diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:00:15 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:00:15 -0700 |
| commit | 9c69525bc7a1a8aabcbb7cf4ff0a8df374190293 (patch) | |
| tree | c049fecafa224c7553c3c01c33ea93477df345bb /33812.txt | |
Diffstat (limited to '33812.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 33812.txt | 5228 |
1 files changed, 5228 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/33812.txt b/33812.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ce8400 --- /dev/null +++ b/33812.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5228 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Aboriginal Population of the North +Coast of California, by Sherburne Friend Cook + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California + +Author: Sherburne Friend Cook + +Release Date: September 26, 2010 [EBook #33812] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION *** + + + + +Produced by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF CALIFORNIA + + +BY + +S. F. COOK + + +ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS +Vol. 16, No. 3 + + +UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS +ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS + +Editors (Berkeley): R. L. Olson, R. F. Heizer, T. D. McCown, J. H. Rowe +Volume 16. No. 3. pp. 81-130 + +Submitted by editors April 21, 1955 +Issued October 18, 1956 +Price, 75 cents + + + +University of California Press +Berkeley and Los Angeles +California + +Cambridge University Press +London, England + +Manufactured in the United States of America + + + + +CONTENTS + + + Page + +Introduction 81 + +The Yurok 83 + +The Wiyot 93 + +The Karok 98 + +The Hupa 99 + +The Tolowa 101 + +The Athapascans 102 + The Chilula 102 + The Mattole. 102 + The Whilkut 102 + The Kato 102 + The Nongatl, the Lassik, and the Sinkyone 103 + The Wailaki 104 + +The Yuki 106 + The Coast Yuki 106 + The Yuki Proper 106 + The Huchnom 108 + +The Athapascans and the Yuki 109 + +The Pomo 111 + Clear Lake Pomo 111 + Northern Pomo 112 + Central Pomo 116 + Southwestern Pomo 117 + Southern Pomo 117 + Northeastern Pomo 119 + Summary 119 + +The Coast Miwok 120 + +The Wappo and the Lake Miwok 121 + +Summary of Estimates 127 + +Bibliography 128 + + + + +THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF CALIFORNIA + +BY + +S. F. COOK + + + + +INTRODUCTION + + +The present manuscript attempts a reassessment of the aboriginal +population of Northwestern California, from the Oregon line to the Bay +of San Francisco. There are no natural and fixed limits to the +territory. Its outline serves merely the purposes of convenience. For +this reason the individual units within the whole area are based, not +upon natural ecological provinces such as mountain ranges, valleys, or +river basins, but upon ethnic or "tribal" boundaries. Moreover, since +there is no necessary interrelationship between the component parts, +each is considered as a separate entity, and its population is computed +separately. There is no final grand total to be added up, the +significance of which transcends that of any of the constituents. + +Since the objective here is the calculation of pure numbers, it is +irrelevant that the natural habitat, the mode of life, the reactions +to environment of the various tribes and linguistic stocks vary +enormously. Such a disregard for the basic principles of ethnography +and human ecology will be tolerated only because the limitations of +space and time demand that the fundamental question "What _was_ the +population?" be answered before opening up the problem of _why_ the +population was no greater or no less. We must know how many people +there were before we can study their equilibrium with the physical or +cultural environment. + +The outcome of this study is to augment markedly the previously +estimated number of inhabitants in the region at hand, and, by +implication, the number in the whole state. The magnitude of the +aboriginal population has steadily diminished in our eyes for many +years. I believe it was Powers who thought that the natives numbered as +high as 750,000 or more. Merriam thought there were 260,000. Kroeber, +in the Handbook of California Indians, (1925, p. 882) reduced it to +133,000. I myself in an earlier work (1943, pp. 161 _et seq._) reviewed +the evidence and raised Kroeber's figure by no more than 10 per cent. +It appears to me that the trend toward assessing the native population +in continually diminishing terms is due to the operation of two +factors. + +The first is a tendency on the part of subsequent generations to adopt +a highly skeptical attitude toward all statements and testimony derived +from earlier generations. Inherent in this point of view is the +feeling, consciously expressed or unconsciously followed, that all +human beings contemporary with an event either lie deliberately or +exaggerate without compunction. This failing, so the argument runs, +becomes most apparent when any numerical estimates are involved. Thus +the soldier inevitably grossly magnifies the force of the enemy, the +priest inflates the number of his flock, the farmer falsifies the size +of his herds, the woodsman increases the height of the tree--all just +as the fisherman enlarges upon the big one which got away. That these +individuals are frequently subject to an urge to exaggerate cannot for +a moment be denied. Nevertheless, under many circumstances most men +lack a desire to do so or, if they feel such desire, know how to curb +it. + +To maintain explicitly or by implication that every observer without +exception who reported on the size of Indian villages or the numbers of +Indians seen was guilty of inflating the values is no more justifiable +than to accuse every man who makes a tax return of having cheated the +government. Under our law each person is innocent until proved guilty. +Similarly, within the range of his intellect and the scope of his +senses a traveler or a settler or a miner or a soldier of one hundred +years ago should be credited with telling the truth unless there is +clear evidence from outside sources that he is prevaricating. Evidence +of falsehood should be looked for and, if found, the account should be +discounted or discredited. Otherwise it should be admitted at face +value. It need not be stressed, of course, that the acceptance or the +rejection of a given datum because it does or does not conform to a +preconceived theory constitutes a major scientific crime. + +In the assessment of the California population it may have come about +through the years that the disinclination to agree with contemporary +observation has been carried too far and that a more liberal attitude +of mind is needed. If so, then the reduction of the population which +has taken place in print may have overshot its mark and the figures may +require revision upwards. + +The second factor is methodological. Throughout the last half-century, +and beginning with the pioneer work of Barrett and Kroeber, +ethnographers have employed the informant method almost exclusively. It +is not my intention to deprecate this procedure in any way or to imply +that it has not proved an exceedingly valuable tool. I would like to +suggest, however that it does carry certain limitations. I refer +specifically to the inability of old men and women to remember and +transmit _quantitative_ facts over a great span of years. On the other +hand, _qualitative_ facts and ideas can persist in the mind with little +or no blurring or alteration. Thus a man might retain clearly from his +own memory, or through that of his parents, _where_ a village was +located, what its _name_ was, and some of the _people_ who lived there. +Yet he might have no clear concept whatever _how many_ persons +inhabited the village or _how many_ villages were known to the tribe. +This failure to retain and transmit accurate knowledge of number or +mensuration becomes intensified if the informant is required to reach +across an intervening period of unrest and confusion, both physical and +mental, to an era of stability long since vanished. Yet this is just +what the informant is asked to do when he tries to tell about the +geographic and demographic conditions existing one or more generations +prior to his own youth. + +I do not wish to advocate throwing out all informant testimony for +these reasons--or, indeed, any of it. I merely wish to suggest that an +undeviating adherence to literal statements of informants may on +occasion lead to population estimates which are too low. The same +discretion and criticism should be accorded them as in the other +direction should be accorded to the statements left by contemporary +white observers. + + + + +THE YUROK + + +The first exhaustive and scholarly attempt to assess aboriginal +population was that of A. L. Kroeber (1925) in his Handbook of the +Indians of California. He made a particularly careful study of and +worked out his fundamental principles with the Yurok. Hence any +reappraisement of the population problem in Northwest California must +begin with a thorough examination of all the evidence pertaining to +this tribe. + +Three primary avenues of approach are possible: ecological, +ethnographic, and archaeological. It is proposed to deal here with the +second, or ethnographic material. The principal sources are three in +number; the pertinent chapter in the Handbook, the extensive monograph +by Waterman (1920) and the village lists of Merriam (see Bibliography). +All these investigators inspected the terrain and interviewed many +informants during the decade 1900-1910. Hence their data have now +become definitive. + +For calculating population from village data it is necessary to know +the number of houses per village and the number of inhabitants per +house. Both these variables depend for their value upon numerous +demographic and cultural factors and hence must be determined +separately for nearly every tribe studied. Kroeber has paid special +attention to the second variable, the number of inhabitants per house, +and has concluded that the best value for the Yurok is 7.5 persons. +Since all the contemporary accounts agree with this conclusion it may +be accepted as established. + +With regard to the number of houses per village it must be admitted +that this factor is subject to wide variation both in locality and +time. The number of house pits observed many years after the village +itself has disappeared is likely to be unreliable for many reasons, +although it may be used as a first approximation in default of better +data. A safer guide is the memory of reliable informants or actual +house counts made by explorers or original settlers. These are the +sources of the values given by Kroeber and Waterman. + +For the Yurok there are five chief compilations of villages, with and +without house counts: + + 1. _Kroeber._ This author shows (1925, p. 18) a list of fifteen + villages (four of them compound) which he says are "recent counts + of houses or house pits recollected as inhabited." In addition he + shows on his map (p. 9) a number of other towns, some of which he + regards, and so designates, as being temporarily or intermittently + inhabited and hence not to be included in any computation of + permanent population. The house counts from his list are shown in + table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column headed "Kroeber, _modern + memories_." + + 2. _Kroeber._ On page 18 as well as on page 16 is given a census + for the fifteen villages mentioned above. This was made in 1852 by + a "trader" named York who lived many years in the vicinity. The + census has all the appearance of veracity and may be accepted as + substantially accurate. It is shown in table 2 (p. 92, herein) in + the column headed "Kroeber, _1852 census_". + + 3. _Waterman._ This author presents his findings, all from + informants, in three ways. First are his textual descriptions, + which are careful and circumstantial. Second are his maps of a few + villages, on which the house locations are drawn with much detail. + Third there is the summarizing list (1920, p. 206), in which most + of the textual and other data are incorporated. With respect to + house counts there are numerous discrepancies between text, list, + and maps, some of which are difficult to reconcile. Since from the + context it may be inferred that the list represents Waterman's + final evaluation, it must be used as the basic source of + information. + + 4. _Waterman._ With the list on page 206 is also given a list of + villages derived from a map executed by a man named Randall, a + county surveyor, in 1866. Although no house counts are given, the + list is useful for establishing the existence of certain towns in + the year 1866. + + 5. _Merriam._ The village lists for the Yurok follow Waterman and + Kroeber quite closely. However, Merriam was able to locate several + inhabited places which had escaped the attention of the other two + investigators. These villages have been added in table 2 (p. 92, + herein) and a conservatively estimated house count assigned to + them. + +In table 1 (pp. 85-91, herein) will be found a list of 78 villages, +based primarily on Waterman's data. Under each village name are +assembled such facts as I can find in the writings of Kroeber and +Waterman bearing on the existence of the town. In the third column is +placed my own evaluation of these facts in the form of a statement +whether such existence should be regarded as certain, probable, or +doubtful. The results have been then transferred to table 2 (p. 92, +herein). In the first column of this second table is the arbitrary +number assigned each town shown in table 1 (pp. 85-91, herein), the +doubtful towns being omitted. In the second column is the source, where +the letter "l" denotes that the house number is derived from Waterman's +list on page 206, the letter "t" that the number was derived from +Waterman's textual descriptions, and the letter "M" that the data were +secured from Merriam's village lists. The letter "R" indicates that the +town appeared on Randall's map of 1866 but was not adequately discussed +by Waterman or Kroeber. The letter "p" indicates that the house number +is my own estimate. The third column shows the house number itself. In +addition are shown the corresponding house numbers as taken from +Kroeber's informants ("modern memories") or from the census of 1852 as +cited by Kroeber. + +The total number of houses is 412, which, at 7.5 persons per house, +gives a population of 3,090. + +Some insight into the validity of the value thus obtained may be +secured by cross checking the various sources for house number. As a +basis for comparison the list in table 1 (pp. 85-91, herein) may be +used, since it is constructed for the great majority of villages from +Waterman's final estimate. There are 16 towns for which a number is +given in Waterman's list (1920, p. 206) and for which a statement of +house numbers derived directly from informants is to be found in his +detailed descriptions. For these towns the list shows 88 houses and the +text 101. Now, if the same ratio of house numbers (_i.e._, 88 to 101) +is applied to the total population as derived from table 2 (p. 92, +herein) the result is a population of 3,562 persons. + +On his detailed maps Waterman shows the location of the houses in 19 +villages. Presumably he checked these houses carefully with informants, +for in many instances he appends the house names, although as a rule +only the pits remained when he saw the sites. There are in all 210 +houses, whereas in his list on page 206 for the same towns he gives 192 +houses. The total population projected from the maps would then be +3,380. + +In a similar manner Waterman's list may be compared with Kroeber's list +from informants and from the 1852 census. For the pertinent towns the +numbers are: Waterman, 163 houses; Kroeber's informants, 154; the 1852 +census 141. Projecting to the full list in table 2 (p. 91, herein) the +population values are respectively 2,918 and 2,671. Of all the +extrapolations the most significant is that from the 1852 census for it +demonstrates that _at that date_ the Yurok population could not have +fallen far short of 2,500, a figure set by Kroeber as the absolute +maximum for _aboriginal times_. In 1852 the tribe had already suffered +materially from the disturbance caused by white settlement and hence +must not have represented the full pre-settlement value. The average of +all five