the But-kow-hah-po- of upper Outlet Creek, the Sho-jul-po-ma of eastern Little Lake Valley, and the Met-tum-mah of Willits ley proper. The But-kow-hah-po-mah had a principal village kow-hah- chut -te, corresponding to Stewart's Bakau "3-4 rancherias." If we allow 150 for the main vi and a possible 25 each for the outlying rancherias, get 250 for the group. This seems quite reasonable. a small, somewhat isolated subtribe. The Sho-mul-po-mah had for a principal village tse-yu-chut-te, which is mentioned by Barrett and responds to Stewart's Cotsiu. In addition, Merri from Barrett 6 other villages, 4 of which he confira villages. One of these, Tah-nah-kum-chut-te, he s contained a sweathouse having a capacity of 200 peo According to a principle enunciated by Powers (p. 1 but which is of somewhat doubtful validity, the capa of a sweathouse or assembly house is equivalent to third of the population. Thus the Sho-mul-po-mahl have had 600 people. However, if we allow that the cipal village, by analogy with Kasha, had 175 and each of the villages of Barrett which were confirme Merriam had 4 dwelling houses each (i.e., 56 people then the population would be computed at 400. In the Mitom region Merriam is very explicit. mentions Me-to-mah- chut-te, which corresponds to4 art's Mitom, and says that it was the "name applied Me-tum-mah to all their villages in Metumki of Litt Lake Valley. There were 4 important permanent w villages containing about 600 people." These 4 villi were, according to Merriam: Cha-bo-cha-kah-chut Po-ka-hil-chut-te, She-o-kah-lau-chut-te, and Tsab chut-te. The last corresponds to Stewart's Tsaka. the first village he says it contained 40 to 50 house This must be excessive for it would mean a populati 560 persons in this village alone. Stewart says that Tsaka had 8 pits, or 112 persons. If we reduce the, for Cha-bo-cha-kah-chut-te to 300 instead of 560, w still accept Merriam's figure of 600 for the group of We still have to account for Kah-be-shal-chut-te Barrett and Merriam (Stewart's Kabecal). Tsam-mo dah-chut-te of Barrett and Merriam (Stewart's Tsa Nabo of Merriam and Stewart (also mentioned by Gi and Talel of Stewart. Talel and Nabo may have beeW of the Mitom complex but Tsamonda and Kabecal ar distant. If Tsamonda was small, as Stewart says, may allow 50 inhabitants. Kabecal must have conta at least 100. For the entire area, including all three of Merria linguistic groups, we get a population of 1,650 inhab Sherwood Valley.-In this valley lived the Mato o Mato-poma of Stewart. or the Mah-to-poma of Mer whose permanent villages were inland but who ran large territory extending to the coast. According to Stewart there were three minor divisions of the gro with three permanent villages, Mato, Kabedile, and kau. each of which had its own chief. On no other evi dence would we be justified in ascribing 200 persons. each subgroup. Stewart says (p. 33): "The best guei of my informants placed the primitive population at 500 persons, half of them in the main village of Matol That would give 250 to Mato and 125 each to Kabedile Kulakau. This estimate appears too low, particularly since the informants were all born in the 1860's, tweX years after the first contact with the white man. a 114 COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST (in his "Northern Pomo, " together with a manuscript entitled "Sherwood Valley ranch- ranscribed and checked Barrett's village list. his custom he initialed in ink those names which med by independent investigation, leaving un- hose for the existence of which he considered certain evidence. For Sherwood Valley he names. Of these. 3 were taken from Barrett onfirmation, leaving 22. Seven of the latter are Merriam alone, in addition to those appearing t's list. Merriam mentions Mah-to-chutte and chah-tah, each of which he says was a "big Ia." It is very probable that these were variants e name or were parts of the same village. ey may be combined as representing Stewart's Merriam also mentions Kah-ba-de-la-chut-te and -be-dah-chut-te. which appear to be variants art's Kabedile. Also included are Bo-shahm- (Bocamkutci), Cha-bo-tse-y-chut-te (Kabotsiu), nah-shil-chut-te (Tanacil), all of which are Stewart (p. 35) to have been parts of Kulakau. duces Merriam's effective list to 17. is stated by Merriam to have been a "big ran- This is in line with Stewart's impression that e contained at least 250 persons. This number refore be accepted without much hesitation. (or Kah-baht-be-da-chut-te) is said by Merriam had 30 to 40 house holes. He also mentions the the Mexicans perpetrated a massacre here in inthe course of which 25 were killed and many n stolen for slaves. If we take the lower limit d for houses and reduce one-third, we still get able 20 houses, which at 14 persons per house a minimum population of 280 persons. Stewart Kulakau and the three villages considered to be of it equal rank with Mato and Kabedile. Merriam of Cha-bo-tse-y-chut-te (Kobotsiu) that it was a Ilage." Hence we may safely ascribe 250 persons town. rriam adds certain comments on the villages. Boo- -chut-te had a "big round house." Che-ah-po-y- was of "fair size but no roundhouse." She-ko- ut-te consisted of "two big rancherias and round- The other 10 villages are listed merely by lo- without additional information. We encounter here stance of the perplexity which pursues us t the Pomo area. We must accept either the word or Barrett and Merriam that there were rous subsidiary villages inhabited in Sherwood Val- uring aboriginal times or the word of Stewart that weere not. At this point it must be emphasized that by 1840 the Northern Pomo had been invaded anish-Mexicans from the San Francisco Bay region ethir aboriginal social order had been partially dis- d. Furthermore, we know that they had been ex- tdto serious inroads by disease, such as the great ,4lpox epidemic of the 1830's. In particular, that of p, the so-called "Miramontes epidemic,' began at tt Ross and is known to have seriously involved the aian River Valley. There is much reason to believe, 'efore that the population decline began by 1830, with accompanying shifting and consolidation of villages. h Barrett and Merriam did their field work among the aofrom 1900 to 1910, say as an approximate date 1905. eventy-year-old informant at that time could thus ac- ly remember the year 1840. But a similar individual 935 could remember of his own knowledge only to 1870. Nould have to draw on second- and third-hand infor- ion imparted by his forefathers. As Stewart (p. 29) says of one of his Sherwood Valley informants his "fa- ther's father told JMc of 'old times'." It is hardly to be expected that an old man could very accurately transmit population data secured as a small boy at his grandfather's knee. For these reasons I think Merriam's village names cannot be discarded. unless specific evidence proves that they are errors. They must be accepted as villages which at one time were inhabited. There remains of course the possible contingency that some of these places had been abandoned before the advent of the first white influence or that they were spots inhabited for a short time during the upheaval accompanying the American invasion. Since there is no conceivable way in which we may ascertain the true facts in detail, perhaps some arbitrary correc- tion is desirable. Consequently the following procedure is suggested: estimate the population on the basis of all the Merriam names, then reduce by one-third. Such a method should take care of all instances of temporary villages, camp sites etc. Applying the above principles, we may assign 150 in- habitants to Boo-tah-kah-chut-te ("big roundhouse"), 50 to Che-ah-po-y-chut-te ("fair-sized but no roundhouse"), and 200 to She-ko-ki-chut-te ("two big rancherias and roundhouse"). Two houses, or say 30 persons, may be allocated to the other 10 sites of Merriam. The total would then be 700, which, reduced by one-third, gives as a final value 470. For the Mato-pomo as a whole the population figure is 1,250. It is difficult to see how a much lower figure could be set for the area. For the Northern Pomo collectively there has been derived a population estimate of 5.040. It is of interest to compare this figure with the values cited by Heintzel- man. This officer listed eight names which can be indenti- fied as falling within the group being discussed. They are as follows. 1. Si-dam. This is sedam of Barrett (1908, p. 141) and of Stewart (1943, p. 41), located in Potter Valley. 2. Po-ma Pomes. This is pomo of Barrett and Stewart, likewise in Potter Valley. 3. Kal-il-na-pomas. This group was located between Martoo (Sherwood) and Metumki (Little Lake) valleys and is possibly equivalent to kalal- nokca, a village below Ukiah (Barrett, personal communication). However the habitat specified by Heintzelman does not support Barrett's surmise. The group undoubtedly lived much to the north of Ukiah. 4. She-bal-na-pomas. These were in Sherwood Valley and are referred to by Barrett (1908, p. 147, fn.) as the Shi-bal-ni Pomo. 5. Calli-tal-pomas. Dr. Barrett is unable to identify the name but the people lived in the same vicinity as the tribes mentioned previously. It is possible that they may have been the kabelal of Stewart (1943, p. 39). 6. Yo-pomas. Dr. Barrett thinks (personal com- munication) that this term may signify Yo kai pomo ("south valley people") who would have lived near Ukiah. But Heintzelman states that they lived be- tween Kinomo (Round) Valley and Martoo (Sherwood) Valley, and hence must have been Northern Pomo. 7. Maa-to-ma-pomas. With regard to these people Dr. Barrett writes me as follows: "Pos- sibly refers to Little Lake or Willits Valley people mtormkai, or bitomkai (1908, p. 128, fn.), or to a 115 116 mitoma, on a knoll in the town of Willits 145)." The latter hypothesis appears tU probable (Stewart, 1943, p. 36 ff., discu. subtribe at length). Heintzelman adds t] tion that the Maa-to-ma-pomas are divi seven tribes, of which the Sho-he-shas numerous. Barrett (1908, p. 146, fn.) th the latter people are the Chow-e-chak o Heintzelman further says that the territ ered extends from Metumki (Little Lake the coast. 