estimates is 3,124. + +Kroeber states unequivocally that he cannot concede to the Yurok a +population greater than 2,500. Yet the best ethnographic data we +possess, much of it assembled by Kroeber himself, indicate a population +of 3,100 to 3,200. The key to the controversy seems to lie in Kroeber's +decision that house sites and pits must be reduced by a factor of +one-third in order to compute population. His conclusions are summed up +in the following paragraph (1925, p. 18): + + The Yurok recognize that a village normally contained more named + house sites than inhabited houses. Families died out, consolidated, + or moved away. The pit of their dwelling remained and its name + would also survive for a generation or two. If allowance is made + for parts of villages washed out by floods and possibly by mining, + or dwellings already abandoned when the Americans came and totally + forgotten 60 years later, the number of houses sites on these 30 + miles of river may be set at 200 or more in place of 173. In other + words there were _two houses to each three recognized house sites_ + among the Yurok in native times. + +Let us now consider the following points. + +1. With respect to the 173 house sites mentioned in the paragraph above +Kroeber states on the same page (1925, p. 18): "Recent counts of houses +and house pits _recollected as inhabited_, total over 170 for the +Rekwoi-Kepel stretch." (Emphasis mine.) In other words the data +furnished by Kroeber's informants and presented in the table on page 18 +were not based upon the actual or presumptive number of pits but on +inhabited houses. It is this total which conforms so closely to the +count made by the census-takers of 1852 and also that shown on +Waterman's list. By Kroeber's own admission therefore a one-third +reduction for these Yurok towns would not only be unnecessary but would +lead to entirely false conclusions. + +2. Kroeber is not clear whether he means house pits existing on the +ground in 1910 or pits which _might_ have been visible had there been +no destruction due to floods or mining subsequent to 1850. He states +that, if the latter are included, then the number of house sites "may +be set at" 200 or more. But by implication he recommends that the +observed number be reduced by one-third. Now on Waterman's maps the +author shows for 19 towns the actual or approximate location of the +pits visible or otherwise known in the year 1909. There are 210 of +these. At the same time the inhabited houses recollected by informants +for the same towns, as revised by him in his list on page 206, is 192. +Hence the true ratio of reduction is not one-third, or 1 in 3, but 18 +in 210, or 1 in 11.7. It is of course possible to _assume_ that 78 pits +were destroyed between 1850 and 1909 so that the total number was 288 +instead of 210. Then, if the one-third reduction is applied, the result +is 192 houses. Such an arithmetical exercise constitutes merely arguing +in a circle. On the basis of Waterman's concrete data it would appear +reasonable to make a 10 per cent reduction in those localities where +information concerning number of houses is derived exclusively from +pits remaining long after habitation has ceased. + +3. Certain considerations apply to absolute town size apart from the +problem of house number. In Waterman's text descriptions there is no +clear instance of a village inhabited in 1909 which had been settled or +originated after 1850, apart from relocations due to floods or mining. +On the other hand, there are numerous towns which declined or +disappeared during the days of the American invasion and of which the +memory was very hazy in the minds of informants sixty years later. For +instance _hopaw_ had been broken up by smallpox "in the early days." +The village of _rnr_ was being abandoned at the time of the coming of +the whites. The inhabitants of _keperor_ "all died at once" and the +site was deserted. When Waterman saw _otsepor_ the village had only +three house pits, but informants well remembered several families +living there. Waterman felt sure that _srpr_, _espaw_, and _loolego_ +had been larger in aboriginal times than informants seemed to think. +The region around Big Lagoon was once much more populous than +Waterman's data would indicate. No one of these instances is in any way +conclusive but their cumulative effect is considerable. It is quite +possible therefore that along the entire northwest coast and the +Klamath basin the population began an abrupt decline coinciding with +the first arrival of permanent white settlers. Such a condition would +be in entire conformity with much of the testimony derived from +informants in 1910. + + _YUROK ... 3,100_ + + +TABLE 1 + +_Analysis of Village Sites_ + +According to Kroeber, Waterman, and Merriam. Unless otherwise specified, +page numbers refer to Waterman (1920). The column "Status" indicates +whether the existence of a village at or about the year 1850 may be +regarded as certain (C), probable (P), or doubtful (D). + + _No. and name_ _Status_ _Comment_ + + 1. omen-hipur C P. 228. Two groups of house pits. No + further information available to Waterman + but regarded as a town by Kroeber (map, p. + 9). + + 2. omen C P. 230. Four house pits but designated as + a town. It was known that a sweathouse + existed and that the people bathed in the + sea. Hence it was inhabited within the + memory of informants. Shown by Kroeber as + a town (map, p. 9). + + 3. rekwoi C P. 231. No question concerning this town. + + 4. welkwa C P. 232. No question. + + 5. tsekwel P P. 232. "This place was mentioned as a + town site," but Waterman could get no + satisfactory data. Since it was mentioned + specifically as a town site by informants + its existence may be regarded as probable. + Mentioned by Kroeber (p. 10) somewhat + doubtfully as a separate village. + + 6. tmri C P. 232. "Said to have been a village site." + "Captain Jack belonged here." Hence it + certainly was inhabited. The American town + of Requa is located on the site and hence + its organization has been lost. Kroeber + states it as being somewhat doubtful as a + separate village (p. 10) but shows it on + his map as a village occupied only during + certain periods. + + 7. awmennok P On Merriam's lists as a "village on north + side of Klamath River at foot of Bowie's + hill about 1 mile above present Requa." + + 8. kere P On Merriam's lists as a "village on south + side Klamath about 2 miles from mouth." + + 9. kestitsa D See no. 11. + + 10. pegwolaw D See no. 11. + + 11. otweg D P. 227. These three villages were "referred + to" but their location not pointed out by + Waterman's informants. He suggests they + may have been suburbs of _rekwoi_. Kroeber + shows _otwego_ as an intermittently + occupied village on his map and calls it + somewhat doubtful as a separate village on + p. 10. _kestitsa_ and _pegwolaw_ he calls + suburbs. + + It is clear that a constellation of + villages was located here aboriginally, + centered around _rekwoi_. Waterman in + his list assigns 25 houses to _rekwoi_, + 9 to _welkwa_ and none to the others. + Regardless of their status of independence + or permanency there are too many of + these remembered sites to be ignored. + Consequently 3 houses each are assigned to + Waterman's two best authenticated sites, + _tsekwei_ and _tmri_, and to Merriam's + sites _awmennok_ and _kere_. + + 12. osegen C P. 234. A "small town." Informants recalled + 3 houses and 2 sweathouses. + + 13. hopaw C P. 234. "The small pox raged here in the + early days and practically broke up the + village." This may be a clue to the status + of the sites around _rekwoi_. If so, all + modern informants may be too low in their + estimates of houses in the area. + + 14. wokel C No question. + + 15. trwr C See no. 16. + + 16. ahlawsl C P. 235. According to Waterman this was a + camp site. There were very old house pits + dating from a time before the memory of + informants at _trwr_. They had been all + washed away in Waterman's time. Kroeber + (p. 10) states that _trwr_ was a camp site + with no permanent houses. + + On the other hand Merriam in his village + list says: _Terwer_ was "a village on + north side of Klamath at Terwer Creek (old + Klamath reservation); said to be 6 or 7 + miles above present Requa." It was + mentioned by Taylor in 1860. Regarding + _ahlawsl_ Merriam says that it was on the + north bank close to _terwer_ and may be + regarded as the lower part of the latter + village. It was called _alaaca_ by Stevens + in 1868. The existence of the combined + town may hence be regarded as highly + probable if not certain. In view of its + apparent size 8 houses may be assigned to + it. + + 17. yaktar P Merriam says that this was "a village + on south bank Klamath River at mouth + of McGarvey Creek. Waterman gives + _yoxwtr-wroi_ as name of McGarvey Creek + but says nothing as to a village at its + mouth." + + 18. saal C P. 235. An "important town" with 7 to 8 + houses. Waterman, however, shows only 5 on + his list. + + 19. turip C P. 235. A "town" lying on a flat. According + to Waterman it was one of two sites but he + could get no information on the second + site because of local hostility. Some + informants said _turip_ itself had 8 + houses and 3 sweathouses. On Randall's map + (see Waterman, pp. 205 ff.) there is shown + a town, called _koppa_, on the same flat + as _turip_. This is not likely to be an + error for _saal_, because the latter is + across the river, but is very likely + Waterman's second site. Waterman on p. 206 + gives 6 houses for _turip_ but in view of + the second probable village I recommend + increasing this to 8 and thus agree with + Waterman's informants. Kroeber does not + mention this matter. + + 20. stowen P P. 207. This is a "well known place" with + Indians living there now, although they + are not the descendants of the ancient + population. However Waterman also says, on + p. 235, that "the site is well known and + may have been a settlement in former + times." Furthermore, it is on the survey + map Randall made in 1866. This map appears + to have been accurately drawn and creates + a strong presumption that the village was + in existence in early times. It is + reasonable to assign 3 houses to the site. + + 21. rliiken-pets C See no. 23. + + 22. howego P See no. 23. + + 23. tawchter P There is some confusion about these three + places. Kroeber shows (map, p. 9) + _rliiken-pets_ as a place occupied + intermittently, but does not mention + _howego_ or _tawchter_. The first + (_rliiken-pets_) is stated by Waterman to + have been the "site of a small settlement" + where informants recalled 2 houses and a + sweathouse. In the summer the people went + to _howego_ to camp and fish. On p. 237 + _howego_ is described as a "flat" with no + houses mentioned, but on p. 207 Waterman + says: "_howego_ ... is a well known place + ... but was not described to me as a town. + Apparently there is an old town site there + ... whose existence I did not hear of when + on the spot." Further evidence lies in the + fact that the place is shown on the map by + Randall (p. 206) under the name of + _Herwahgah_. + + Merriam lists _rliiken-pets_ as _oleeken_ + and says that it is a "former village ... + about 3 miles below Blue Creek ... named + from Oleeken Bar, at the upper end of + which it is located." On his "Geographic + List" of Yurok villages he describes + _Hawwagah_ as an "old camp" but on his + later list entitled "Polikan (Yurok) + Tribes, Bands and Settlements" he has + interpolated in ink "former village." + _Tawchter_ he describes as a "village on + north bank of Klamath right across from + _Hawwagah_." + + The weight of the evidence favors + certainly two and probably three villages. + Waterman ascribes (p. 207) 2 houses to + _rliiken-pets_, to which may be added + another 2 for _tawchter_. Across the river + _howego_ may also have had 4 houses. + + 24. rnr C P. 237. Waterman says this town was being + abandoned before the coming of the whites + but it is shown on Kroeber's map (p. 9) + and also on Randall's map of 1866. Hence + it must have persisted for at least twenty + years after the white invasion. + + 25. nagil C See no. 28. + + 26. ayol C See no. 28. + + 27. awpaw P See no. 28. + + 28. torah P Pp. 238 and 207. Informants of Waterman + recalled 4 houses at _nagil_, settled + by the great-grandmother of Weitschpek + Frank. The latter was a man of + approximately forty years of age when + Waterman saw him in 1909. Hence, allowing + twenty-five years per generation and + assuming that the ancestor was twenty-five + years old when the place was founded, it + must have been settled definitely prior to + 1850. + + Regarding _ayol_, which Kroeber shows + (map, p. 9) as a standard town, Waterman + says it was a "small settlement." He + thinks the place was early abandoned and + resettled more recently. However Merriam + refers to it as a "village--opposite mouth + of Ahpah Creek" and identifies it with the + _jehehak_ on Randall's map. + + Merriam refers to _awpaw_ as a "village on + south bank Klamath at mouth of Ah Pah + Creek, opposite and straight west of + _oyawsl_ (_ayol_)." He also says that + _torah_ was an "old village on west side + of Klamath, close to _nigehl_, opposite + mouth of Blue Creek." It is also on + Randall's map. + + From the evidence of Randall and Merriam + it appears probable that there were no + less than four villages at this point on + the river. Waterman gives 4 houses of + _nagil_ and 2 for _ayol_. The other two + villages may be tentatively assigned 3 + each. + + 29. srpr C P. 238. At one time of some importance. + Contained 3 houses "in memory of people + now living and had been larger than that." + Destroyed by flood in 1862. + + 30. tekta C P. 239. Kroeber states (p. 10) that + _tekta_ had been occupied recently but did + not seem to be an old site. This is + directly contradicted by Waterman who + calls it "an old town site." The name was + frequently mentioned by his informants. + Moreover he knew of a very old woman who + was married from there as a girl and who + "belongs" in _tekta_. + + 31. otsal D P. 240. "A former village site," now + destroyed. "The present Indians know + nothing about a town here." + + 32. woxkero C See no. 34. + + 33. woxtek C See no. 34. + + 34. qootep C P. 240. There is no question concerning + the aboriginal existence of these towns. + Confusion among modern informants has been + due to population shifts caused by the + flood of 1862, which damaged _qootep_. + + 35. pekwan C P. 243. An "important place." + + 36. yoxtr C P. 244. No question. + + 37. sregon C P. 244. Waterman says: "Everyone agrees + that it has not been there very long." + Some informants said it was settled by + people from _woxtek_ or _pekwan_. But + Waterman says: "... it may have been built + before either of the other places." The + town is on Randall's map and is mentioned + in the 1852 census. Moreover Kroeber says + (p. 10) that it "... enjoyed a reputation + for belligerence and wealth." Its + existence can therefore not be doubted. + + 38. kexkem P P. 245. A site with house pits. The traces + of habitation were "quite clear." But + Waterman could get "no reference to the + people." Kroeber considers (p. 8) that it + was inhabited only from time to time. + However Merriam lists a village called + _leggoonaw_ which was "on south bank of + Klamath between Mettah and Serragon." This + appears to be the exact location of + Waterman's _kexkem_ and it may well have + been the same village. Its existence is + thus probable and 3 houses may be ascribed + to it. + + 39. wererger P Merriam mentions this as a "village on + north bank Klamath River, across from + Mettah and a little above it." At this + spot Waterman shows on his map no. 11 an + "old village site" (his key no. 117). + Hence the existence of the village is + probable. + + 40. meta C P. 245. No question. + + 41. keperor P P. 245. Numerous house pits but informants + never saw the houses. "The inhabitants all + died at once and so the site has never + been used since." A reasonable conclusion + is that a village existed but that the + people died of disease of epidemic + character. (Cf. no. 13.) + + 42. nohtskum C P. 246. A town with only house pits + remaining but of undoubted existence. + + 43. weiqem P A site with 7 or 8 pits. Informants could + not remember any houses. Some said it was + a camp site but they had an elaborate + legend to explain the house pits. The site + is at the mouth of Roach Creek