8. So-as. Barrett considers (perso munication) that this name refers to the sosa-tca, in Sherwood Valley (cf. 1908, Irrespective of conflicts in terminology Heintzelman fairly well covered the area u to the Northern Pomo under the eight desi; listed. His total population value is 5,350, E than but very close to the estimate derived graphic data (i.e., 5,040). This close corro will be seen as specially significant when X amine his report on the Central and Southe Northern Pomo CENTRAL POMO Ukiah.-In the Ukiah area are included art's subtribes: the Yokaia of Ukiah VallE of Largo, the Cokoa of Hopland, and the Yo There are all consolidated by Merriam in entitled "Tribe List of Yo-ki-ah Pomo" ar sidered together. Stewart is very positive that these four in one central village. He says regarding "Although several villages are given by Be area, there is no doubt that during the wint population was concentrated in one main vi Regarding the Cokoa: "Politically, as wel ically, the Cokoa resembled the Yokaia. B single central village of importance where was concentrated" (p. 43). Merriam credi 37 village names, to which he adds none hi 37 he confirms only 13. Since the other 24 doubtful, they may be excluded. Of Merria says specifically that three were camps no villages. Two, Kah-chi-o (Katcayo) and Sh (Caneneu) were proved by Stewart to have ( subsequent to the white invasion. One may Booneville tribe and another is a tribal, no name. Four, Kah-ka-eu (Cokadjal), Ko-lo- Lema (Ciego), and Shanel (Canel) were the as stated by Stewart. There remain unacc Bok-shah (Barrett's Bokca), regarding whi says it had a sweathouse and was "practic, nent," and Katch-a-wah-low. Merriam's c thus coincide to a remarkable degree with art and justify the assumption that, where I tigators clearly differ, considerable weighl given to Merriam's account. The largest of the four main villages wa Shanel. Comment has already been made u that both Stephen Powers' and Stewart's inl ceding from entirely different premises, ri clusion that the town had a primitive populz This figure therefore, however incredible, ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS I , (ibid., p. cepted. It is noteworthy in passing that if we apply ie more family number of 14 to the 104 houses shown by Pow sses this on his map of the town, the population is computed he informa- 1,456, almost identical with the other estimates. ded into For the Yokaia, originally settled at Cokadjal, St are the most says: "The population ... has been variously estim iinks that from 500-1,000 persons ...... Since such estimates )f M'Kee. likely to be somewhat low, and in view of the size of tory cov- Canel, we may take the upper limit, 1,000 inhabitant e) Valley to The status of Lema (Ciego) is dubious. Stewart the people had no chief and the tribe was composed nal com- "soldiers." The town was very well known at the t' * village of of white occupation, however, and must have held at p. 147). 150 persons. The Yobakeya at Koloko were also warlike and St it appears that calls them a "small group." But he also says that isually assigned of his informants told him there were about 60 survil gnations just of the tribe in his youth (approximately 1865). This slightly greater argues an aboriginal membership of at least 300 per I from ethno- For the Yo-ki-ah linguistic subdivision of the No espondence Pomo as presented by Merriam the collective popul we come to ex- is thus estimated at 2,950. irn Pomo. Point Arena.-The Point Arena area is a large te tory comprising 300 square miles along the coast. ... . . . ..5, 0 4 0 a r t d e s i g n a t e s i t s o c c u p a n t s t h e B o k a y a a n d i n c l u d e s three subtribes centering in the villages of Kauca, and Lacupda. Merriam separates two groups, the which included Kauca and Pdahau, and the Kan-no- the Lacupda people ("Tribe List of Bo-yah" and "T List of Kan-no-ah"). four of Stew- One of Stewart's informants, a woman born about ey, the Ciego said that the aggregate population was 380. This ap bakeya of Echo. much too low. Merriam lists 29 villages, of which his manuscript are taken from Barrett without confirmation. On th nd will be con- other hand Stewart says (p. 48) regarding Pdahau:" is no doubt that other villages were occupied conte tribes all lived raneously with it, although it was impossible to get the Yokaia: exact status of all the sites mentioned by Barrett." arrett for this the acceptance of some of Barrett's and Merriam's ter months the lages must be considered. illage" (p. 43). Merriam's list includes Stewart's three mainvil 1 as geograph- It also includes Itcetce and Kodalau, which Stewart Both had a were settled after the American occupation. Merri the population also gives the following, some of which are on Barr its Barrett with list: mself. Of the of Barrett are 1. Kah-bim-mo ("permanent village") m's 13 Stewart 2. Kah-sha-lem ("permanent village, large town t permanent Inhabitants moved many years ah-na-na-oo to Cha- cha. Used as slaves by existed only man named Shoemaker.") r belong to the 3. Kah-sil-shah-ko ("acorn camp and winter t a village, rancheria") -ko (Koloko), 4. Kah-ya-a-lin ("acorn camp and winter main villages, rancheria") ounted for only 5. Kup-pish-ko ("permanent village") ich Merriam 6. Shah-dah ("permanent village") ally perma- 7. We-chahl (of the Kan-no-ah, "very large per- conclusions manent village") those of Stew- the two inves- The remaining 17 village names are credited to Bar t should be without comment or confirmation. Suppose we accept the values put on Pdahau, Kauci as Canel, or and Lacupda by Stewart's informant, i.e., respective lpon the fact 200, 100, and 80. Then we should allow 150 each for formants, pro- Merriam's "large" villages, nos. 2 and 7 above. T eached the con- other five were apparently small and may be conced ation of 1,500. 30 persons each. Of the final 17 sites it will be fair must be ac- admit the probably simultaneous existence of two-thir U Ii I COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST em, or let us say 12, at the rate of 30 persons per e. The total for the area then becomes 1,190 in- tants. Using Stewart's figure of 300 square miles for area the density would thus be 3.97 persons per e mile or less than Gifford found for the Coast Yuki. an estimate seems extremely conservative. oneville and Yorkville.-In this area are found the eyaof Booneville, which Stewart puts among the ern Pomo, and the Danokeya of Yorkville. The cor- nding names used by Merriam are the Lah-ta and Ta-bo-ta. Very little is known of either group. art mentions the village of Lemkolil near Booneville Late and Maboton in the Yorkville region. Merriam s Barrett's list (in his manuscript entitled "Ta-bo- Lah-ta") without comment. For the Ta-bo-ta are 10 villages and for the Lah-ta 9. Since we have lutely no other leads we may assign the three main es 100 inhabitants each, and deduct one-third from remainder to allow for Barrett's nonpermanent sites. re would then be 10 presumptive villages with 30 ns each, or 300 for all of them. The total popula- for the two groups together would then be 600. Stewart's Point.-The tribe at Stewart's Point is nasthe Kacia (Stewart) or the Kah-chi-a (Merriam, auscript entitled "Tribe List of Kah-chi-a pomo"). included are Stewart's Yotiya of the Southern Pomo, oup for which I find no account in Merriam's notes. Stewart has made a particularly exhaustive study of group and states that the population range extended 800 to 1,200 persons. Merriam gives 82 names of es. Stewart makes it quite clear that aboriginally Kacia had no permanent settlements on the coast lf, All their villages were at least four or five miles nd, except Mitini and Powicana. We must delete refore all the coastal villages of Barrett and Merriam ept the two mentioned. This immediately removes 27 bes, leaving 55. Of tbese, 16 are mentioned by Stewart "villages which were occupied more or less perma- ly" (p. 50). Five of them had assembly houses. Of remaining 39 sites, 30 are confirmed by Merriam Barrett's list or are given by him in addition to rett. If we consider that the larger. known population he villages such as Mitini balances errors in Mer- 's list and the mean number of persons per village 1 30, then the total for the group is 46 times 30, or 80. To this should be added, according to Stewart, 100 the Yotiya. making 1,480 in all. This is somewhat, not excessively, greater than Stewart's estimate. ?or the Central Pomo as a whole we may turn once re to the record left by Heintzelman. For the area e being considered he lists five tribes. 1. Uk-a-is. These are stated to be located "above the canyon of the Russian River," and are obviously the villages grouped around Ukiah. A discussion of the Yokaia is given by Stewart (1943, ipp. 43-45). 2. Sinals. This term clearly refers to the vil- klage of Shanel, already mentioned with respect to population. 3. Bo-kas. These were located "in the vicinity [of Fort Ross" and included no doubt the Bokeya of Point Arena as well as the survivors around Fort Ross. j!r 4. Ta-bi-tas. These were "in Anderson's Val- ley" and refer to the inhabitants of the village Tabate (Kroeber and Stewart) or to the group called the Pdateya by Stewart. 5. Bo-i-os. These were located "south of Booldam River on the coast," in other words south of Big River near the boundary between the North- ern and Central Pomo. Since the region of Ukiah, Hopland. Booneville, Point Arena, and Fort Ross was well explored and even ex- tensively settled by 1855, it is entirely probable that Heintzelman recorded all the existing natives of the area. Regardless of terminology the five names above leave no important fraction of the territory unaccounted for. Heintzelman's total for the population is 2,100, a figure which should be compared with the value of 6,220 obtained through the use of village lists, together with house and family number. For the Athapascan and Yukian peoples, as well as for the Northern Pomo, a marked correspondence could be observed between the two sets of data, even though en- tire identity could not be achieved. For the Central Pomo, on the other hand, there is a striking disparity: the Heintzelman estimate reaches only one-third the value obtained from ethnographic sources. Since Heintzelman could reach his maximum accuracy among the relatively well known Central Pomo, as opposed to the remoter northern groups, we cannot ascribe his low count to igno- rance or carelessness on his part. The most reasonable explanation is that the Central Pomo had already by 1855 suffered a reduction in population of from one-half to two-thirds of the aboriginal level. Such an hypothesis is entirely consistent with all we know of Mexican and American settlement in Sonoma and southern Mendocino counties and, furthermore, tends to lend support to the much higher figures reported by Heintzelman for the more northerly tribes. Central Pomo ...... . 6,220 SOUTHWESTERN POMO This group, consisting principally of the Kacia of Stewart's Point, has already been discussed under the Central Pomo. SOUTHERN POMO In this area lived five large groups, named variously by different students, centering around Dry Creek, Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Santa Rosa. and Sebastopol. The Pomo residue, mentioned by Barrett, and others who sur- vived in Alexander Valley are here omitted since they may be more appropriately considered as contributing to the predominantly Wappo population. Likewise, the vil- lage of Wilok, east of Santa Rosa, is probably considered more satisfactorily in conjunction with the neighboring Wappo. Modern ethnographic data are of little value for esti- mating the population of the Southern Pomo, however carefully it may have been secured. The Spanish and Mexican missionaries, accompanied by the military, en- tered the area certainly before 1820 and by the year 1835 the Southern Pomo had been relocated in the missions, conscripted for labor, or carried off by disease. Shortly after 1840 the Americans began to appear and as a result the original village pattern was completely disrupted. Hence it is relatively useless to compute population from the sites which in recent years have been remembered I 1 1 7 ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS by Indian or white informants. Merriam, following Bar- rett, lists about 80 village names but in very few in- stances endorses Barrett's findings by subscribing his initials. To attempt any detailed analysis of these sites would serve no useful purpose whatever. It is clear from the opinions expressed by Kroeber and Stewart that the Southern Pomo exhibited the same general type of social organization as the Central Pomo, namely, a splitting into subtribes with each of the latter inhabiting a single, large main village. Several of these have been reasonably well identified, some by modern ethnographers and some by the early missionaries and civil contemporaries. There are 15, the existence of which is sufficiently well assured. They are as follows: 1. Amalako 2. Amako 3. Makahmo 4. Amatio 5. Kale 6. Mukakotcali 7. Wotokkaton 8. Tsoliikawai 9. Batiklechawi 10. Masikawani 11. Hukabetawi 12. Kabetsiuwa 13. Gualomi 14. Chichiyomi 15. Levantoyome Dry Creek Stewart Cloverdale Stewart, Merriam Cloverdale Stewart, Merriam, Kroeber Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam Healdsburg Merriam, Kroeber Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam Sebastopol Merriam. Kroeber Sebastopol Stewart, Merriam Santa Rosa Merriam, Kroeber Santa Rosa Stewart, Merriam Santa Rosa Mission records. Merriam Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam If each of these fifteen villages had a population of only 300 Indians, a low value considering the huge con- gregations in the Ukiah-Hopland region, the total for the Southern Pomo could be set at 4,500. There is a little contributory evidence to be obtained from the mission records. These documents, which are to be found in the Bancroft Library of the University of California, include baptism records for the missions of San Rafael and Solano, those which drew upon the Pomo for converts. Up to 1834 there had been baptized 268 persons from Levantoyome, 90 from Gualomi. and 44 from Chichiyome. Conversions in peripheral areas like that of the Southern Pomo were always far from complete, particularly at the end of the mission period. Many of the natives were killed in the incessant skirmishes and massacres of the time, many were enslaved directly by rancheros, many died of disease, but by far the greatest number simply fled the approach of the white man. It is quite reasonable to suppose that not more than one-third of the natives were ever actually brought into the mis- sions for conversion. This would mean an average of 402 persons for the three subtribes or villages just men- tioned, Levantoyome. Gualomi, and Chichiyome. Ex- tended to the entire 15 known principal villages, the total would be 6,030. A second possible method consists of area-density comparisons. The over-all density in the sum of the Potter Valley, Calpella, and Ukiah areas can certainly have been no greater than that originally existing in the region of the Southern Pomo, for of all the Pomo subdivi- sions the southern group possessed the most favorable habitats and the most prolific food supply. The popula- tion found for the three northern areas mentioned above was 5,090 and the area according to Stewart (pp. 57-59) was 585 square miles. The density was thus 8.70 per square mile. The corresponding value for the Lake Pomo is 7.34. The area of the Southern Pomro cluding the five groups discussed here was 745 squ miles. At the northern density of approximately8 per square mile the population would have been 5,96 The two methods employed therefore yield esse similar results and make possible the estimate of 6 persons for the Southern Pomo. According to Alexander Taylor (1860-63. Ser. I, page 5) Captain J. B. R. Cooper, an American, went Santa Rosa as early as 1827. Apparently following statements Taylor says "it was estimated" that 2,0 Indians lived in Sonoma Valley and 1,500 in Santa R Valley. In another place (Ser. I, folio page 3) Tayl states that "when Capt. Cooper settled the Molino in Santa Rosa Valley. in 1834, there were living in neighborhood as many as 2,000 Canimares." The l term refers of course to the southeastern portion of Southern Pomo. We should not accept these pioneer estimates of population without examination and qualification. Ne should we reject them, equally uncritically, as auto cally exaggerated and mendacious, and hence wort It is quite likely that Cooper knew more about the n ber of Indians on his ranch than any other white ma the time or since. It is relatively unlikely that Coo had any motive for propagating a completely false r On the other hand, it is wholly possible that Cooper have been inaccurate or careless in his count. Neve less the Cooper estimate is quite in conformity with other sources of population information. It was stated previously that 402 baptisms are on ord from three rancherias in the Santa Rosa area. these may be added 220 others whose names are cle Pomo in character, making a total of 622. At the r three aboriginal inhabitants to one baptism in this r the territory concerned -- and this is very close to Cooper's home -- would have contained 1,866 peopl mission data thus in general support Cooper's figu Cooper says that in 1834 there were "in his nei hood" 2,000 Canimares. Since the Molino ranch e the region north of Sebastopol and west of Santa Ro "neighborhood" may be considered as including the Sebastopol and Santa Rosa groups of the Southern leaving the Healdsburg, Cloverdale, and Dry Creek beyond his horizon. The estimates cited by Taylor rather ambiguously to the period between 1827 and let us say roughly 1830. The earliest Pomo conver which are recognizable from the mission records w at San Rafael in 1820. These Pomo had therefore subjected to intense missionization for at least ten prio]; to Cooper's appearance. The population conse quently must have been seriously depleted when he saw the Santa Rosa Valley. If we disregard entirely the factor of depletion a accept Cooper's 1834 estimate of 2,000 Canimares Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, we may allow an equiva population for the other three Southern Pomo provi This yields a total of 5,000. If we attempt to make correction for depletion, we very quickly reach the already arrived at by other methods, viz., 6,000. That a comprehensive population reduction was i progress throughout the era of 1820 to 1850 and late attested by the report of Major Heintzelman. His f for the Northern Pomo, it will be recollected, was nitely within the range of the population determined ethnographic data. His value for the Central Pomo only one-third of that computed by other methods,, I . i 118 COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST Icrepancy was accounted for on the basis of the decline lmbers from the first white contact to 1855, the year leintzelman's trip. At the end of his report he makes 0statement that "south of the Canion of the Russian ter there are about eight hundred indians." In other tds. the Southern Pomo (which all lie south of the can- ihad dwindled to no more than 800. The converse ralso be maintained. Since Heintzelman had a very d check on the population of the well-settled south and be, according to all known testimony, the attrition lng the Indians of this area had been appalling during ,preceding 30 to 40 years, it follows that the original plation must have been very much greater than that oeded by Heintzelman. Hence a level of several thou- dmaybe accepted. Southern Pomo 6,000 NORTHEASTERN POMO iThis little tribe, living on the border of the Sacra- rto Valley, has never been investigated thoroughly. Barrett (1908) listed 13 rancherias but Merriam's in formants (manuscript entitled "Sho-te-ah or North- eastern Pomo Tribe and Villages") allowed only 7. At 50 persons per village this would indicate a population of about 350. Northeastern Pomo ..... . . 