on the + south bank of the river and hence a spot + where one would normally expect a town to + be located. Moreover the number of house + pits is in excess of what would be + anticipated for a mere camp site. + + 44. himel C P. 247. This was a town, but the + informants could barely remember the + houses. Waterman could not determine why + the inhabitants had disappeared. Kroeber + mentions the village as one which may have + been inhabited intermittently or + temporarily (p. 8) and shows it thus on + his map. However, he refers to it as a + distinct town on p. 10 and lists it + jointly with _murek_ on p. 18. It + doubtless disappeared early as a separate + entity. + + 45. murek C P. 247. No question. + + 46. saa C P. 248. No question. + + 47. kepel C P. 248. No question. + + 48. waase C P. 249. A "fairly large town." The people + were rich. + + 49. merip C P. 250. A small place with only one house + name known. Its existence, however is + confirmed by Merriam. + + 50. aukweya P See no. 53. + + 51. qenekpul P See no. 53. + + 52. tsetskwi C See no. 53. + + 53. qenek C Some question exists concerning these + four villages. Kroeber nowhere mentions + _aukweya_, but shows _qenekpul_ and + _tsetskwi_ as temporary or briefly + occupied towns and _qenek_ as a permanent + town. Waterman says that _aukweya_ was a + "settlement, three houses and a + sweathouse." There had been no houses for + many years and the pits were washed out. + _qenekpul_ was important mythologically + and was said to have been built by an old + Indian from _turip_ but there is no record + of house pits or early habitations. + _tsetskwi_ was a settlement with 3 houses + and a sweathouse. In the youth of one + informant there had been at least one + family head living there, who was very + old. Merriam lists all four sites as + villages. + + There seems to be no serious question + concerning the former existence of + _tsetskwi_ and _qenek_. It is highly + probable that the other two sites were + inhabited at the middle of the nineteenth + century. Waterman in his list ascribes a + total of 10 houses to the group, a + reasonable figure (p. 206, see also pp. + 251-252). + + 54. wahsek C P. 254. No question. + + 55. weitspus C P. 257. No question. + + 56. rlrgr C P. 258. "... always a small place" but + several of its families were rich. On + Kroeber's map. + + 57. pekwutul C P. 258. "... slightly larger than _rlrgr_" + but had some wealthy citizens. On Kroeber's + map. + + 58. loolego C P. 258. Shown on Kroeber's map as a standard + town. Waterman says that 30 years before + his visit, _i.e._, in 1879, 2 pits and a + sweathouse were to be seen there. + _loolego_ "... must at one time have been + considerably larger for these people made + up one of four parties who carried on the + public spectacles in the deer skin + ceremony at _weitspus_. They could not + have done this had they not been rather + numerous.... They were obviously + influential people." This condition must + have obtained long before 1879 when only + house pits were known. The site was + destroyed by mining in the 1880's. + + 59. aiqoo C P. 259. Waterman says: "... at least two + houses and a sweathouse stood here." + Kroeber (p. 10) considers _aiqoo_ as a + subdivision of _otsepor_ but Merriam lists + it as a separate village, under the name + _Ikocho_. + + 60. otsepor C In 1909 when Waterman saw it the village + had merely three house pits. But an + informant "... well remembers when several + families ... lived here. They had fine + large houses." + + 61. espaw C P. 261. No question as to existence. + Informants remember 4 houses but Waterman + thinks that "in aboriginal times the + number must have been much larger". + + 62. otmekwor D P. 262. There are 5 house pits but Waterman + thinks this is a true archaeological site, + the inhabitants having moved across to + _oreqw_ several generations ago. On + Kroeber's map as not a permanent + settlement. + + 63. oreqw C P. 262. No question. + + 64. oraw D P. 262. Waterman, Kroeber, and Merriam all + agree that this was a camp site. + + 65. sigwets C P. 262. "... a suburb of _oreqw_. At + least two houses and a sweathouse stood + here and I think originally there may have + been more." In view of Waterman's positive + assertion the existence of the village may + be admitted. + + 66. hrgwrw C P. 265. "One informant said there were + seven houses and two sweathouses." + + 67. tsahpekw C P. 265. "Eleven house names were obtained." + + 68. tsotskwi C P. 265. "An important Indian village stood + here, but has not been inhabited since + more than a generation ago.... One + informant remembered having seen twelve + houses and two sweathouses here." + + 69. paar C See no. 75. + + 70. osloqw C See no. 75. + + 71. kekem P See no. 75. + + 72. maats C See no. 75. + + 73. opyuweg C See no. 75. + + 74. pinpa D See no. 75. + + 75. oketo P Pp. 265-266. These villages were located + on Big Lagoon. The latter "... was a + center of population. At least six + inhabited sites were to be found about its + shores...." At the same time Waterman + admits that his notes were scanty and + contradictory. "Undoubtedly the list of + place names which I obtained in this + locality could easily be expanded + threefold...." "Enormous numbers of water + birds still frequent the lagoon and must + have been an important resource for the + natives." + + The villages of _paar_, _osloqw_, _maats_ + and _opyuweg_ are shown on Kroeber's map + (p. 9) as standard towns although _kekem_ + is mentioned as probably transitory and + _pinpa_ is not mentioned at all. Waterman + states that _paar_ was a town of + considerable size. With respect to + _osloqw_ he says: "A very aged informant + had never seen houses here but her + predecessors had." This indicates an early + and rapid disintegration of the village + complex in the locality. The existence of + both _maats_ and _opyuweg_ at the time of + white settlement is conceded by both + Waterman and Kroeber. Waterman thinks that + _pinpa_ was simply a suburb of _opyuweg_ + since he could obtain no house names here. + _oketo_ is given by Waterman as the name, + in Yurok, of Big Lagoon. It is listed by + Kroeber however (p. 11) as a village (both + as _oketo_ and _chwaltaike_, its Hupa + name). Merriam says that _oketo_ is the + "... Polikla name for Nererner village at + Big Lagoon." Its existence therefore is + highly probable. + + If Waterman is correct in his opinion that + there were originally six villages around + Big Lagoon, then all those mentioned, + except _pinpa_, may be included. For the + first five Waterman gives a total of 35 + houses, or 7 houses per village. If the + same ratio is used, 7 houses may be + assigned to _oketo_, making in all 42. + + 76. olem P P. 267. Waterman considers this a camp + site but Merriam in his list of Yurok + villages states it as "... Nererner name + for their village at Patrick's Point." To + assign 3 houses is probably adequate. + + 77. tsurai C P. 271. No question. + + 78. srepor C P. 272. Some informants told Waterman that + there were 4 houses and a sweathouse. On + permanency of habitation he has no + information. Kroeber on his map shows the + site as a transitory village (p. 9) but on + p. 113 he mentions Little River "... at + whose mouth stood the Yurok town of + Metskwo (_srepor_)." Merriam also mentions + Matskaw, a "village at mouth of Little + River, on north side ..." Its aboriginal + existence may therefore be taken as at + least highly probable. + + +TABLE 2 + +_Numbers of Houses_ + +The figures in the first column are for village sites as listed in +table 1. Sources: R, Randall's map; 1. Waterman's list (1920. p. 206); +t. Waterman's text (1920); M. Merriam's village lists; p, an estimate. + + _Kroeber_, _Kroeber_, + _House_ _"modern_ _1852_ + _No._ _Source_ _Count_ _memories"_ _census_ + + 1 l 7 + 2 t 4 + 3 l 25 } } + 4 l 9 } 23+} 22+ + 5 tp 3 + 6 tp 3 + 7 Mp 3 + 8 Mp 3 + 12 l 4 + 13 l 4 9 6 + 14 l 3 2 2 + 15 Mp 8 + 17 Mp 3 + 18 l 5 5 2 + 19 t 8 8+ 14 + 20 Rp 3 + 21 lp 4 + 22 Rp 4 + 24 l 3 + 25 t 4 + 26 t 2 + 27 Mp 3 + 28 Mp 3 + 29 l 3 3 4 + 30 tp 3 + 32 l 4 } } + 33 l 13 } 13 } 7 + 34 l 22 18 24 + 35 l 24 17+ 20 + 36 l 4 4 3 + 37 l 5 6 7 + 38 Mp 3 + 39 Mp 3 + 40 l 6 7 6 + 41 tp 5 + 42 l 3 4 4 + 43 tp 6 + 44 l 4 } } + 45 l 11 } 21 } 14 + 45 l 8 } } + 47 l 4 } 14 } 6 + 48 l 6 + 49 l 5 + 50 l 3 + 51 l 1 + 52 l 2 + 53 l 4 + 54 l 6 + 55 l 17 + 56 l 6 + 57 l 5 + 58 l 4 + 59 l 2 + 60 l 3 + 61 l 7 + 63 l 7 + 65 t 2 + 66 l 5 + 67 l 10 + 68 l 5 + 69 tp 5 + 70 tp 3 + 71 t 4 + 72 l 5 + 73 l 18 + 75 Mp 7 + 76 Mp 3 + 77 l 14 + 78 t 4 + + + +THE WIYOT + + +There are three primary ethnographic sources for the population of the +Wiyot. The first is the extensive monograph by Loud (1918), the second +a short paper by Nomland and Kroeber (1936), and the third the village +lists of Merriam. + +Loud based his data on interviews with numerous informants together +with a rather cursory visual inspection of the region. He shows nearly +two hundred sites of all kinds on his map and differentiates by means +of conventional symbols between what he calls "archaeological" and +"modern village" sites. By the latter he means settlements which were +occupied at approximately the time of the American invasion of 1850. In +his text he discusses descriptively a few of the more important of the +"modern village" sites but for most of the smaller places he furnishes +no information other than inclusion on his map. His coverage is fairly +good for the valley of the Mad River and for Humboldt Bay but his +treatment of the valley of the Eel River is nearly worthless. +Recognizing this deficiency in Loud's data, Nomland and Kroeber secured +the services of an informant who was born in 1860 in this area and had +lived there all his life. They were thus able to obtain a very complete +list of sites, together with a fairly accurate house count for each of +them. This list is therefore as reliable as we shall ever be able to +get and, unless we wish to discard this type of information completely, +we must accept it as essentially correct. + +For the Mad River and Humboldt Bay areas the recently acquired village +lists of Merriam form an admirable supplement to Loud's compilation. +Merriam went over the ground personally and checked carefully Loud's +sites. He was thus able to clarify many of the obscurities in the data +furnished by the earlier investigator. Where points of discrepancy +arise between the two authors therefore, more reliance may be placed +upon Merriam. + +The family number is taken by Kroeber (1925. p. 116) as the same as for +the Yurok, i.e., 7.5. Loud obtained estimates for both house number and +population for three villages. Site 45 gave 13.5 persons per house, +site 67 gave 9, and site 112 gave 5. The average is slightly over 9, a +figure which has no further significance than to indicate that the +Yurok value of 7.5 may be applied safely to the Wiyot. + +With respect to Kroeber's principle of a one-third reduction in the +number of houses the same considerations apply as with the Yurok data. +There is nothing to indicate in the work of either Loud or Nomland and +Kroeber that informants were not thinking in terms of inhabited houses +rather than total deserted houses or house pits. Indeed we have in +Loud's text three specific instances (nos. 7, 67, and Y) where the +informant not only stated that the houses were occupied in the early +days but also gave the names of the persons living in all of them. It +is difficult to reconcile a one-third reduction with such data. + +In table 3 (pp. 94-96, herein) are given a few notes, gleaned mainly +from Loud and supplemented from Merriam's list, which are of interest +in determining the existence and population of certain villages. All +villages are included the existence of which in approximately 1850 Loud +regards as reasonably certain. To these are added several of Loud's +doubtful sites, the validity of which has been confirmed by Merriam, +plus five villages missed by Loud but discovered by Merriam. The house +counts for those towns confirmed or discovered by Merriam have had to +be estimated. The number has been taken rather uniformly as 2 or 3 in +order to maintain as conservative a standard as possible. For 22 of the +larger and better known sites Loud's informants gave an average of 6.5 +houses. Hence an average of 3 for those whose names and locations only +were known seems in no way excessive. + +In table 4 (p. 97, herein) are shown the best estimates for the Mad +River and Humboldt Bay areas from Loud and Merriam and for the Eel +River valley from Nomland and Kroeber. The total is 440. At 7.5 persons +per house this means a population of 3,300 inhabitants for the Wiyot. +The corresponding figure given by Kroeber in the Handbook (p. 116) is +"perhaps 800 or not over 1,000." Loud states on page 302: "If asked to +give an extreme figure for the native population ... the writer would +say 1,500, and consider any higher figure pure folly." The present +writer, however, stands by the figure of approximately 3,300, insofar +as the estimate is based on ethnographic material. + +It was suggested in connection with the Yurok that this tribe was +already undergoing some reduction in population at the time of the +first entry of Americans en masse in 1850 and that the best memory of +informants in the decade 1900-1910 could not give us the truly +aboriginal picture. For the Wiyot the evidence is still more +impressive. None of Loud's white informants could go back of 1850 and +one gets the impression that his Indian informants could do little +better. John Sherman, the informant of Nomland and Kroeber, was born in +1860, subsequent to ten years of massacre and disintegration of native +society. This state of affairs is reflected in many statements in +Loud's text. (See also table 3, pp. 94-96, herein.) For instance +several strikingly large and recent graveyards are mentioned, a +statement which can refer only to the period of 1850 or immediately +before. Site 22, according to tradition, had once possessed a large +population, and site 23 was said to have been a "regular rancheria" one +hundred years previously (that is, previous to 1918). Nevertheless the +population of these towns could not be included in the present estimate +because no informant living in this century could remember houses +there. Site 68 had been declining prior to 1850, the inhabitants either +dying or moving elsewhere. The tremendous destruction of population +_after_ 1850 is everywhere evident in Loud's account and it is not too +much to suppose that the confusion of the period is reflected in too +_low_ values given by modern informants. If this is true, then it is +quite possible that the estimate given here of 3,300 Wiyot is actually +considerably lower than the true aboriginal population, rather than +higher. + + _WIYOT ... 3,300_ + + +TABLE 3 + +_Wiyot Sites listed by Loud (1918)_ + +Notes and comment with respect to some of Loud's sites. Page numbers +unless otherwise specified refer to Loud (1918). The notation "Merriam" +indicates that the site was checked and accepted by Merriam, who +included it in his village list of the Wiyot. The letter A signifies +that Merriam had obtained an Athapascan name for the site, thus +confirming its existence as an entity known to the neighboring tribes +in pre-American times. + + _Loud's Sites_ _Comment_ + + Site 3 Merriam + + Site 4 Merriam (A) + + Site 5 Merriam (A) + + Site 6 Merriam (A) + + Site 7 P. 259. There were 11 houses, all occupied, + the names of the families known to Loud's + informant. + + Site 8 Merriam + + Sites H, I, J, 9 P. 262. These are located in the former + Big Bend of the Mad River. A pioneer told + Loud that there had once been 20 houses in + the area. Another informant said that site I + had been "one of the largest villages" and + "... had a large graveyard." Site 9 was said + by Curtis (Nomland and Kroeber, p. 44) to + have had 5 houses. Loud's informant gave it 5 + or 6. Hence the estimate of the pioneer + appears quite reasonable. Merriam lists all + four sites with their Wiyot and Athapascan + names. + + Sites D through G These sites extend along Mad River and around + K through X the shores of Blue Lake. Loud gives no + AA through AK specific data + concerning them and some are individually + doubtful. However, Loud says that the houses + were scattered along both banks of the river + and the shores of the lake. "That is, about + every mile there was an Indian house or two." + Although Loud was not very accurate in the + location of the sites, it is quite probable + that scattered homes existed in at least the + ratio of one dwelling to each site mentioned. + Hence it is reasonable to ascribe a minimum + of at least one house per site. This would + yield a total of 29 houses. + + Loud's data were checked and revised by + Merriam, who appears to have done a more + careful piece of work on this area than Loud. + Merriam confirms and gives Wiyot and + Athapascan names for Loud's villages E, G, K, + L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, AA, + AB, AC, and AG, or 20 villages in all. The + minimum number of houses which can be + ascribed to a "village" is 2. On the other + hand several of the 20 sites must have + contained more than the minimum and therefore + it would be legitimate to set the average at + 3. This would mean a total of 60 houses for + the entire area covered by these villages. + + Site Y P. 265. The site had 4 houses, all occupied, + the names of the occupants known to Loud's + informant. Merriam (A). + + Site Z P. 274. This town was destroyed by the Chilula + just prior to 1850. The whites found 30 to 40 + fresh graves. Merriam says it was the "chief + village in vicinity of Blue Lake at time of + Chilula attack." + + Site 14 P. 272. Stated by Loud to be a camping place + but called a village by Merriam. Status + doubtful. + + Site 17 Merriam. + + Site 19 Merriam. + + Site 22 P. 274. "... according to tradition once had + a large population." Loud thinks it was + uninhabited by 1850 but Merriam lists it as a + village. Estimate 4 houses. + + Site 23 P. 274. "... said to be a regular rancheria + one hundred years ago." Nomland and Kroeber + (p. 42) say it has been uninhabited in modern + times and Merriam considers it an + archaeological site. + + Site 31 P. 272. A summer camp according to Loud but + a village according to Merriam. Allow 2 + houses. + + Site 33 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. + + Site 34 P. 265. Loud found no houses and only 2 house + pits. However in 1890 there were 20 graves + which were visited by relatives. Listed by + Merriam. Estimate 4 houses. + + Site 36 Stated by Merriam to be an archaeological + site. + + Site 39 Merriam. Estimate 2 houses. + + Site AL P. 273. According to an informant there were + several houses in 1856 with one occupied. + Listed by Merriam. Estimate 4 houses. + + Site 45 P. 272. According to an informant there were + 2 houses and 25 to 30 inhabitants in 1852. + Deserted in 1860. + + Site 48 Merriam. Estimate 2 houses. + + Site 58 P. 268. The site was known to pioneers, who + said it had 8 to 10 houses in 1858. Listed by + Merriam. Estimate 9 houses. + + Site 65 P. 268. There were three to four houses in 1852. + The inhabitants were driven out shortly + afterward. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 3.5 + houses. + + Site 67 P. 266. An informant said there were 9 houses + once, all occupied, the names of the persons + being known to him. Robert Gunther told Loud + that in 1860 there were 6 houses left with 50 + to 60 persons. + + P. 268. "Estimates of population ... in 1850 + have been placed much higher, but after the + introduction of certain diseases by the + whites, the population decreased somewhat." + Estimate 9 houses. + + Site 68 The village had been declining prior to 1850. + At the time the population was one-third that + of site 67. The last family moved in 1857 + when a white man took up the land. Estimate 3 + houses. + + Site 69 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 73 P. 269. There were 8 to 10 plank houses here + in 1851. Listed by Merriam. Estimate 9 + houses. + + Site 77 P. 270. White informants say there were not + more than half-a-dozen houses, although an + Indian says many people used to live here. + Listed by Merriam. Estimate 6 houses. + + Site 79 Nomland and Kroeber (p. 43) say this was + one of the two largest Wiyot towns, hence + there were at least 10 houses. It was + destroyed in 1850 by white settlement. + + Site 80 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 83 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 84 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 86 P. 271. "... a permanent village." Listed + by Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 88 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 90 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 91 P. 273. A camping place, according to Loud, + but a village on Merriam's lists. Allow 2 + houses. + + Site AM Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 92 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 93 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 98 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 100 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 102 P. 271. Loud says camping place, Merriam + village. Allow 2 houses. + + Site 104 Shown as archaeological site on Loud's map + but given by Merriam as a village. Allow 2 + houses. + + Site 109 Merriam. Estimate 3 houses. + + Site 112 P. 269. The village had 10 houses and at + least 51 inhabitants before the massacre of + 1860. + + Other sites In addition to the above sites found by Loud + there are five listed by name by Merriam. + These should be included and assigned an + average of 3 houses each. The total then + would be 15. + + +TABLE 4 + +_Wiyot Settlements_ + +_Mad River and Humboldt Bay_ + +Wiyot settlements according to Loud, Merriam, and Nomland and Kroeber, +covering the Mad River and Humboldt Bay. The key designations are those +given by Loud. The house counts are from Loud with the exception of +sites B and C which are from Nomland and Kroeber and of several sites +from Merriam for which I have made my own estimates (indicated by the +letters _Mp._). In all instances where a range is given by informants +(e.g., 2-4 houses) the mean is placed in the table. + + _Loud's no._ _House count_ + + 3 3 Mp + 4 and 5 12.5 + 6 3 Mp + 7 11 + 8 3 Mp + H, I, J, 9 20 + D-G } + K-X } 60 Mp + AA-AK} + A 8 + B 4 + C 5.5 + Y 4 + Z 12 + 17 4.5 + 19 3 Mp + 22 4 Mp + 31 2 Mp + 33 8 Mp + 34 4 Mp + 39 2 Mp + 45 2 + AL 4 Mp + 48 2 Mp + 58 9 + 65 3.5 + 67 9 + 68 3 + 69 3 Mp + 73 9 + 77 6 + 79 10 + 80 3 Mp + 83 3 Mp + 84 3 Mp + 86 3 Mp + 88 3 Mp + 90 3 Mp + 91 2 Mp + AM 3 Mp + 92 3 Mp + 93 3 Mp + 98 3 Mp + 100 3 Mp + 102 2 Mp + 104 2 Mp + 109 3 Mp + 112 10 + Others 15 Mp + --- + Total 299 + +_Eel River_ + +Wiyot settlements on the Eel River as given to Nomland and Kroeber by +the informant John Sherman. The villages are numbered consecutively +from the list on pages 40 to 42 of their paper (1936). The list here is +cut off at village no. 32, which Kroeber, following Powers, puts as the +limit of the Wiyot. The presence of the Wiyot racial group above this +point is controversial. For numerous towns the informant uses the +non-specific terms "few," "many," etc. These expressions have been +transformed arbitrarily, but I think conservatively, into numerical +form as follows: Few = 2; several = 4; many = 8; large = 10. + + _Sherman's_ + _estimate_ + _Serial_ _of house_ _Final_ + _No._ _count_ _estimate_ + + 1. few 2 + 2. few 2 + 3. 2-3 2.5 + 4. 2-3 2.5 + 5. 5-10 7.5 + 6. 5-10 7.5 + 7. 4-5 4.5 + 8. 1-2 1.5 + 9. 1-2 1.5 + 10. 10 plus 10 + 11. 5-6 5.5 + 12. several 4 + 13. several 4 + 14. 1-2 1.5 + 15. 1-2 1.5 + 16. 5-10 7.5 + 17. few 2 + 18. 0 0 + 19. 5-10 7.5 + 20. 0 0 + 21. large "20" 10 + 22. several 4 + 23. many 8 + 24. many 8 + 25. several 4 + 26. several 4 + 27. several 4 + 28. several 4 + 29. no statement + 30. many 8 + 31. inhabited 2 + 32. many 8 + --- + Total 139 + + + + +THE KAROK + + +The village distribution of the Karok was treated briefly by Kroeber in +the Handbook, pages 99 to 102, and far more exhaustively in a later +paper (1936). For the latter he secured the services of two good +informants, a very elderly Indian man named Ned and a woman, Mary +Jacops, with whom he examined the area carefully. The list set forth on +pages 30 to 34 of his publication must be regarded as definitive. It is +true that Merriam has a very complete list of Karok villages but his +names vary linguistically from those of Kroeber to such an extent that, +save in a few instances, it is extremely difficult to reconcile them. +However, since Merriam's total is 115 for the same territory where +Kroeber finds 108 and since Merriam does not give house counts the +Kroeber list may be used exclusively. + +Ned gave house counts but Mrs. Jacops did not. Kroeber amplified +wherever possible with data from Curtis (cited by Kroeber, p. 30, as +The North American Indian, 13:222). Ned's counts were very cautious +since he distinguished frequently between the number of houses he had +seen at a given site and the number he had heard were there. On the +basis of such distinctions Kroeber reduces the total count by a factor +of one-sixth. He states (p. 35): + + Among the Yurok ... two occupied houses may be reckoned for each + three house sites recognized when full detailed data are at hand. + They are obviously not detailed for the Karok. + +I must take issue with two points. With the Karok the counts were not +based upon house sites recognized but on the memory of _inhabited +houses_ by informants. Hence the house site or pit theory cannot +apply. In the second place, a reasonably thorough examination of the +_published_ material on the Yurok, Wiyot, and the Karok shows that the +data for the Karok presented by Kroeber represents the fullest detail +of all with respect to the number of houses. + +Apropos of the same question it is of interest to point out the house +counts given by Ned for the fifteen villages also provided with counts +by Curtis for 1860. Kroeber has tabulated these himself and shows that, +despite variation in individual detail, the total for Ned is 60 and +that for Curtis is 57-60. The identity is remarkable. Commenting on +this situation, Kroeber makes the following very significant statement +(p. 35. fn.): + + It is apparent that, for any particular settlement, no precise + figure, even by a good informant, is very reliable unless based on + an enumeration of named houses. But for a larger series of + settlements the particular variations, resulting from changes of + residence or difference of times referred to, tend to cancel each + other out and to yield _comparable and fairly reliable totals_. + +(Emphasis mine.) The present writer, consequently, can see no necessity +for a gross reduction of one-sixth of the computed population. + +Kroeber's list shows 108 towns plus 10 mentioned by Curtis as being in +Karok territory on the Salmon River. The first 84 villages were covered +by Ned, who gave house counts for 61 of them. Using wherever possible +the houses actually seen, not merely heard of, by Ned we get a total of +248. This is a little smaller than Kroeber's total for the same sites +of 254. In this group of 84 villages 9 have counts from Curtis but not +from Ned, with a total of 24 houses. By Kroeber's own showing Curtis' +counts are as reliable in the aggregate as those of Ned. Sites 85 to +108 are derived only from Mrs. Jacops who did not give counts. Kroeber +proposes (pp. 34-35) to reduce these to 15 settlements and assign an +average value of 4 houses per village. This seems entirely reasonable, +and gives us 60 houses. We may now add the 10 villages on the Salmon +River cited from Curtis by Kroeber and, to be conservative, assign an +average count of 3 houses each. The total of all Karok houses then +becomes 362. At the customary 7.5 persons per house the population of +the Karok is 2,715. or with sufficient accuracy, 2,700. + + _KAROK ... 2,700_ + + + + +THE HUPA + + +There are four sources of consequence for the Hupa population. The +first is the discussion to be found on pages 128 to 132 in the Handbook +by Kroeber, which includes a census furnished to the government by the +Yurok in 1851. The second is a monograph published by Goddard (1903). +The third is a particularly exhaustive village list compiled by +Merriam. The fourth is a map drawn by Gibbs in 1852, photostatic copies +of which are to be found in the Merriam collection. + +The towns of the Hupa fall naturally into two subdivisions, the first +comprising those in Hupa Valley proper and the second those above the +valley which extended along the main Trinity River and its South Fork. +The first included 12 villages which are mentioned by name by Goddard +and are shown on his map. For most of them he indicates houses by dots +and solid squares which can easily be counted. Kroeber lists on page +129 the same 12 towns and all but one of them appear on Merriam's list. +(These are numbered 1-12 in table 5. p. 100, herein.) Village no. 2, +Dakis-hankut, is omitted by Merriam but is shown with houses by +Goddard. Village no. 8, Totltsasding, is stated by Kroeber to have +been "unoccupied in 1850." Goddard however merely says that it had been +deserted for a long time. On the other hand it had been sufficiently +well known to the Yurok for them to have a name for it, and Merriam +does not question its existence. These two villages may therefore be +retained in the list. + +With regard to the second group Kroeber gives two villages (nos. 13 and +14) as "permanent settlements." Above these come five towns (nos. 15 to +19 inclusive) lying on the main Trinity River, which are mentioned by +name by Kroeber. Although they are mentioned "in early sources" as +being in the area Kroeber nevertheless does not think they should be +added to his list. However, they are cited by Merriam, for the same +area, and three of them are shown with house counts on Gibbs's map. +Their existence seems therefore to be assured. They are probably the "5 +other villages in and above Hupa Valley, not positively identified" +which are cited in the Yurok list by Kroeber on page 131. + +No. 20, Tjelding, is given by Kroeber as certain and is included by +Merriam. The remaining villages, although not specifically mentioned by +Kroeber or Goddard, are given in his list by Merriam with the explicit +statement that "these were permanent villages. There were also several +camps along the south side of Trinity." Since Merriam is the only +investigator who has made a thorough examination of this area, his work +must be accepted. + +With respect to house counts it is interesting to compare the six +villages in Hupa Valley which occur, on the one hand, on the Yurok list +of Kroeber or on the Gibbs map and, on the other hand, on Goddard's +map. The former give a total count for these towns of 82 houses, +whereas Goddard shows 78. The Yurok census and Gibbs's map were +formulated in 1851 and 1852 immediately after the advent of the whites. +Goddard presumably derived his data from informants in or about the +year 1900. From the two sets of figures it is clear that Goddard's +cannot be too high and therefore those he gives for villages not +covered by the earlier sources must be reasonably reliable. Goddard's +total for 11 sites is 128, or an average of 11.6 houses per settlement. +In default of other information this value, rounded off to 11, may be +applied to no. 8. + +Passing to the second group, we find that the five villages above Hupa +Valley on the main Trinity River are shown on the 1851 census list as +having 23 houses. The map by Gibbs assigns house counts to three of +these, nos. 15, 16, and 19 with 4, 3, and 6 houses respectively. The +average from the census is 4.6 houses per village and that from Gibbs +is 4.3. We may accept from these data the value 4.5 as representing the +mean house count for villages outside Hupa Valley proper. This is +notably lower than the mean for the valley itself but is consistent +with the poorer, more remote terrain. + +Using Goddard's counts and the 1851 census where possible and +supplementing by the estimate given above for the other villages we get +a total of 198 houses for the Hupa. At 7.5 persons per house the +population would have been 1,485. This is considerably above Kroeber's +"barely 1.000" (p. 130). + +A further question presents itself at this point. Should we accept +without reservation the Yurok value of 7.5 inhabitants per house? Two +lines of evidence become pertinent here. Goddard in describing Hupa +society makes the following statements (p. 58): + + A typical family consisted of the man and his sons, the wife or + wives of the man, the unmarried or half-married daughters, the + wives of the sons, and the grandchildren. To these may be added + unmarried or widowed brothers or sisters of