350 SUMMARY The figures advanced here give the Pomo as a whole a population of 20,760 individuals. This is three times Kroeber's estimate but conforms to the general level found in this review of the Northwest California tribes. POMO TOTAL 20,760 1 19 I THE COAST MIWOK According to the maps shown by Barrett (1908) and by Kroeber (1925), the Coast Miwok occupied an area of approximately 885 square miles in Marin and southern Sonoma counties. A projection of the Pomo value of 8.0 persons per square mile would give 7,080 for the Coast Miwok, a result which appears much too high. A careful collection of former village sites through modern informants has never been possible, even at the beginning of the present century, because Marin County was infiltrated by the Spanish and the Indian life was thus disrupted at a very early date. Indeed the first recogniz- able Coast Miwok baptism was at San Francisco in 1783. Barrett and Kroeber have assembled, to be sure mainly from the tradition handed down to informants by their ancestors, a quite impressive list of villages. Barrett (1908, pp. 303-314) gives 36, and Kroeber on his map (1925, p. 274) shows 42. If we arbitrarily assigned a population of 100 each, we would have a total of approxi- mately 4.000, probably somewhat too high a value. The difficulty is that we have no clear means of gauging the size of the typical Coast Miwok village, since no inform- ants have been able to give a precise figure and since the terrain occupied by this tribe is different from that held by the Pomo to the north. Even though the investigation of villages yields no very fruitful results, the Mission records for the Coast Miwok provide a quite adequate solution of the problem. Unlike any other tribe north of San Francisco Bay the Coast Miwok were thoroughly and completely brought in- to the missions. Beginning, as indicated above in 1783, gentiles from the north shore were brought in small num- bers to the Mission Dolores for conversion. In 1817 San Rafael was established, and within a few years the mis- sionaries had made a clean sweep to the coasts of the bay and the ocean and had begun to penetrate north to the vicinity of Santa Rose and Sebastopol. Meanwhile a con- siderable number of converts had been taken to San Jose, and subsequently some found their way to Sonoma. For- tunately we have the baptism records, or their equivalent, of all these missions. Identification of the Coast Miwok can be made in most of the records (1) by the year and the location (e.g., the year 1817 at San Rafael); (2) by village names identical with or similar to those listed by Barrett and by Kroeber; (3) by linguistic affinities (such as the prefix echa- or the suffix -tamal); and (4) by subsidiary notes in the rec- ords indicating geographical location. Deleting all really doubtful cases we have the following numbers of baptisms San Francisco San Rafael Solano San Jose 896 916 48 162 The total is 2,020 persons. A baptism at any of the four missions constituted net withdrawal of one person from the native comm since all converts from the immediate vicinity of thl sions could be easily kept at the mission establishir or could be recaptured without difficulty if they esca Hence the total baptism number must very closely proximate the total population of the area over a pe of forty years. But the wild population was undoubt decreasing owing to other causes from, say, 1790 to The presence of the Spanish soldiers or missionarie always introduced diseases and caused disruption of tive society to such an extent that the death rate out the birth rate. Hence the new converts were being from a diminishing population. Another factor is fugitivism. Intimate contact w4 white man for a long period taught the native what t pect in the missions and on the ranches. Conseque there always was a fraction of the Indian community which eluded the best efforts of the missionaries an which made good its escape beyond the peripheryof Spanish and Mexican influence. Many of these native never returned to their original homes. Still other sources of attrition were the kidnaping of adults for on the ranches during the 1820's and the promiscuo0 killing of all sexes and ages during the frequent arz encounters between white men and red men. Although for the Coast Miwok the above-mentionm causes of loss cannot be assessed numerically with approach to accuracy. nevertheless their total effec must have been considerable. As a purely arbitrars essentially reasonable guess we may say that they duced a one-third reduction in the net aboriginal po tion. Then, if the remaining two-thirds was baptize4 the initial value would have exceeded 3,000. This is the figure selected by Kroeber (1925, p. 275) who s that 'the Coast branch may have numbered 1,500." it is difficult to see how, with a total baptism count over 2,000, the aboriginal level could have been any than 3,000. COAST MIWOK [12 0] - i j I i i r i THE WAPPO AND THE LAKE MIWOK These two ethnic groups are combined, together with small corner of the Wintun living in the lower Napa y, in order to complete this survey of the area north Francisco Bay. Direct area comparisons between the territory here erned and that held by the Pomo and the Coast Miwok lead to only very tentative conclusions. If we use the on delineated by Barrett (1908) on his large-scale , the peoples mentioned above occupied approximately square miles of land surface. The density of popula- was reckoned for the Pomo at 8.0 per square mile that for the Coast Miwok, with a population estimated 000, comes to 3.4. The equivalent estimates for the and Lake Miwok would be respectively 7,600 and 0. There are no grounds for immediate decision er either is too high or too low. Consideration of character of the terrain is not very helpful since the -Lake Miwok habitat resembled that of the Pomo me respects and that of the Coast Miwok in others. must therefore turn to other devices. Incontrast to the Coast Miwok the Lake Miwok and the po have been the subjects of ethnographic studies of ct value to the population problem, particularly those Iarrett (1908) and of Driver (1936). In considering data, and also those furnished by the mission rec- it will be desirable to split the region into six 1 areas along the lines indicated by the map given by ber in the Handbook (1925, pl. 27, opp. p. 172). ewe have (1) the Lake Miwok, (2) the Western Wappo, the Northern Wappo, (4) the Central Wappo, (5) the ern Wappo, and (6) the Wintun of Napa Valley. As arting point we may select the Western Wappo. The names and the location of the villages differ widely ly as presented by the three investigators of the a. The confusion is rendered even more profound be- e Barrett in his terminology takes account of the occupancy of Alexander Valley in the early years e nineteenth century. whereas Merriam and Driver re, not only the presence of the Pomo, but also the es applied by them to settlements. On the other hand, ver's study is the most thorough of them all and for reason alone may well serve as the basis for con- ration of population. Driver lists (1936. pp. 183-184) places which he calls "permanent towns." Of these, is located outside Alexander Valley and hence may disregarded; two are cited as of "unknown" location thus had better be disregarded also. There remain en. all of which Driver places on his map (p. 182). yare set forth 'Elelow, together with the names given Merriam and Barrett which cannot be reconciled with e of Driver. Kotico-mota (Driver). Koticomota is mentioned by Barrett (1908. p. 271) as having been taken from the Pomo by the Wappo and occupied by them. Probably the largest town in Alexander Valley. Nets-tul (Driver). This village is not mentioned by Barrett under this name, although it is located near Barrett's Cimela and Koloko. Its existence, however is confirmed by Merriam who calls it Net- tool. Owotel-peti (Driver). This was located near the two preceding villages on the east bank of the Rus- sian River, in the vicinity of Barrett's Cimela and Koloko. Driver mentions two summer camp sites, the people of which lived here during the winter. Its status seems assured. Pipo-holma (Driver). This was the northern- most village in the valley. Barrett says (p. 271) this was an aboriginally Wappo town and took the lead in the war with the Pomo. Tsimitu-tso-noma (Driver). Driver says that this was a "small town" with no sweathouse, and that the people sweated at Unutsawaholma. The name was not known to either Barrett of Merriam and it is quite possible that it was a summer camp, or a temporary site, or merely a suburb of one of the other villages. Its existence as a permanent settlement is open to some doubt. Unutsawa-holma-noma (Driver). This town also is not listed under the given, or any similar, name by Barrett or by Merriam. However, in view of the exhaustive study made of it by Driver its existence is indisputable. It may be represented by the Cimela or Koloko of Barrett. Osoyuk-eju (Driver). This is the only village shown by Driver as lying west of the Russian