the man and his + wife.... All the children born in the _same house_ called each + other brothers and sisters, whether they were children of the same + parents or not. + +(Emphasis mine.) To this Kroeber adds (p. 132): "The ultimate basis of +this life is obviously blood kinship, but the _immediately controlling +factor is the association of common residence; in a word, the house_." +Now the social family in the usual monogamous tribe included the +father, mother, children, and occasional close relatives. This was the +underlying assumption of Kroeber's estimate of 7.5 persons as the +social family among the Yurok. Here, very clearly, the social family +was far more extensive, perhaps in occasional instances as much as +double the Yurok value. At any rate the value 7.5 seems definitely too +low. + +Another approach is through the data furnished by Kroeber on page 131 +of the Handbook. Here he shows a population census taken from seven +villages in the year 1870 (the last item "sawmill" may be deleted as +impossible to place). The total is 601 persons. Goddard's data show for +these same seven villages a house count of 92 for the years centering +around 1850. The direct average number of persons per house would be +6.53. Meanwhile Kroeber points out the disparity between the sexes: 232 +males and 359 females. This he attributes to warfare alone, a dubious +conclusion. Regardless of cause, however, we may calculate that in the +absence of this male mortality and with a normal sex ratio of +approximately unity the population would have been twice the female +number or 718. The average number per house under such conditions would +then have been 7.80. + +It must be borne in mind that the population count is of 1870 and the +house count is of 1850 or earlier. Although Kroeber feels that there +was no population decline, apart from the effect of warfare on the +males just mentioned, I cannot agree with him. In the face of the +overwhelming evidence for a tremendous decline subsequent to 1850 on +the part of the Indian population throughout all California it is +impossible to concede complete immunity to any one tribe no matter how +well protected it might have been. Consequently, we must allow for a +reduction from 1850 to 1870 even on the part of the females. It is +impracticable to set any sure figure on the decline but a value of 20 +per cent would be very conservative, particularly in comparison with +all the northwestern tribes. This would mean a population for the seven +villages of 879, or say 900 in 1850. On this basis the number of +persons per house becomes 9.78. + +I think therefore we are justified in ascribing 10 persons to each Hupa +house. If so the population would have been 1,980, or approximately +2,000. It is entirely possible that even this is too conservative an +estimate. + + _HUPA ... 2,000_ + + +TABLE 5 + +_Hupa Villages_ + +According to Kroeber (K), Goddard (Go), Gibbs (Gi), and Merriam (M). +The numbering is purely arbitrary and is based on Kroeber's list. The +house counts are from Goddard's map, the Yurok census of 1851 as cited +by Kroeber (p. 131), and the 1852 map of Gibbs. + + Houses Houses Houses + from from from Houses + 1851 Goddard's Gibb's by + No. and Name census map map estimate + + 1. Honsading: K, M, Go, Gi 9 11 9 + 2. Dakis-hankut: K, Go 7 + 3. Kinchuwikut: K, M, Go 8 + 4. Cheindekotding: K, M, Go 12 + 5. Miskut: K, M, Go, Gi 6 11 6 + 6. Takimitlding: K, M, Go, Gi 20 14 20 + 7. Tsewenalding: K, M, Go, Gi 10 6 10 + 8. Totltsasding: K, M, Go 8 + 9. Medilding: K, M, Go, Gi 28 23 28 + 10. Djishtangading: K, M, Go, Gi 13 9 + 11. Howunkut: K, M, Go 14 + 12. Haslinding: K, M, Go 9 + 13. Kachwunding: K 4.5 + 14. Mingkutme: K 4.5 + 15. Sehachpeya: K, Gi, M } 4 + 16. Waugullewatl: K, Gi, M } 3 + 17. Ahelta: K, M } 23 + 18. Sokeakeit: K, M } + 19. Tashuanta: K, M, Gi } 6 + 20. Tjelding: K, M 3 + 21. Tiltswetchaki: M 4.5 + 22. Chilchtaltung: M 4.5 + 23. Ostantung: M 4.5 + 24. Hlitchchoochtung: M 4.5 + 25. Klokumne: K, M 4.5 + 26. Tahchoochtung: M 4.5 + + + + +THE TOLOWA + + +Apart from the discussion by Kroeber in the Handbook (pp. 124-125) +there have been two published attempts to enumerate the villages of the +Tolowa. One of these was by Waterman (1925) and the other by Drucker +(1937). Of all these the treatment by Drucker is the most complete +since he had the advantage of a knowledge of the earlier work. Although +he may have missed settlements in the interior, for present purposes we +must accept his list as a working basis. + +Drucker mentions 23 villages, all located on the coast or along the +lower reaches of the Smith River. Kroeber gives 10 sites from which he +computes the population, at the Yurok rate of 45 inhabitants per +village, as 450. Waterman gives 14 places, which, at the same rate, +would yield 630. Drucker has house counts for 13 of his villages, with +a total of 88 houses or 6.76 houses per village. At the Yurok count of +7.5 persons per house, which Kroeber says applies to the Tolowa, the +average population per village would be 51. Kroeber's estimate of 45 is +thus quite close. There is no good reason to suppose, in view of the +lack of any good evidence to the contrary that the other 10 villages of +Drucker were smaller than those for which he gave house counts. Thus we +may add 68 houses, making a total of 156 and a population of 1,186. +Kroeber would of course reduce by one-third but the reasons for so +doing are no more compelling with this than with any other tribe. + +Drucker (p. 226) states that his house counts are as of 40 to 50 years +ago. This means, first, that the houses were described to him by +informants as known to them in their youth to be inhabited (hence no +reduction necessary) and, second, that the counts represent the +situation during the period of 1885 to 1895. + +Now the counts published for all the tribes hitherto considered were +based upon the conditions obtaining at approximately 1850, 35 to 45 +years earlier. In other words, Drucker's figures cannot in any sense +represent the aboriginal state, for there must have been a marked +decline in population and in number of houses among the Tolowa between +1850 and 1890. The implication is, startling as it may seem, that the +population estimate given above is much too low. + +Some idea of what may have happened can be secured by a brief +reconsideration of Waterman's Yurok data. It will be remembered that +Waterman shows detailed maps of 19 villages, including not only houses +once standing but also houses standing and inhabited when he saw them +in 1909. The ratio of the former to the latter is 189 to 38. There were +of course many more houses standing in 1890 than in 1909, although the +population did not decline materially during these particular twenty +years. Hence the ratio found by Waterman for the Yurok cannot be +applied directly to the Tolowa. Nevertheless it is reasonable to assume +that a count made among the Yurok in 1890 would have shown that not +more than half as many houses were being inhabited then as had been in +1850. If so, Drucker's total of 156 might be doubled, giving 312 and a +population of 2,372. Such an estimate may appear totally at variance +with the other known facts pertaining to the tribe but I am inclined to +adhere to it. + +Further support for such a view comes from consideration of relative +population decline since 1850. On page 19 of the Handbook Kroeber cites +the federal census of 1910 as showing 668 persons for the Yurok and on +page 130 over 600 for the Hupa. He thinks that the Hupa were less +numerous than the Karok and the latter less numerous than the Yurok. +With respect to the Karok he says (p. 102): "It is also clear that the +proportional loss of the Karok in the past 65 years has been relatively +mild, possibly not exceeding one half." In another connection he +discusses at some length the reasons why the Hupa suffered less than +many other tribes--primarily because of their protected position and +the lack of mining in their area. Now the Wiyot in 1910 had 150 people +and the Tolowa 120. If their loss had been of the order of one half, as +Kroeber feels is the case with the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa, then the +population of the Wiyot in 1850 would have been in the vicinity of 300 +and the Tolowa 240. Actually, in his original estimates Kroeber did set +the figures for these tribes not much higher: 800 for the Wiyot and 450 +for the Tolowa. Kroeber thus defeats his own argument with respect to +the small decline and protected position of the Karok and Hupa. For the +position of the Wiyot and the Tolowa were the most exposed to white +influence of any of the Northwestern tribes. They were located on the +fertile, commercial, and well settled coast. Many types of evidence +point to their early and rapid disintegration and almost extinction. +They should have suffered the worst losses and did. Hence it is not as +far fetched as it might seem at first sight to ascribe to the Tolowa a +population in 1850 of nearly 2,400. + + _TOLOWA ... 2,400_ + + + + +THE ATHAPASCANS + + +THE CHILULA + +With the Chilula we encounter the first of the small Athapascan tribes +of Northwestern California. Their villages have been studied +intensively by Goddard (1910), who lists 18 but gives no house +counts.[1] Merriam, who re-examined Goddard's report likewise finds 18 +sure villages plus 21 summer camps and 2 places of indeterminate +character. + + [1] Since completion of this manuscript, Mr. Martin R. Baumhoff + of the Department of Anthropology has discovered village lists + filed many years ago by Pliny E. Goddard, which cover Athapascan + territory in addition to that held by the Wailaki. Mr. Baumhoff + is now analyzing the new data and his results will probably + necessitate an upward revision of the population figures given + here. + +Merriam deviated from Kroeber very widely in his tribal names for the +Athapascan groups. It is probably preferable to retain Kroeber's +terminology without prejudice to Merriam simply because Kroeber's names +are at the present time much the more widely accepted and used. +Merriam's material pertaining to the Chilula is to be found in his +manuscript entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut Camps and +Villages." He thus includes the Chilula among the Whilkut. + +The closest approach to a house count is reported by Kroeber (1925, p. +138) who states that six of the identified settlements showed 17, 7, 4, +2, 4, and 8 house pits respectively. This is an average of 7. Kroeber +considers that the customary one-third reduction should apply and in +this instance with considerable justification, since there were no +living informants and the villages had not been inhabited since +the 1850's. However, the careful study of the Yurok by Waterman +demonstrated that the apparent ratio of contemporary house pits to +former known inhabited houses was approximately 10 to 9 rather than 3 +to 2. It is hence legitimate to reduce the average value of houses per +village for the Chilula from 7 to 6. With 18 sites this means 108 +homes. Applying the Yurok value of 7.5 persons per house instead of the +probable Hupa value of 10. we get a population of 810 persons. This is +somewhat greater than Kroeber's estimate of 500 to 600. + + _Chilula ... 800_ + + +THE MATTOLE + +That portion of the Mattole living on Bear River have been studied by +Nomland (1938) through information supplied by a single very old +informant. The house and family relationships appear to resemble those +found among the Wiyot directly to the north, although no numerical data +of any kind are given. The data hitherto presented have yielded as +average number of houses per village, 6.0 for the Yurok. 4.5 for the +Wiyot, 6.8 for the Tolowa, and 6.0 for the Chilula. The mean of these +averages is 5.8, or let us say in round numbers 6, a value which seems +reasonable for those Athapascan tribes for which there are no direct +counts. The Yurok family number of 7.5 also appears applicable. + +Merriam in his list entitled "Nekanne Tribe and Villages" mentions only +three villages on Bear River but Nomland (1938) in her more careful +examination of the territory found 8. Hence the population of this +group may be set at 360. + +Apart from Bear River the Mattole territory included the drainages of +Davis Creek and the Mattole River, together with the west bank of the +Eel River for a short distance above the Wiyot. Davis Creek is much +smaller than Bear Creek and probably was sparsely settled. Nevertheless +Nomland's informant mentioned individuals who were from Davis Creek and +hence it must be assumed that there was at least one and very likely as +many as two villages there. The Mattole River was larger than Bear +River and has been well covered by Merriam in his list entitled "Bettol +or Pettol (Mattol) Tribe and Villages." He cites 10 named villages. In +addition, he includes the Kooske, who he says were a "very large band +and village ('hundreds of people') formerly on Koosky (or Cooskie) +Creek on or near the coast 2-1/2 or 3 miles southeast of Punta Gorda +lighthouse." He also cites two indentures for Indians of this tribe +which he found in the Eureka court house. + +The 2 villages on Davis Creek and the 10 on Mattole River would yield +540 persons. If we accept Merriam's description of the Kooske tribe, we +may add another 300. The total for the Mattole would then be a +population of 1,200. + + _Mattole ... 1,200_ + + +THE WHILKUT + +For information on the Whilkut we are indebted to Merriam for the +only village list extant. He covers the tribe, together with the +Chilula, in his list entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut +Camps and Villages," revised, according to a pencil notation of the +title sheet, in 1939. + +Merriam gives 15 villages for the Hoechkienok or "Upper Redwood" tribe, +3 for the Kotinet or "Blue Lake and North Fork Mad River" tribe and 15 +for the Mawenok, who lived "on Mad River from opposite Korbel up to the +ranch of John Ahlgren about 21 miles in air line." The Chilula and +Mattole were credited with 45 persons per village. The habitat of the +Whilkut lies on smaller streams and is generally less favorable than +that of the Chilula or the Mattole. Hence the number may be reduced to +40 per village. The total is then 1,320. + + _Whilkut ... 