River. Barrett gives no similar name but Driver reaffirms its active existence by the mention of a summer camp site the people of which lived in Osoyuk-eju in the winter. Holko-mota (Driver). This is given by Driver as a camp site and probably is identical with Hol- ko-a-cho, which is called a rancheria by Merriam. Driver's opinion is to be followed and the place should be regarded as a summer camp. Hut-mitul (Driver). A camp site. Nuya-hotsa (Driver). A camp site. Tcano-nayuk (Driver). A camp site. Ts'awo-tul (Driver). A camp site. Tico-mota (Driver). A camp site. Halio-wahuk-holma (Driver). A camp site. Walma-pesite (Driver). A camp site. Ko-tish-hal (Merriam). Listed by Merriam as a rancheria, but we have no further information concerning it. Too-la-chil-le (Merriam). A rancheria, but no further information. Cimela (Barrett). The Southern Pomo name is ossokowi. This village was formerly occupied by the Pomo but the Wappo took possession after the war. It undoubtedly corresponds to one of the vil- lages placed by Driver at approximately the same spot on the east bank of the Russian River. Koloko (Barrett). This village was said to have been located near Cimela. Regarding it the follow- ing quotation from Barrett is decisive (p. 272): "In addition to these villages along Russian River which were occupied by the Wappo, names of four other sites were obtained which, as far as can be learned, were not occupied by the Wappo but were occupied by the Southern Pomo before the Wappo took pos- session of this section, and for which only Pomo names could be obtained." It is clear therefore [121] I li. 1?I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS that the village as such had disappeared prior to the knowledge of Driver's informants, if indeed these villages had ever been occupied by the Wappo. Malalatcali (Barrett). See Koloko. Acaben (Barrett). See Koloko. Gaiyetcin (Barrett). See Koloko. From this list there emerge six villages as certain, Driver's Koticomota, Netstul, Owotelpeti, Pipoholma, Unutsawaholma, and Osoyukeju. Of these Osoyukeju, on the west bank of the river, may be regarded as having replaced Barrett's three villages, Malalatcali, Acaben, and Gaiyetcin. which evidently did not survive Pomo oc- cupancy. Driver and Barrett agree with respect to Koticomota and Pipoholma. Netstul, Owotelpeti, and Unut- sawaholma may be considered to have replaced Cimela and Koloko. The status of Tsimitutsonoma, as indicated above, is dubious, in spite of the fact that Driver's inform- ants gave it as a permanent town. In view of the doubt it is better to omit it from consideration. Directing our attention now to the six sure towns of Driver, we find in his paper some very pertinent data with regard to their size and demographic characteristics. The sizes and house numbers given on page 183 (Driver, 1936) are: Koticomota: "large town"; 2 sweathouses. Netstul: "large town"; 40 houses; 1 sweathouse. Owotelpete: 40 houses; 1 sweathouse. Pipoholma: 40 houses; 1 sweathouse. Unutsawaholmanoma: 1 sweathouse; 11 houses in 1870; 17 houses "formerly." Osoyukeju: "small town"; 1 sweathouse. Before discussing the house numbers in detail we should call attention to Driver's analysis of the village Unutsawa-holma-noma. This analysis (1936, pp. 201 ff.) he says is based upon "concrete genealogical census data of about the year 1870." There can therefore be no argument concerning the validity of the figures he pre- sents. He found, in brief, that in this village there were 11 houses, containing 21 families and 92 persons. The occupants per house ranged from 4 to 21 with an average of 9. the families from 1 to 6 per house with an average of 2 (actually 1.91). and the persons per family averaged 4.5 (actually 4.38). When we examined Gifford's figures for the Clear Lake Pomo village of Cigom we found 5.0 persons per family, 2.35 families per house, and 11.75 persons per house. The similarity between the two sets of values, derived by different investigators independently, is clearly significant. Moreover, the slightly smaller num- bers discovered by Driver at Unutsawaholma are explica- ble on the basis of the later date (1870) taken as the base line. At any rate there can be no doubt that the two vil- lages were remarkably alike in composition of population. In computing aboriginal population at Cigom and the surrounding country it was pointed out that Gifford actu- ally was dealing with a declining population and that, if the aboriginal state were to be conceived properly, his figures would have to be increased. For this reason the family number was set at 7 instead of 5, which raised the number of persons per house to 16.45. Because of other evidence the latter value was reduced to 14.0. For Driver's village the same considerations must apply. However, since the family number was found to be 4.38, rather than 5.0 the aboriginal value may be put at 6 instead of 7. Then, if the number of families per house is 1.91, the average persons per house would be 11.5, a figure which there is no strong reason for c ing. It now appears that, if Unutsawaholma "form had 17 houses, with 11.5 persons per house, the"fc population would have been approximately 195, ori round numbers 200. Returning the the matter of houses, Driver says 184) that his informants "estimated" the number, thought the estimates were too high. (The number the village of Unutsawaholma was evidently known I think we have to concede Driver's point but we st not know how great was the exaggeration. We note Unutsawaholma with 17 sure houses "formerly" sweathouse but no designation "large" or "small.' the two "large towns" one had 2 sweathouses and other had 1 sweathouse and 40 ordinary houses. same numbers were assigned to two other villages they were not called large or small. The one call "small" had 1 sweathouse. The village, therefore 1 sweathouse and 17 other houses, but not designat either large or small, may be taken as approximat4 intermediate. The small town may be assigned hal number, or 8 houses. Those with 40 estimated ho but not called large, may be assigned 25 houses ea Netstulg a "large town" with 40 houses and 1 swe may be given 30 houses, and Koticomota, a "lasge with 2 sweathouses, may be given 35 houses. This purely arbitrary arrangement but it must come so, where near fitting the facts. On this basis we have six villages with a total houses and an average of nearly 23. This would aboriginal population of 1,610 persons. If we werel admit no declining population in 1870 but if we allo that Unutsawaholma, with 17 houses, was of avera in aboriginal times, the value would still be 1,010 population of Alexander Valley. Driver states, in conjunction with his village lis ''these certainly not all inhabited at the same time opinion may be justified but he cites no evidence' support, and the circumstantial data brought out w spect to each village separately does not indicate discontinuance of habitation occurred very long a true that Alexander Valley was the scene of a mino tertribal war in the early years of the nineteenth as the result of which the Pomo were driven out by Wappo. In the confusion there may have been som ing of inhabitants and reconstitution of villages, wi consequence that the population came to include ba racial elements. Nevertheless, the data presented Driver imply a total number of inhabitants, at one of fully 1,610. If Barrett's eighth village, Tekenants on Sulphur Creek, is allowed 70 inhabitants, the t0l raised to 1,680. The Northern Wappo and the Lake Miwok form next natural division. It is preferable to treat thes groups together, and more or less in defiance of s tribal limits, because the precise boundary betwee4 Wappo and the Lake Miwok has never yet been dete to the entire satisfaction of ethnographers and bec the racial affiliation of certain villages is still ope doubt. Bypassing the ethnographic problem, there we may consider the area south of Clear Lake, whi cludes the headwaters of Putah Creek and upper Po Valley. The region embraces a rough triangle, the. of which are the modern villages of Lower Lake, PI Valley, and Middletown. The ethnographic sources consist of the works Merriam, Barrett, and Kroeber. Merriam covered he considered to be the Lake Miwok in a manuscri titled "Tu-le-yo-mi Tribe List" and the pertinent I I 1 -i 122 I COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST s in a manuscript entitled ''Yukean. Barrett )devoted several pages to the Wappo (pp. 274-278) the Lake Miwok (pp. 314-317). Kroeber's discus- in the Handbook was based largely upon these au- ics but he later amplified his views in his paper * pp. 366-369) on "The Patwin and Their Neighbors." all three investigators have contributed village lists, be necessary to examine them in detail. Previ- rhowever, one particular problem requires brief ion. ithin the area of the Lake Miwok and Northern there was once a village or a pair of villages, the a and locations of which have been the source of controversy. Barrett (1908. p. 273) mentioned a, from lok, goose, and noma, village, or lakah- ... at a point about three-quarters of a mile north- of Middletown ...." Continuing the discussion at length, Barrett finally suggests the possibility that people lived on the Locollomillo Rancho in Pope y. eber (1932, p. 366) found an informant who distin- d between Loknoma and Lakah-yomi as two sepa- towns, both near Middletown. Kroeber remarks: ently the two 'capitals' Lok-noma and Lakah- stood close together, while their territories ched apart, a condition for which there is precedent." a-Us general map (1932, back cover) he places Lok- a alm6st at Middletown in Northern Wappo territory Lakah-yomi just to the north in the realm of the Lake ok. Meanwhile Merriam, in his "Tu-le-yo-mi Tribe List," ifies two rancherias. One is called Al-lok-yo-me- oot and is in Pope Valley, whereas the other, at letown, is Lah-ki-yo-me - po- goot. Merriam, further- , reinforces his distinction by citing numerous sh synonyms which he collected from the mission rds. Thus for Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot he mentions comi. Aloquiomi, Alocyome, and Aloqui. For Lah- -me-po-goot he gives Laoquiomi, Laoquio, Locollo- s. Laknomah, Locnoma, and Locolomne. The pres- or absence of the initial letter a appears to have the deciding criterion, according to those who wrote Spanish. .On the whole it is probable, as Kroeber concluded, that towns are involved. One undoubtedly was near Middle- The other may have been near by, as stated by er, or it may have been in Pope Valley, as suggested Merriam. Fortunately we are not called upon to make cision since, for population estimates, it becomes 'elevant where the exact locations were. The evidence adequate that there were in fact two important villages, Fvery similar name, lying within the consolidated terri- of the Lake Miwok and the Northern Wappo. W may now examine the village lists of Merriam, rett. and Kroeber. All references to Kroeber are to monograph of 1932. Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam). Refer to pre- ceding discussion. Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam), Loknoma (Bar- ret). Refer to preceding discussion. Tu-le-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam), Tuleyome (Bar- ret), Tule-yomi (Kroeber). This is widely known as the largest village of the Lake Miwok. 0-la-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam), Oleyome (Barrett), Ole-y (Kroeber). This village is also known as having been large and important. Wen-nok (Merriam), Guenoc (Barrett), Guenoc (Kroeber). Considerable mystery surrounds 123 this name, although it has been known and used for nearly one hundred years. Barrett says that the Indians never employed the name but that it referred to a subtribe, or group associated with the Oleyome. Kroeber says that "it was admitted as a native name, but untranslated." He thinks it may be identical with Wilok-yomi, a village mentioned by his informant. Merriam says it was either (1) the name of a lake the valley of which contained three rancherias or (2) on Oley- ome band, located 4 miles northeast of Middle- town. In view of the wide divergence of opinion the safest procedure is to consider the Guenoc as simply constituting a portion of the Oleyome. Kah-we-yo-me (Merriam), Kahweyome (Barrett), Kawi-yomi (Kroeber). Merriam says the village was located on Cache Creek, as do Barrett and Kroeber. Kroeber says: "My informant did not refer to the two sites mentioned here by Barrett, Tsitsa-pukut and Kawi-yomi, and when asked about the former replied that some of the Miwok had drifted there, presumably in later years." If Kroeber's informant was correct. then both Barrett's villages are postaboriginal and must be omitted from further consideration. Shoyome (Merriam). Coyome (Barrett), Kai-yomi- pukut (Kroeber). This town is placed by all three authorities on Putah Creek, and hence is to be distinguished clearly from the preceding town, Kah-we-yo-me. Furthermore it was known to the pre-American Californians as Coyayomi, Joyayomi, or Cauyomi. Its aboriginal existence seems established. Pe-te-no-mah (Merriam), Petinoma (Barrett). This village is placed on upper Putah Creek by both Merriam and Barrett; hence its existence is probable. Holilelemona (Merriam), Holilelenoma (Barrett). Barrett says this was a camp site. Koo-pa-choo (Merriam, MS "Yukean"), Kupetcu (Barrett). Barrett says this was a camp site. Uyuhanoma (Barrett), Yawi-yomi-pukut (Kroeber). Both authors place this village near Middletown. Its existence is highly probable. Hoo-koo-yo-me-po-koot (Merriam), Hukuyome or Siwiyome (Barrett). Barrett says that this vil- lage was established in 1835 by survivors from Oleyome. It is therefore not aboriginal. Ka-bool-po-goot (Merriam). Kebulpukut (Barrett), Tubud or Tubul (Kroeber). Existence highly probable since it is mentioned by three investi- gators. Kah-dah-yo-me (Merriam), Kadoi-yomi-pukut (Kroeber). Existence probable. Kil-le-yo-ke-po-koot (Merriam), Kilinyoke (Kroeber). Existence probable. Lahl-mok- po- goot (Merriam), Lalmak-pukut (Kroeber). Existence probable. Lu-pu-yo-me (Merriam). No details are given by Merriam but the existence of the village is ren- dered very probable by the fact that 57 persons are recorded as having been baptized at the mis- sion of San Rafael from Lupuyome. The village may have been destroyed in the process of con- version and hence have been unknown to later informants. Sahl- sahl- po-goot (Merriam), Shalshal- pukut (Kroeber). Existence probable. Sah-ti-yo-me- po-goot (Merriam). This village is 1? Is [rt 4 ,, i I ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS mentioned by no other investigator but there are recorded baptisms at Solano Mission from Tsatiyome, which is undoubtedly the same name, hence its existence is highly probable. Tsit-sah-yome (Merriam), Tsitsapogut (Barrett), Tsitsa-pukut (Kroeber). This village must be omitted because of the doubt cast by Kroeber's informant. See Ka-we-yo-me. Tso-ke-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam), Tsok-yomi- pokut (Kroeber). Existence probable. Tumistumis (Barrett), Tumistumis-pukut (Kroeber). Existence probable. Wo-de-di-tep-pe-po-goot (Merriam), Wodidaitepi (Kroeber). Existence probable. Al-lok-ko-boo-je (Merriam only). Existence possible. Al-lok-woo-boo-te (Merriam only). Existence possible. Haw-hawl- po-goot (Merriam only). Existence possible. Hol-wah- poo-koot (Merriam only). Existence possible. Oo-yoo- hah-no- mah (Merriam only). Existence possible. Kalau-yomi (Kroeber only). Existence possible. Kitsin-pukut (Kroeber only). Existence possible. Shanak-yomi-pukut (Kroeber only). Existence possible. Tsukeliwa-pukut (Kroeber only). Existence possible. Reviewing the above compilation, we find four villages the existence, size, and importance of which are beyond reasonable doubt. There are five the names of which were known to the informants of all three ethnographers, or can be found in the mission records. Hence their ex- istence can be accepted without serious question. Eight others were located by two, but not three, ethnographers. The probability of their actual, aboriginal existence is not high but on the other hand there is no clear reason for excluding them. Four can be omitted from further consideration on the ground that they were camp sites or were founded after 1850. Nine are reported by only one investigator, and therefore all confirmation of their status is lacking. It is quite unlikely that each of these was a permanent aboriginal village. On the other hand, the fact that even one informant remembered the name is presumptive evidence for existence of some sort. As a purely empirical device, in order to settle the matter, let us assume that each of the nine names represents a small village of 20 inhabitants. With respect to the size of the villages we suffer from a complete lack of any direct information. By compari- son with the rancherias around Clear Lake and in Alex- ander Valley we could consider that the four large towns contained 200 persons apiece. The five highly probable villages are likely to have been larger than many others, and may have contained 100 each. To the eight reason- ably sure, but by no means certain, places we may as- cribe 50 persons each. The nine doubtful ones can cer- tainly be covered by a total of 200. The aggregate, then, is 1,900. In default of further ethnographic help we must fall back on mission data. In the records of San Francisco, Solano, and San Rafael it is possible to find baptisms as- signed to the following recognized villages: Coyome, Loknoma (Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot). Aloquiomi (Al-lok-yo- me-po-goot), Oleyome, Tuleyome, and Lupuyome. These names are no doubt more or less generic in character in that the missionaries were using them to apply to ti larger villages or even subtribes. We would not ez them to conform in detail to any of the lists supplit modern ethnographers. The total baptism numberj however, be taken as covering the area as a whole,! The Lake Miwok (together with the Clear Lake P and the Northern Wappo were the most remote peon north of the Bay, who were reached for conversionj to the secularization of the missions. All activity area was confined to the period 1824-1834, and wat ried on by necessity through well organized, semiS semireligious expeditions. Owing to unavoidable oi cles it was possible to get physical possession of bring back to the missions only a small proportion potential converts. The exact value of this propor can never be known, and indeed it undoubtedly vari widely from place to place. A similar question ar connection with a previous study of the population q San Joaquin Valley. For the latter area the condit~ were postulated that the site of native residence wm eral score miles from the nearest mission, that al mally organized expedition had to be undertaken, a there was able and determined opposition to missic tion on the part of the natives. Under such circum it was concluded on the basis of evidence available fair approximation to the proportion of natives acto baptized was 15 per cent of the existing population. most respects the situation south and southeast of Lake was very similar to that obtaining in the lowe Joaquin Valley and the delta region. Hence the indc baptism factor may be employed here. For the six major subdivisions mentioned above total baptisms at Solano and San Rafael were 264. number represents 15 per cent, the population wasa a value not basically different from the arbitrary f derived from the village lists. An intermediate e 1,800, will be taken for the population of the