1,300_ + + +THE KATO + +There are only two usable ethnographic sources of information +concerning villages among the Kato. The first is the rather casual +treatment given the group by Barrett (1908) in his monograph on the +Pomo. He lists 17 villages as having existed in the area comprising the +modern stretch running from Laytonville to Branscomb and a few miles +north and south thereof. No village sizes are given (pp. 281-283) and +no discussion of community organization. Merriam in his list "Kahto +Tribe and Villages" mentions the 17 villages of Barrett and adds 3 +others derived from his own informants, making a total of 20. + +Since there is no explicit information regarding village size, we may +adopt the value used for the Whilkut, _i.e._, 40 persons per village. +This would mean a population of 800. + +Barrett and Merriam, however, give data only for the southernmost part +of the Kato range, including an area of approximately 150 square miles. +The remainder of the Kato territory extended some distance along the +upper waters of the South Fork of the Eel River and its area may be +reckoned as 100 square miles or 40 per cent of the entire Kato +territory. On the other hand, living conditions were not as good in +this portion of the range and the density was probably less than in the +vicinity of Laytonville and Branscomb. Hence we may add 300 persons +(rather than the full 40 per cent) and consider the total as 1,100. + +With the Kato we arrive at an area where it becomes possible to utilize +historical and documentary, as well as ethnographic, sources of +information. For the period 1850-1856 there are three accounts left us +by white men who were direct observers, as distinguished from data +supplied from memory to modern white men by Indian informants. With +respect to the region north of San Francisco Bay these observations by +Americans must be regarded as supplementary to the basic ethnographic +material derived from Indians. Nevertheless they are of considerable +value in confirming, negating, or modifying the ethnographic data. + +Two primary sources are pertinent here. The first is the expedition of +Colonel Redick M'Kee, one of the three "commissioners" sent out in 1851 +to negotiate treaties with the California Indians. M'Kee went first to +Clear Lake, then up the Russian River, over to the Eel River watershed, +down to Humboldt Bay, and eventually up the Klamath and Trinity rivers. +Two records of this expedition were kept. The first, and far better +known, is the Journal of George Gibbs, which was later published by +Henry R. Schoolcraft (1860). The other is the Minutes of the +expedition, written by John M'Kee, a relative of the Colonel. These +Minutes, together with considerable correspondence, were published in +Senate Executive Document No. 4, 33rd Congress, Special Session (1853). + +The second source is a report written by Major H. P. Heintzelman at the +request of Indian Agent Henley, in 1855. Major Heintzelman (1855) made +a survey of the tribes of Sonoma and Mendocino counties which might be +placed upon a reservation at the mouth of the Noyo River. He +interviewed numerous headmen, or chiefs, of community units and +reported on the Indian population. His total, for the territory +extending from the upper Eel River to San Francisco Bay was 21,200, a +figure in excess of the value conceded by ethnographers. + +According to George Gibbs (1860, p. 118), the M'Kee expedition, on +August 30, 1852, reached the Batimdakia (spelled also Ba-tim-da-kia) +Valley, which was supposed to be at the head of the South Fork of the +Eel River. John M'Kee implies that this valley was on the Middle Fork +of the river but there is little doubt, judging from the route taken, +that it was actually Long Valley, on the east branch of the South Fork. +He says that the valley was inhabited by the Cabodilapo tribe and that +a careful count showed 497 Indians. Since not all the natives could be +located, John M'Kee estimated the actual population as 500 to 600. In a +letter from Redick M'Kee to the commissioner in Washington, dated +September 12, 1852 (1853, p. 185) it is stated that the population "may +be" 600. M'Kee's counts, particularly in the Clear Lake Region, are +generally regarded as too low. Hence his figure of 600 for Long Valley +must be considered conservative. It should also be borne in mind that +M'Kee saw only the east branch of the South Fork of the Eel River, +which takes its origin in Long Valley. He did not get over to the west +branch, which runs through Kato territory past Branscomb. Now Barrett +shows eleven villages on the east branch and its tributaries, or an +average of 55 persons per village. At the same rate the six villages on +the west branch would add 330 for a total of 930 in the southern range +of the Kato. + +Heintzelman lists a group of seven names, representing Indian +communities, which he says are up to 35 miles north of the site +selected for the reservation, _i.e._, Fort Bragg, or the mouth of the +Noyo River. Heintzelman's distances and locations, as well as his +names, are exceedingly hazy. Some of the seven names mentioned may +refer to the northern Pomo, and some very likely pertain to the coast +Yuki. Nevertheless two are undoubtedly Kato: the _Car-toos_ and the +_Ba-tims_ (the former is cognate with Kato, and the latter must +refer to Batimdakia Valley). The aggregate population is 700, according +to Heintzelman. This is only slightly larger than M'Kee's 600. Allowing +for conservatism on the part of M'Kee and over-liberality by +Heintzelman, a fair estimate is 650. Alternatively, since Heintzelman +saw the country three years after M'Kee had passed through, and the +population may have diminished somewhat, the figure 700 secured by +Heintzelman may well refer to both branches of the South Fork of the +Eel. + +For the Laytonville-Branscomb area we now have three estimates: by +derivation from purely ethnographic data, 800; from the M'Kee reports, +930; and from the Heintzelman report, 700. Regardless of minor detail, +the first method seems to yield results entirely consistent with direct +contemporary evaluation. + +Adding 300 to account for the remaining Kato territory we may retain +the estimate of 1,100 for the tribe as a whole. + + _Kato ... 1,100_ + + +THE NONGATL, LASSIK, AND SINKYONE + +For the three remaining northern Athapascan tribes we possess very +little data of a strictly ethnographic character. Neither Kroeber nor +Nomland (1935, 1938), who has studied some of these groups, have been +able to secure any pertinent information regarding villages. Nor has +Merriam been more successful. His list covering the region, under the +title "Athapaskan Tribes, Bands and Villages Speaking the Nungkahl +Language," mentions not more than two dozen villages in all and these +are very widely scattered. + +The entire failure of competent investigators such as those mentioned +to come upon material traces of inhabited sites among these three +tribes might be taken as indicative of a very small population. +However, the existence of heavily inhabited areas to all sides of the +region held by these tribes makes it unlikely that there was any large +stretch of country which was devoid of a sizable Indian population. It +is much more probable that numerous villages of the Lassik, Nongatl, +and Sinkyone once did exist but that they were wiped out almost +completely by the white frontiersmen in the early 'fifties before any +observer left a record of them. As an indication of their fate may be +mentioned the tales told by Bledsoe (1885) in his "Indian Wars of the +Northwest" and by various witnesses in the Report to the California +Legislature (1860) on the "Mendocino War." + +When we are presented with such an entire lack of direct data, we are +quite justified in falling back on the indirect area-density method. +Thus the densities are tabulated below for the five other Athapascan +tribes (including the Wailaki, considered subsequently) and for the +Coast Yuki, a tribe in the region for which we have very accurate +counts. + + Approximate Density in + area in persons per + Tribe sq. mi. Population sq. mi. + + Chilula 210 800 3.86 + Mattole 210 1,200 5.72 + Whilkut 250 1,320 5.28 + Kato 270 1,100 4.07 + Wailaki 575 3,347 5.82 + Coast Yuki 150 756 5.04 + ---- + Mean 4.96 + +The close correspondence in density of the six tribes listed is +noteworthy, and tends to lend confidence in the reliability of the +ethnographic source material upon which these estimates are based. + +The areas with which we are dealing are reasonably large; they are also +relatively homogeneous in the ecological sense. All lie within the +redwood-transition belt (except the Wailaki, which border it on the +east), and all are characterized by small, perennial, salmon-bearing +streams, along which the Indian villages were placed. There is nothing +outstandingly different about the terrain occupied by the Lassik, +Nongatl, and Sinkyone, except that perhaps it lies somewhat higher on +the streams (but the Wailaki are still higher) and contains fewer flats +and open valleys. The three tribes being considered had respectively +325 square miles, 700 square miles, and 615 square miles of territory. +If the density was 4.96 persons per square mile the population would +have been, to correspond, 1,612; 3,472; and 3,050. If we allow for a +somewhat poorer habitat, these values may be reduced a little, say to +1,500; 3,300; and 2,900. It is difficult to see how the estimates can +be carried much lower. + + _Nongatl, Lassik, and Sinkyone ... 7,700_ + + +THE WAILAKI + +The Wailaki were studied by Goddard (1923, 1924), who published two +papers concerning them. The first covered the main portion of the tribe +along the Eel River and the second the Pitch group which lived along +some of the tributaries of that river. Goddard found the Wailaki +proper, as they may be termed, to consist of 18 communities or +subtribes, each living in one to several villages, and the Pitch group +to consist of 4 subtribes. One peculiarity of the villages was that +they were inhabited only during the six winter months, the people in +the summer dispersing through the hills in search of small game and +plant food. Although the villages were occupied only half the year, +nevertheless they can be used for computation of population since there +were no other fixed abodes with which they can be confused. + +In addition to Goddard's monographs, we have a tribe list for a portion +of the Wailaki from Merriam entitled "Tsennahkennes Bands and +Rancherias." Both investigators surveyed independently 11 of the 18 +subtribal areas and obtained the names of villages from informants. In +his list on page 109 and in his text Goddard identifies 53 inhabited +places. For two other subtribes, the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, +he cites the villages by name in the textual descriptions on pages 106 +and 107. There are a total of 18 for the two subtribes. Villages were +not determined at all for the five northern subtribes. + +For the first 11 subtribes Merriam gives a total of 46 villages. Of +these, 30 can be identified with names furnished by Goddard, whereas 16 +are in addition to Goddard's list. Goddard on the other hand gives 23 +which were not secured by Merriam. Since both these workers operated +carefully through informants and both were thoroughly conversant with +the local dialects, we may accept the combined total of 69 villages, +large and small, occurring within the territory of Goddard's first, or +southernmost, 11 subtribes. The average is 6.27 villages per subtribe. +For the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, Merriam mentions only one +village each, that bearing the subtribal name. It is quite clear from +his list that he did not push his field investigations into these +groups. Hence we must fall back on Goddard's data, which include 18 +villages in all. The average for the 13 subtribes therefore is 6.7 +villages, and the total 87. + +All the villages have long since been totally deserted and Goddard +could count only house pits. (Merriam made no counts of any kind.) He +did this for only two groups, the Baskaiya and the Slakaiya. Here he +found and mentions on pages 103 and 105 twenty sites containing house +pits. In all there were 92 pits but for two localities he specifies a +certain number plus "several" others. If we allow 4 to represent +"several" in each of these, then, the total number of pits is 100 and +the average per site or village is 5.0. + +Now since we are dealing here only with pits and not counts of houses +remembered by informants, a reduction according to the Kroeber +principle is justified for it is quite probable that all the houses +once standing on the pits were not simultaneously occupied. When +Kroeber has no other data, he recommends a reduction by one-sixth. I +think that in this instance it would be proper to reduce by one-fifth, +or 20 per cent. This would give an effective average of 4 houses per +village. In the 13 communities covered by Goddard and by Merriam there +were 87 villages, which at 4 houses per village would give a total of +348. No evidence is offered by either author to the effect that the +remaining 5 subtribes differed in any essential way from the first 13. +Hence we must ascribe to them 134 houses, making 482 in all. + +We might use the Yurok family number 7.5, but Goddard's account carries +the implication that perhaps the Wailaki family was somewhat smaller, +suggesting a factor of 7.0 rather than 7.5. Goddard bases his estimates +upon a mean population of 15 to 30 persons per village. This would mean +4.5 persons per house, certainly too low a value for the aboriginal +social family. At four houses per village the family number would be +5.6, still probably somewhat too low. Perhaps a compromise is +advisable, say at 6.0. The average village size could be then put at 25 +persons, a figure definitely lower than was assumed for the more +northerly Athapascan tribes but still one which seems to be indicated +by the social organization described by Goddard. The total population +of the Wailaki proper would then be 80 per cent of 482 houses +multiplied by 6.0 or 2,315 persons. + +Goddard indicates on page 108 his belief that the villages were not +simultaneously inhabited. However, he adduces no evidence to favor this +view. On the contrary, he mentions in his text four villages which were +stated by informants _not_ to have been inhabited within their memory, +a circumstance which argues strongly that the villages they did claim +were actually active at the time to which they were referring, i.e., +just before the white invasion. It would appear to the writer that +reducing the house count by 20 per cent and reducing the family number +from 7.5 to 6.0 quite adequately compensates for any errors in the +ennumeration of villages. Indeed the estimate here presented may be too +conservative. + +With regard to the Pitch group Goddard (1924) shows that the subtribe +tokya-kiyahan had 15 villages. In fourteen of these he found 66 house +pits, an average of 4.72 per village. At tciancot-kiyahan there were 16 +villages, 7 of which had 35 house pits, or an average of 5.0. +Todannan-kiyahan had 6 villages but the area was incompletely examined +and there were probably more. The area of tcocat-kiyahan was not seen +at all but there is certainly no reason why they should not have had at +least 6 villages. At four houses per village the total, surely an +underestimate, would be 172 and at 6.0 persons per house the population +would be 1,032. + +For the entire Wailaki the indicated population is then 3,347 (or +rather 3,350), a figure much in excess of previous estimates but +justified by the data presented by Goddard and Merriam. + + _Wailaki ... 3,350_ + + _ATHAPASCAN TOTAL ... 15,450_ + + + + +THE YUKI + + +THE COAST YUKI + +The Coast Yuki have been the subject of an admirable ethnographic study +by Gifford (1939), who has assembled substantially all the data extant +in modern times pertaining to families and villages. He shows very +clearly that this tribe occupied its villages only in a transitory +manner, that it had summer beach camps and inland winter settlements. +To quote Gifford's words concerning the point (p. 296): + + I use the terms camp, hamlet, and village interchangeably in this + paper. No site seems to have been occupied the year around. All + were more or less temporary. The presence of an assembly house + marked the more frequently occupied sites. + +Hence it is necessary to examine Gifford's compilation of sites with as +much care as possible in order to determine how many villages can +properly be ascribed to the tribe. + +It is also made clear in Gifford's paper that each of the eleven Coast +Yuki groups had its own headman and ceremonial house. Each group had a +frontage of seacoast together with a strip of territory which extended +inland to the eastern limit of the tribe. Within this territory the +group moved about with considerable freedom. + +The following is a digest of the inhabited sites for the eleven groups. +The groups are numbered (but the names omitted) in the order in which +they appear on pages 296 to 303 of Gifford's paper. + + 1. One village is mentioned but no camp sites. For the group, + therefore, the maximum number of sites occupied at any given time + must be _one_. + + 2. Two "hamlets" are given by name. Since these are quite close + together and in the same terrain, it may be assumed that _two_ + sites were simultaneously occupied. + + 3. Here are mentioned three camp sites and two villages (Esim + and Melhomikem), one with 7-9 houses and the other with 8 + houses. There was also a village which had been settled after + the coming of the white man, with 6 houses. It appears clear that + aboriginally there were _two_ semipermanent sites and a number of + temporary settlements. + + 4. For this group Gifford mentions one beach village by name, one + inland village, name unknown, and three camp sites. Although the + beach and inland villages may not have been simultaneously + occupied, the existence of three additional camp sites implies more + people than would be contained in a single settlement at one time. + Hence it is reasonable to regard the group as consisting of at + least _two_ village units. + + 5. There was one inland village with 6 houses (Onbit), one beach + village (Lilpinkem) and one camp site with 8 houses. In view of the + single camp site we have to regard the group as having _one_ site + occupied at a given time. + + 6. Here was one winter village and one beach village with no camp + sites mentioned. Thus we may count _one_ occupied site. + + 7. For this group there are known two villages, two hamlets, and + one camp site, all with names. One hamlet had 3-4 houses and one + village had 5 houses. Since there is no information on the location + of the villages we may count all _four_. + + 8. _Three_ hamlets are mentioned by name. + + 9. _Two_ villages are mentioned by name. + + 10. _One_ village mentioned. + + 11. _One_ village mentioned. + +The irreducible minimum number of villages therefore totals 20. It is +quite probable that some of the other sites might be or ought to be +counted but, since the evidence concerning them is equivocal, they will +not be included. The house counts for seven sites average 6.3 and since +we are here dealing with informants' memories of inhabited houses, not +house pits, this number need not be reduced. With respect to family +number, the Yurok value of 7.5 is probably too high. For the type of +culture characteristic of the Coast Yuki the more conservative value of +6.0 is probably better. This yields a population of 756, or +approximately 750. It is difficult to see how this estimate could be +reduced. + + _Coast Yuki ... 750_ + + +THE YUKI PROPER + +Although the Yuki were a populous and important tribe, and although +Kroeber, in the Handbook, devoted three chapters to their culture, they +have been the subject of but one special study. Quite recently G. M. +Foster (1944) resurveyed their ethnography and worked out their village +organization in some detail. He utilized informants who were in their +seventies during the period of 1935 to 1940 and who thus were born no +earlier than 1860. Since the social and political organization of the +Yuki was completely disrupted during the 'fifties, particularly at +Round Valley, it is remarkable that Foster was able to secure so much +apparently quite accurate detail. It is true that certain specific +items of information derived by Kroeber from his informants of thirty +or thirty-five years earlier are more reliable than the comparable data +of Foster, nevertheless the over-all coverage by the latter is more +complete. Foster's account will therefore serve here as the basis for a +computation of population. + +There were eight major subdivisions or subtribes, the spelling of whose +names and the precise boundaries of whose territories are slightly +differently presented by Kroeber and Foster. Merely for convenience the +description of Foster is followed here. Of the eight subtribes the most +numerous and most important were the Ukomnom, who inhabited most of +Round Valley. Next in importance were the Witukomnom directly to the +south. Most of Foster's work was devoted to these two groups. + +With respect to village organization Kroeber brought out the basic fact +that the tribe was organized by communities, rather than separate and +wholly independent villages (1925, pp. 161-162). + + The community always might and usually did embrace several + settlements.... If designated it was referred to by the name of the + principal village. This place name therefore designates at one time + a cluster of several little towns and on other occasions one of + these towns. + +Foster went one step further and clarified the internal organization of +the community. He showed that within each cluster there was always a +principal village of relatively large size called the _nohot_ with a +constellation of small hamlets or, as he usually puts it, "rancherias" +immediately adjacent. The former he likens to a host and the latter to +a group of parasites. The nohot might contain as many as twenty-five +houses and as many as 150 inhabitants. There might be anywhere from "2 +to 6 to 8" rancherias per nohot. (See p. 176.) It is therefore +possible, for certain subtribes, to obtain some idea concerning +population from the list of inhabited places remembered by Foster's +informants, particularly since Foster usually specifies what type of +village is meant. This list is quite complete for the Witukomnom and +the Ukomnom and partially so for the Tanom. Kroeber (1925, pp. 163-164) +gives parallel data for a part of the Ukomnom, which can be to some +extent brought into concordance with Foster's list. + +The question of local population is difficult because in only one +instance does Foster mention a specific figure: the largest nohot, +which he says contained 25 houses and 150 people. It is of interest +that elsewhere he states that the typical Yuki house would hold 4 to 8 +persons. Thus he appears to accept without reservation a family number +of 6. Now of course the average nohot was smaller and must have been +intermediate between the maximum possible with twenty-five houses and +the smaller villages which must have contained four or five. The +halfway point is fifteen, a number which may be accepted with a fair +degree of confidence. The nohot population would then be taken as +ninety. The parasitic village or rancheria was definitely smaller. It +could not have approached 15 houses yet by far the greater number of +rancheria's must have had more than one or two. A reasonable compromise +would be 4 houses and 25 inhabitants. With respect to the number of +these hamlets per community the indefinite "2 to 6 to 8" may be set at +four. Hence the community may be regarded as having on the average 190 +inhabitants during pre-invasion times. There is no clear evidence to +justify a larger estimate and on the other hand the whole context of +both Kroeber's and Foster's discussion gives the impression of a group +approaching 200 persons in number. This is somewhat but not materially +greater than the mean number for the 22 subtribes of the Wailaki +according to Goddard's data. That value was 153 and the subtribe among +the Wailaki appears to have been very similar to the community among +the Yuki. + +For the Witukomnom Foster lists 15 places, of which 9 are designated as +nohots and 6 as "small." Two points are apparent. First, the informants +of Foster were recalling the _important_ villages which they had seen +or been told about but had forgotten the minor sites, hence the great +preponderance of nohots. In the second place, it is unnecessary for +purposes of calculation to know the names or the number of the +peripheral "parasitic" rancherias if we know the primary towns, the +nohots, for, knowing a nohot, we know a community. Thus we may +immediately set the population of the Witukomnom as at least 1,710 +persons. If the informants gave incomplete data, 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 approximation a population of 1,140. But for the +Ukomnom we have some help from Kroeber. Many of Foster's remaining +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 present, 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 referring to the same locality, that his informants could +remember 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 principal 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 headwaters 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 +resembled 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 numerous." 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 rancherias." If we allow four to be "a number" and assume +that the rancherias were all subordinate to the nohots, the population +would have been 760, a not excessive estimate. 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 Huchnom 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 territory is shown on Foster's map as being within the confines of +the Pomo; hence some confusion might arise, were it not that both +Barrett and Kroeber are very positive 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 _villages_. 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 informant 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 extension +suggests a size greater than that of a small parasitic 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 11 villages along the stream, disregarding minor +meanderings of the latter, extended about 40 miles. From the northern +border and going upstream there are 6 villages in the first 25 miles, +the minimum distance between any two being 3 miles. Since the usual +distance between a primary village and its satellites among the Yuki, +according to Foster, is not more than a mile or two, none of these 6 +settlements can have been of the secondary type. The cluster of 4 named +towns along the 5 miles of river at the extreme south were quite close +together, and not more than 2 of them may have been of this type. At +the headwaters to the extreme east there was one definitely isolated +village, which may be placed in the larger category, as may also the +two sites on Tomki Creek. Of the 13 places given by Barrett there is +therefore reason to believe that at least 11 were of the nohot variety. + +Indirect confirmation of this conclusion comes from comparison of the +Huchnom village distribution with that of the subtribes of the Yuki +proper. The Tanom had 6 nohots scattered along approximately 20 miles +of the Eel 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 from the maps of Foster and Barrett, the Tanom and the +Witukomnom areas were approximately 200 square miles each. The Tanom +possessed at least 6 nohots and the Witukomnom 9 (Foster's data). Hence +the average area covered per nohot would be 33 for the Tanom and 22 for +the Witukomnom. If we allow 11 primary villages or nohots for the +Huchnom the average area covered by each would be 25, entirely within +the same range. Now the character of the terrain for the three groups +did not differ in any essential respect. Hence there is no reason to +suppose that the population density of the Huchnom, computed on a +riparian or area basis, was any less than that of the other two +subtribes. Furthermore I can see no evidence pointing to a smaller +individual community or village population among the Huchnom. Eleven +nohots or village constellations would yield a total population of +2,090, or approximately 2,100, an estimate somewhat smaller than the +one given previously but one which I can find no reason for further +reducing. + +Some confirmation of the figure derived from village data is contained +in the survey of Heintzelman (1855). He mentions as one of his +principal divisions the Bi-lo-ki, a name which is the same as Balokai. +The latter were the Pomo of Potter Valley, according to Kroeber and +also Barrett (p. 128). This group, Heintzelman says, included 3,000 +persons. However, he breaks them down into six smaller divisions and +says that "these Indians reside between Clear Lake and the heads of +Eel, Russian and Trinity Rivers." The six divisions are: Tar-toos, +Si-dam, Po-ma Pomes, Si-mas, Di-no-kis, and Du-che-calla-os. The Si-dam +and Po-ma Pomes are undoubtedly Potter valley Pomo. The Si-mas, +according to a personal communication received from Dr. Barrett, are +probably Yuki from the region of the headwaters of the South Eel River +(the tcimaia mentioned in the Ethnogeography of the Pomo, 1908. p. +247). The Di-no-kis and the Du-che-calla-os Dr. Barrett is unable to +identify. The Tar-toos are undoubtedly Huchnom (see Barrett's +monograph, 1908. p. 256; also confirmed by personal communication). +Their number is given by Heintzelman as 1,600. This value, for 1855, +bespeaks an aboriginal population not far from 2,000. Hence again the +ethnographic method is supported by the estimate of the contemporary +observer. + + _Huchnom ... 2,100_ + + _YUKI TOTAL ... 9,730_ + + + + +THE ATHAPASCANS AND THE YUKI + + +If we total all the Yukian divisions, including the Coast Yuki and the +Huchnom, we get 9,730 persons. Similarly, the Athapascan tribes +collectively give 15,450. The combined total is 25,180. Some of the +groups, such as the Tanom and Huchnom, may have been overestimated, but +this will be compensated by underestimates for other groups, such as +the Onkolukomnom. If we accept as valid the published ethnographic data +of Barrett, Kroeber, Foster, and Gifford, together with the manuscript +material of Merriam, it is very difficult to fix the population of the +Athapascan and Yukian stocks at a figure much below 25,000. + +In this connection it is interesting to consider the estimates of +Heintzelman, because his figures for the Kato and for the Huchnom have +been shown to conform in general to those derived from village lists. + +Many of Heintzelman's Indian names cannot now be identified and his +localities are frequently vague and obscure. However, a reasonably +clear line can be drawn between the Pomo and those tribes living north +of the Pomo. + +The first five groups mentioned in the report are unequivocally Pomo. +Then come the "Bi-lo-ki, Po-mes" with the six divisions previously +mentioned called Tar-toos, Si-dam, Po-ma Pomes, Si-mas, Di-no-kis, and +Du-che-calla-os. The Si-dam and Po-ma Pomes are Potter Valley Pomo. The +Tar-toos are Huchnom. The Si-mas are probably southeastern Yuki. The +Di-no-kis and Du-che-calla-os cannot be identified by Dr. Barrett +(personal communication) and are therefore probably not Pomo. Since the +whole group was said by Heintzelman to reside "between Clear Lake and +the heads of Eel, Russian and Trinity Rivers" these two unidentified +divisions may be ascribed to the Yuki. The numerical aggregate of the +four Yukian divisions is 2,450. + +Following the Bi-lo-ki on Heintzelman's list are the Me-che-pomas who +inhabit the east part of Kinamoo Valley and the "Eel River Mountains," +40 miles northeast of the proposed site, i.e., Fort Bragg. Covelo is +almost exactly 40 airline miles northeast of Fort Bragg. Barrett (1908, +p. 249, fn.) says that the Pomo name for Round Valley is maca-kai, and +quotes another variant, Me-sha-kai. In a personal communication he +states his belief that Round Valley is here referred to. Along with the +Me-che-pomas Heintzelman lists the Be-dar-ke-sill, which he says are +found in the south part of Trinity County and the north part of +Mendocino County, 50 miles from Fort Bragg. Since the name cannot be +identified, the people may be allocated on the basis of location alone +to the southern part of the Wailaki. The aggregate population of these +two groups is given as 2,100. + +The next seven names on Heintzelman's list are the Car-toos, Ba-tims, +Kab-in-a-toos, Kon-ispilla, Koss-ill-man-u-pomas, Kam-ill-el-pomas, and +So-as. These are all stated to be north of the selected site, Fort +Bragg, with the most remote tribe 35 miles away. In his textual +statement Heintzelman says that he went up the coast as far as Cape +Mendocino, but from his times and distances it appears more likely that +he reached approximately the Mendocino-Humboldt County line before +turning eastward and going inland. This would bring him just about 30 +or 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 enumeration. 