Lake and Northern Wappo. For the Central Wappo there is a paucity of eth graphic data. Furthermore the territory itself is circumscribed, since Pope Valley has been allocatl present purposes to the Northern Wappo and embri little more than the flat land within a radius of a fe miles from the modern town of Calistoga. Merria4 only one name (in the manuscript entitled "Yukeazi viz., Mi-yahk-ma. Barrett (1908, p. 269) givesMs together with Nilektsonoma and Tselmenan, which close by. In addition he lists Mitustul, five miles west of Calistoga. It seems likely that we have he single small division, or tribelet, with the "capita Maiyakma and with three smaller, peripheral villA If we use the same population estimates as we did north, we may ascribe 200 persons to Maiyakma ai each to the others, making 500 in all. The mission records supply two items of intere first is a note from Sonoma that there were baptiz4 persons from Mayacma "&o Tamalsimas." The lafl name is probably a corruption of the term written Barrett as Tselmenan, and indicates that this vill then in existence. The other item is from San Raf which reported 9 baptisms from Teluasuenhuca "co Tamalsimela." The total then is 112. The baptism factor of 15 per cent cannot be us with confidence because the upper Napa Valley wa more accessible to the San Rafael Mission and pax larly the Sonoma Mission than was the area aroun above Middletown. At the same time the distance difficulty of approach were somewhat greater than case of the lower Russian River Valley near Santa I 124 I Jebastopol, for which the baptism factor was taken as third. As a compromise we may take a factor of one- er, or 25 per cent. This yields an estimated popu- of 450, a figure which appears not unreasonable. r the Southern Wappo Merriam mentions Guiluc "Yukean") and Kaimus. The latter is very well nand is discussed by Barrett (1908, p. 268). The r is in territory which was disputed between the and the Wappo and may be either wilikos (Wappo) Ilok (Pomo) - see Barrett's treatment on page 269 Ethnogeography (1908). For present purposes it be considered as Wappo since it was excluded from Pomo in computing the population of the latter group. am cites no other names, but Barrett gives otonoma and Tsemanoma among the Southern Wappo 8, p. 269) and Tcimenukme, Tuluka, and Suskol as un villages at the mouth of Napa River. Annakotonoma known to the missionaries as Callajomanos (and ants), Gailuc as such, and Kaimus as Caymus (and ants). The three Wintun villages have left no trace ever in the mission records under Barrett's names ay recognizable variants. This is rather surprising, e the area was thoroughly converted by the mission- s at San Rafael and at Sonoma. Very likely the bap- s are in the record but under designations (and there many) which do not permit the allocation to a specific or village. On the other hand, the area itself is ably included in the appellation "Napa" which ap- s to have covered the entire region from the present of Napa to the shore of the Bay. 'The sum of the recorded baptisms from Caymus, uc, Callajomanos, and Napa is 331. A baptism factor 5 per cent cannot be employed because the territory ese groups was very close to the Sonoma Mission, rom numerous accounts by contemporary writers knW that missionization was nearly complete. A r of 50 per cent would give a probable population of and one of 75 per cent a population of 442. Both s are evidently too low. The final resource from which we may seek informa- is provided by the accounts of the early American lers. Chief of these is George Yount, who entered a Valley in 1831 and took up a grant of land near the ent town of Yountville. Yount seems to have been a r and reliable citizen, and one who was accorded the pect of his fellow pioneers. His story consists of a ies of verbal recollections which were written down manuscript form by a friend, the Rev. Orange Clark, visited his ranch in 1851. The Clark manuscript, ther with other material, has been secured and pub- d by Professor Charles L. Camp (1923). Yount seems to have discoursed at length on the local ans (1923, p. 55). His description of the tribes fol- s (I have omitted the explanatory parentheses inserted Camp). Within a distance of no more than One Hundred miles in length & twenty in width, including the Napa Valley, were five distinct nations, no one of which could converse together.. .without an interpreter... The names of these five nations were as follows - The Napa, the Ouluke, Caymus, Conahomanes & Miacamus, the last named tribe inhabited the region of the Hot Springs of that valley...... rour of these names are clear. The fifth, Ouluke, is very probably Tuluka of Barrett. Since these five groups ire sharply defined by the Napa Valley and since Yount iously was talking about that area, his size estimate 1 25 was excessive. He says 100 miles by 20, whereas the valley actually is about 40 miles in length from the Bay to Mt. St. Helena and perhaps on the average 15 miles in width, from the crest of one range across to the other. With regard to numbers Yount says (1923. p. 56): "It is not yet eight years [evidently referring to the year 1843] since the above named valley swarmed with not less than eight thousand human beings, of whom there are not now e185n1] left as many hundreds.... The poor remnants of all the five tribes above named now mingle & wander up and down the valley promiscuously together. men- There is also an account of the destruction of the Caymus (1923, p. 59). A great many, if not most of them, were killed by being burnt in a sweathouse. The guilty parties were stated to be two Indians from San Rafael, but the motives were obscure. This event occurred some time during the later days of Yount's tenure, for, con- tinues the manuscript. "at a period long previous to the tragical event above related, Yount embarked in erecting a small flour mill.... Although Alexander Taylor, in his Indianology, men- tions some of the subtribes of the Wappo, he gives no use- ful population data. On the other hand, John S. Hittell talked about the Napa Valley Indians in an article in the Hesperian Magazine entitled Notes on Napa Valley (1860, p. 55). He gives the same tribes, or subtribes, as were mentioned by Yount in the manuscript edited by Camp. These were theiMayacomas the Callajomanas,the Caymus, the Napa Indians, the Soscol, and the Ulacas. He then adds the following: Their rancherias were numerous throughweout the length of the valley.... It is not known how many of these Indians there were, no census having been taken nor any careful estimate having been made, at the time, by anybody. Mr. Yount thinks their number was not less than three thousand, and pos- sibly twice as many. It would have been an easy matter to collect a thousand warriors in those times. Shortly afterward C. A. Menefee (1873) wrote a history of Napa and adjacent counties, using Hittell and Alexander Taylor as his only written authorities. No historical scholar in the professional sense, Menefee neverth6'less devoted a full chapter to the Napa Valley Indians, and gives evidence of having undertaken to secure such infor- mation as he could from local residents. His statements are not sensational and appear within reasonable limits to be reliable. He lists the six tribes exactly as does Hittell. He ex- pands on Hittell's quotation from Yount thus (1873, p. 19): Yount said that "in round numbers there were from 1 0.000 to 12,000 Indians ranging the country between Napa and Clear Lake. Of this number he [Yount] says there were at least 3.000 in Napa County. and perhiaps twice that number." At one point Menefee comments (1873, p. 18): "No estimate of their [Indians'] numbers appears to have been made until 1823, and it was known that they had then greatly decreased." Menefee's principal contribution, however, is a rough computation of the surviving Indian population in 1843. This estimate occurs nowhere else to my knowledge. and I think was no doubt secured by Menefee through personal interviews with early settlers. He says (1873, p. 18) that there were 50 to 100 Indians on the Bale rancho, 400 at Caymus rancho, 600 at Salvador rancho a "large number" COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST Pi ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS at Soscol. Amplifying this count. he says: "It was the custom of the Indians to establish their rancherias upon the grants of the early settlers, in order to gain a liveli- hood by occasional labor." Also: "These were in some sense permanently fixed and residing constantly in one place. Besides these there were thousands of nomads, who roamed the valleys and mountains...." Menefee also describes the destruction of an Indian community, the Callajomanas. This time it was a group of white ranchers from Sonoma Valley who became in- censed at stock depredations, came to the village, and slaughtered 300 Indians - according to Menefee - as they emerged from a sweathouse. Whether this tale is confused with the account of Yount on the Caymus tragedy is difficult to say. The circumstances and the number of Indians involved may well be garbled, but that some such incident took place is highly probable. If we now confine the area in question to Napa Valley, as all these persons clearly intended, we are dealing with the Central Wappo, the Southern Wappo, and the Wintun on Napa River. The best guess from the mission records for the population is about 1,800. To allow an area of 15 by 40 square miles and the maximum Pomo density of 8 persons per square mile would yield a population of 4,800. Yount said, according to Clark, as transmitted by Camp (1923, p. 56), that the valley "swarmed" with not less than 8,000 people in 1843. Yount, by way of Hittell and Menefee (1873, p. 19), put 10,000 to 12,000 from Napa to Clear Lake and 3,000 or "perhaps twice that number" in Napa Valley alone. It is clear that Yount was not a very accurate reporter and in default of actual knowledge made a broad guess. Yet I doubt greatly if Yount would have put the number in thousands - no matter how many - if there had actually been only a few hundred or a few score Indians in the country at the time of his arrival. The presence of a number approximating his low guess, 3,000, is not out of line with probability. Let us turn to Menefee. His figures for 1843 were or- ganized according to ranches. Furthermore let it be noted that, according to his explicit statement, the abo- riginal village organization had broken down utterly, and the Indians were living in new places in conformity with new economic and social requirements. No wonder mod- ern informants frequently cannot look past the period of upheaval and give us a clear picture of untouched aborig- inal life before the white man came! Regarding the accuracy of the figures, specifically the three items for which literal numbers are given, it can be said again, as was pointed out with reference to J. B. R. Cooper, that a ranch owner should have known roughly how many Indians were living in his own back yard. If we refuse to accept these estimates, then we had better be prepared to reject most historical testimony. We may then base our calculation on 75 Indians for the Bale ranch, 400 for the Caymus ranch, and 600 for the Salvador ranch. The Juarez and the Higuera ranches contained a "large number." Since the largest number actually givenj we may with safety consider that 300 would repress "large number." A "still larger number" could rq ably be 400. The total then becomes 2,075. Menefq however, is careful to state that this included onlyl Indians who were "in some sense" permanently loc and puts the unattached number in the "thousands." latter can of course be scaled down drastically. Hug would be a good substitute, with a possible total of 4 thousand. The outcome then is that the Indian popul of Napa Valley as a whole in 1843 was about 3,000, identical with Yount's minimum estimate. What was, now, the population aboriginally? TN sion baptisms are of no use to us since the Indians 1843 included most of the ex-neophytes in the area there had already been a profound reduction at that is unquestioned. The north shore of the Bay had b subject to military, clerical, and civilian incursion, the beginning of the century. Lethal epidemics hac over the country repeatedly. Massacre and slaughtl been the rule rather than the exception. Indeed, thb valley through Sonoma and Napa up to Calistoga ha4 fered more seriously than any other area except p the delta of the Sacramento River. A population reO from the aboriginal level by one-third prior to 1843 not be out of line with the apparent facts. The estimates for the period 1840-1845 derived, Yount, Hittell, and Menefee included the Central WA with the more southern groups. For the Central Wi the ethnographic sources and the mission records cated an aboriginal population of 450 or 500. Howe is probably advisable to disregard this small divis a separate entity and include it with the remainingi and the Suscol Wintun. If we then take Yount's miz estimate of 3,000 for the Napa Valley south of Mt. Helena and if we assume a one-third decrease in n from aboriginal times to 1843, the final estimate fo area becomes 4,500. The figure just derived is of course considerabJ greater than would be indicated by either the ethno4 village lists or the mission baptism records, but it~ be conceded that the two last methods of approach inadequate for the situation existing in the Napa V4 On the other hand for a population of 4,500 and ana 600 square miles, the density would be 7.5 persons square mile, or very close to the value arrived at near-by Pomo. We have found by ethnographic derivation1,680 for the Western Wappo and 1,800 for the Northerni and Lake Miwok together. Thus the total for the L Miwok, the WVappo, and the Suscol Wintun as a whoL comes approximately 8,000. WAPPO, LAKE MIWOK, AND NAPA VALLEY WINTUN I I I 126 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES Wr convenience of reference the population estimates Onted in the foregoing text are tabulated as follows: Yuki Coast Yuki ju o k .. p,yot. .ok . blowa. bhapascans Chilula ........ Mattole .............. Whilkut Kato . Lassik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nongatl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sinkyone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wailaki .............. . .... . 3,100 . .... . 3.300 . .... . 2,700 . .... . 2,000 . .... . 2,400 800 1,200 1,300 1,100 1,500 3,300 2,900 3,350 Yuki proper.. ........ 6.880 Huchnom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,100 Total.. .. 9,730 Pomo Clear Lake Pomo. Northern Pomo ......... Central and Southwestern Pomo Southern Pomo ......... Northeastern Pomo ....... 3,150 5,040 6,220 6.000 350 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20,760 Coast Miwok .3.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 Wappo, Lake Miwok, Napa Valley Wintun . . . . 8,000 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15,450 GRAND TOTAL .............. 70,440 [i27] 750 r i 1. t BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations American Anthropologist, Menasha, Wis. Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin University of California Publications, Berkeley and Los Angeles Anthropological Records Ibero-Americana American Archaeology and Ethnology Barrett, S. A. 1908. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neigh- boring Indians. UC-PAAE, Vol. 6. Bledsoe. A. J. 1885. Indian Wars of the Northwest. San Francisco. California. State of 1860 Majority and Minority Reports of the Special Joint Committee on the Mendocino War. Ap- pendix to Journals of the Assembly of the Eleventh Session of the California Legislature, 1860. Camp, C. L. 1923. TheChronicles of George C. Yount. In Calif. Hist. Soc. Quarterly, 2: 3-66. Cook. S. F. 1943. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization: I. UC-IA No. 21. Driver, H. E. 1936. Wappo Ethnography. UC-PAAE 36: 179-220. Drucker, Philip. 1937. The Tolowa and Their Southwest Oregon Kin. UC-PAAE 36: 221-300. Foster, G. M. 1944. A Summary of Yuki Culture. UC-AR 5: 155-244. Gibbs, George. 1860. Journal of the Expedition of Colonel Redick M'Kee . . . . in 1851. In Henry R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, 3: 99-177. Gifford, E. W. 1923. Pomo Lands on Clear Lake. UC-PAAE 20: 77-92. 1926. Clear Lake Pomo Society. UC-PAAE 18: 287- 390. 1939. The Coast Yuki. Anthropos, 34: 292-375. Gifford, E. W., and A. L. Kroeber 1937. Culture Element Distributions : Pomo. UC- PAAE 37: 117-254. Goddard, P. E. 1903. The Life and Culture of the Hupa. UC-PAAE 1: 1-88. 1914. Notes on the Chilula Indians of Northwesto California. UC-PAAE 10: 265-288. 1923. The Habitat of the Wailaki. UC-PAAE 20: 112. 1924. The Habitat of the Pitch Indians, a Wailak Division. UC-PAAE 17: 217-225. Heintzelman, H. P. 1855. Report dated San Francisco, Nov. 17, 1851 Original in U. S. National Archive, Office Indian Affairs, Record Group no. 75, Lett Received, California, 1855. Enclosure to- no. H 1100. Hittell, J. S. 1860. Notes on Napa Valley, In the HesperianMl zine. 4: 53-61. Kniffen, F. B. 1939. Pomo Geography. UC-PAAE 36: 353-400, Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California, BA1 78, Washington, D.C. 1932. The Patwin and Their Neighbors. UC-PA 29: 253-423. 1936. Karok Towns. UC-PAAE 35: 29-38. Loud, L. L. 1918. Ethnogeography and Archaeology of the W. Territory. UC-PAAE 14: 221-436. Menefee, C. A. 1873. Historical and Descriptive Sketch Booko Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino .... Reporter Publishing House, Napa City, C Merriam, C. Hart. Dates uncertain. Village Lists. Manusc in the possession of the Department of A pology, University of California, Berkele After the decease of the late C. Hart Merriam his heirs generously made avai to the Department of Anthropology of the versity of California, Berkeley, a large valuable collection of Dr. Merriam's not California Indians. Among these papers be found complete and very carefully rec [128 AA BAE-B UC -AR -IA - PAAE r r COOK: ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST lists of villages for most of the California tribes, drawn not only from published sources but also from original information secured from informants on the scene. Much material, otherwise unavailable, has thus been secured. 0 These documents are referred to in this text simply as the Village Lists of C. Hart Merriam or are cited by Merriam's own manuscript title. They are undated and a formal bibliographical reference in most cases cannot be given. 05. The Indian Population of California. AA 7: 594-606. e, John. 53. Minutes Kept by John M'Kee, Secretary on the Expedition from Sonoma, through Northern California. 33rd Cong. spec. sess.. Sen. Ex. Doc. no. 4, pp. 134-180. bmd, G. A. p35. Sinkyone Notes. UC-PAAE 36: 149-178. 138. Bear River Ethnography. UC-AR 2: 91-126. gnd, G. A., and A. L. Kroeber 936. Wiyot Towns. UC-PAAE 35: 39-48. Palmer, L. L. 1881. History of Napa and Lake Counties. Slocum, Bowen and Co., San Francisco. Powers, S. 1877. Tribes of California. Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. 3. Stewart, 0. C. 1943. Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. UC-PAAE 40: 29-62. Taylor, A. S. 1860-1863. The Indianology of California. Published as a series of articles by the Cali- fornia Farmer. The entire series has been clipped and pasted in a bound volume available at the Bancroft Library, Berkeley. Waterman, T. T. 1920. Yurok Geography. UC-PAAE 16: 177-314. 1925. Village Sites in Tolowa and Neighboring Areas of Northwestern California. AA 27: 52 8-543. I 12 9