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 Kab-in-a-toos may +represent Clear Lake inhabitants and that the So-as may be a village in +Sherwood Valley, and hence be Pomo, these two divisions may be omitted +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 general 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 Sinkyone, 970; one-third +the Mattole, 400; the Kato, 1,100, the Wailaki, 3,350; and the Yuki as +a whole, 9,730. The general total is 15,550. By comparison +Heintzelman's figure 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 Heintzelman was not in the region until 1855, at +which time the population was by no means aboriginal. + + + + +THE POMO + + +From a poverty of ethnographic material with the more northerly tribes +we pass to an embarrassment of riches with the Pomo. (Barrett, 1908; +Gifford, 1923, 1926; Gifford and Kroeber, 1937; Kniffen, 1939; Stewart, +1943). The first major study was that of Barrett in 1908. Barrett's +principal contribution was a painstakingly compiled list of Pomo +tribes, villages, and camp sites as recalled by his informants during +the years 1903 to 1906. However he missed the significance of the Pomo +community style of social organization with its implications for +evaluation of village size and importance and hence probable +population. Moreover, many of his place names have since been shown to +be wrongly applied. His work remains therefore chiefly valuable as a +compilation and check list against more recent and more critical work. + +Gifford's two papers (1923, 1926) stand as models of investigation of a +single social unit, the village of Cigom. They are useful in a wider +sense as a point of departure and a basis for comparison with other +communities, particularly in the Clear Lake region. The work of Gifford +and Kroeber (1937), although primarily dealing with cultural matters, +contains much pertinent information concerning the sixteen communities +investigated together with several paragraphs pertinent to the +population problem. + +Kniffen (1939) made a careful study of the geographical and ecological +status of certain selected groups: the Clear Lake area, the Kacha of +Russian River, and the Coast Pomo. Steward (1943) reviewed the +boundaries and villages of all groups except a few on Clear Lake, using +also the ecological approach. + +When one attempts to establish what were the Pomo community groups and +chief villages, he encounters a great deal of divergence of opinion on +detail among these investigators, due largely to differences among +informants. Without extensive field work, which might in fact now be +impossible, many of the discrepancies cannot be resolved. On the whole, +the later students appear to have come closer to the truth and are +probably more reliable. + + +CLEAR LAKE POMO + +Gifford said (1937, p. 122) that there were 11 communities on Clear +Lake. Kniffen reorganized them to make 12, after which Stewart returned +to a count of 11. This last number, therefore, may be accepted as +final. Each of them consisted of a single principal village of +considerable size. A classical example is Cigom. Other inhabited spots +within the community area have usually been recognized but whether they +were permanent or shifting villages or camp sites usually is not clear. +For this reason the population has been discussed by ethnographers +since Barrett simply on the basis of the group, without much reference +to the number of sites known to have existed. The single exception I +would make to this procedure is to take account of the number (not +necessarily the names and location) of the villages known to have +possessed assembly houses, since the presence of these implies some +degree of permanence. A community with one 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 +population of the Clear Lake communities which he obtained from an +informant who could well remember the days before the advent of the +white man. These figures have been subject to some disparaging +criticism by more modern 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 +impugning 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 knowledge. + +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 importance of his own group. This is a +wholly gratuitous assumption 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 specifically from +Palmer: + + The Hoo-la-na-po (Kulanapo) tribe was just below 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 concerning 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 statement from the Report of +the Commissioner for Indian Affairs in 1858 referring to the Lupillomi. +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." Although 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 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 conclusion +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 increase 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 representing the average for a Clear Lake +community. The population of the area would then be 2,585. Let us, +however examine the eleven communities individually (following +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 occupied 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. Stewart's group, with two possible main and two or +three subsidiary 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 village 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 people, 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 Lakeport 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 figures Palmer's +informant may have confused the two groups; 375 seems a reasonable +value for the two together. + +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 population of 300. + +8, 9, and 10. _Lower Lake._ The three groups inhabiting the entire +region of the southeast were the Kamdot, Elem, and Koi. Each had a +principal village plus from two to four others with assembly houses. +They are in the same terrain with and appear to be quite similar to +Cigom. Palmer gives for the three a total population of 390, which, if +increased by 50 per cent, would mean 585. If, on the other hand, we +regard them as being of the same character as Cigom we could multiply +235 by 3 and get 705. + +A curious contributory bit of evidence can be derived from Gifford's +study of land ownership in this area (1923). Gifford shows that the +ownership of property at Cigom was communal but at Kamdot, Elem, and +Koi, it was a family matter. He lists very carefully the exact +ownership of the tribal real estate. There were 22 tracts belonging to +the _village_ of Cigom but 85 belonging to _families_ of Elem, 38 to +_families_ of Koi, and 57 to _families_ of Kamdot. From this we can +derive the minimum number of families for these places, for the tracts +were simultaneously owned by different families. Using a factor of 6 +persons per family the population of Elem would be 510. In this +connection it is of interest that Gifford during the same investigation +found that two subsidiary villages were occupied simultaneously with +the main village. Thus he states (p. 86): "A second mainland overflow +village, which was once _contemporaneously inhabited_ with insular +Elem and mainland Behepkobel, was Mucokol...." (Emphasis mine.) A +principal village the size of Cigom or larger plus two accessory +villages of only 100 each would bring the population to 435. Thus there +can be little doubt that Elem had fully 500 inhabitants. On the basis +of family number the figures for Koi and Kamdot would be respectively +228 and 342, or, say, 230 and 340. + +According to the data above the total population of the Clear Lake +basin was 3,155, which may be rounded off to 3,150. When Kroeber +originally formulated an estimate of the population of the Pomo +communities, based largely upon Barrett's study, he set the average per +community at 100. Later (Gifford and Kroeber, 1937, p. 119) he reduced +the probable number of communities and reset the population limits at +75-300. with a likely average of 200. The average we get here is 287, +considerably larger than Kroeber would allow. However, all the +available evidence seems to support the conclusion that, for the Clear +Lake region at least, the community size was somewhat larger than +stated by Kroeber. + +A puzzling secondary question is what disposition to make of the +Lileek, the small Wappo group associated with the Habenapo. These +people came very late and settled among the Habenapo, probably after +the effect of the white invasion farther south had begun to be felt. +Palmer's informant said there were about 100 of them. They might be +added to the Habenapo but, in view of the doubt concerning their origin +and history, it is perhaps best to disregard them entirely. + + _Clear Lake Pomo ... 3,150_ + + +NORTHERN POMO + +For the remainder of the Pomo we have no such clearly defined body of +knowledge as for the Clear Lake group. Thus it is necessary to consider +each subdivision or subtribe separately. As a preliminary step, +however, it is desirable to discuss the problem of house and family +number in so far as it relates to the Pomo. + +In Gifford's analysis of Cigom we possess a remarkably thorough +treatment of the demography of a single village, one which may be taken +as representative of the entire tribe, with the exception of the +portion lying along the coast. At Cigom Gifford found 47 social groups +or families and 235 persons. The mean is 5.0 persons per family. +However this figure represents the period of 1850 and immediately +thereafter, when the Clear Lake population had already for several +years suffered from contact with the whites. Hence the aboriginal value +must have been higher. Indeed Gifford's study gives an amazing picture +of the demographic dissolution of the Pomo in the mid-nineteenth +century. + +Among the 47 families there were 57 persons who were described as "son" +or "daughter" and were obviously at or below the age of puberty at the +period the informants were recalling. This means only 1.21 children per +family, far below the minimum number (2.0) necessary for replacement. +Clearly the population was declining rapidly at that time. If there +were 1.21 children and the family number was 5.0, the average number of +adults was 3.79. For simple equilibrium or stability, such as we must +assume existed in pre-white times, at least 3 children must be found in +every family. Thus with 3.79 adults there would have to have been a +family number of 6.79 or say, 6.80 merely to maintain the population. +Considering the relative richness of the environment and the quite +elaborate culture of the Pomo an average of 7.0 is by no means +excessive for the aboriginal Pomo. + +That the Clear Lake Pomo were in a deplorable state at the time +described by Gifford is attested by the statements of his informants +concerning the subsequent fate of the 57 children mentioned in the +text. Of these, 29, or 50.9 per cent, "died young." Such a tremendous +child mortality is quite consistent with our entire picture of the +postcontact decline in Indian population but is wholly at variance with +any reasonable concept of aboriginal conditions. + +At Cigom Gifford found 20 houses, mostly of the multiple type so common +among the Pomo. Three of the houses held 4 families, three held 3, +twelve held 2, and two held 1. The average is 2.35 families per house +or, in terms of persons, 11.75 per house. This is of course based on +the 1850 value of 5.0 persons per family. If we admit an aboriginal +number of 7.0 persons per family, then the number per house becomes +16.45 instead of 11.75. + +In his study of Redwood Valley Kniffen (1939, pp. 373-380) puts the +population at 125 and the number of houses at 12. This would mean 10.4 +persons per house, quite close to Gifford's value for Cigom in or near +1850. + +In his chapter on the Pomo Stephen Powers (1877) described the village +of Senel (Sanel, Shanel) in the Russian River valley (p. 168 and map). +He shows on his map 104 houses and 5 assembly houses. The houses were +large and contained according to his estimate 20-30 persons each. This +estimate seems much too high. However, on other grounds he puts the +former population at 1,500 inhabitants, a figure which is arrived at +entirely independently by an informant of Stewart (1943, p. 45). Indeed +Stewart comments with reference to Powers that "my population estimate +and description closely approximate his." This means for 104 houses a +mean of 14.42 occupants. + +The average of the three sets of data available give 13.76 persons per +house, a figure which may be rounded off at 14.0 in view of the +probability that Kniffen's estimate is 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. Stewart says that the Canel +were "distributed" among 12 villages (including Yamo). Moreover "my +informant (JSm) insisted that these villages were all occupied at the +same time ... each having a 'curing' sweathouse; however all were under +one chief, and there was only one ceremonial 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 mentioned the group under the name of the Shanelkaya. +Evidently 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 followed 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 manuscript entitled "Northern Pomo"). + +The Kacha tribe all lived in the village given as Kacha by Kniffen and +as Kabelal by Barrett, Merriam, and Stewart. Kniffen says "there must +have been about 125 people in the valley...", but gives no supporting +data. He does, 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 village in his appendix (p. 57). Stewart also adds two +villages, 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 region 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 +Shashamkau 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 average 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 extended 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 village; 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 evidence that all these were occupied at the same time, but "several +must have been occupied simultaneously because five were occupied by +the parents of Indians still living." + +Much light is thrown on the situation in Willits Valley and adjacent +areas by the work of Merriam (in the manuscript "Northern Pomo"). +Merriam splits the natives into three dialectic subgroups: the +But-kow-hah-po-mah of upper Outlet Creek, the Sho-jul-po-ma of eastern +Little Lake Valley, and the Met-tum-mah of Willits Valley proper. + +The But-kow-hah-po-mah had a principal village But-kow-hah-chut-te, +corresponding to Stewart's Bakau plus "3-4 rancherias." If we allow 150 +for the main village and a possible 25 each for the outlying +rancherias, we get 250 for the group. This seems quite reasonable for a +small, somewhat isolated subtribe. + +The Sho-mul-po-mah had for a principal village Sho-tse-yu-chut-te, +which is mentioned by Barrett and corresponds to Stewart's Cotsiu. In +addition, Merriam cites from Barrett 6 other villages, 4 of which he +confirms as villages. One of these, Tah-nah-kum-chut-te, he says +contained a sweathouse having a capacity of 200 people. According to a +principle enunciated by Powers (p. 168), but which is of somewhat +doubtful validity, the capacity of a sweathouse or assembly house is +equivalent to one-third of the population. Thus the Sho-mul-po-mah +might have had 600 people. However, if we allow that the principal +village, by analogy with Kasha, had 175 and that each of the villages +of Barrett which were confirmed by 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. He mentions Me-to-mah-chut-te, +which corresponds to Stewart's Mitom, and says that it was the "name +applied by Me-tum-mah to all their villages in Metumki of Little Lake +Valley. There were 4 important permanent winter villages containing +about 600 people." These 4 villages were, according to Merriam: +Cha-bo-cha-kah-chut-te, Po-ka-hil-chut-te, She-o-kah-lau-chut-te, and +Tsah-kah-chut-te. The last corresponds to Stewart's Tsaka. Of the first +village he says it contained 40 to 50 house pits. This must be +excessive for it would mean a population of 560 persons in this village +alone. Stewart says that Tsaka had 8 pits, or 112 persons. If we reduce +the count for Cha-bo-cha-kah-chut-te to 300 instead of 560, we can +still accept Merriam's figure of 600 for the group of four. + +We still have to account for Kah-be-shal-chut-te of Barrett and Merriam +(Stewart's Kabecal), Tsam-mom-dah-chut-te of Barrett and Merriam +(Stewart's Tsamonda). Nabo of Merriam and Stewart (also mentioned by +Gibbs). and Talel of Stewart. Talel and Nabo may have been part of the +Mitom complex but Tsamonda and Kabecal are too distant. If Tsamonda was +small, as Stewart says, we may allow 50 inhabitants. Kabecal must have +contained at least 100. + +For the entire area, including all three of Merriam's linguistic +groups, we get a population of 1,650 inhabitants. + +_Sherwood Valley._--In this valley lived the Mato or Mato-poma of +Stewart, or the Mah-to-poma of Merriam, whose permanent villages were +inland but who ranged a large territory extending to the coast. +According to Stewart there were three minor divisions of the group, +with three permanent villages, Mato, Kabedile, and Kulakau, each of +which had its own chief. On no other evidence would we be justified in +ascribing 200 persons to each subgroup. Stewart says (p. 33): "The best +guesses of my informants placed the primitive population at about 500 +persons, half of them in the main village of Mato." That would give 250 +to Mato and 125 each to Kabedile and Kulakau. This estimate appears too +low, particularly since the informants were all born in the 1860's, +twenty years after the first contact with the white man. + +Merriam (in his "Northern Pomo," together with a separate manuscript +entitled "Sherwood Valley rancherias") transcribed and checked +Barrett's village list. As was his custom he initialed in ink those +names which he confirmed by independent investigation, leaving unmarked +those for the existence of which he considered he had no certain +evidence. For Sherwood Valley he gives 25 names. Of these, 3 were taken +from Barrett without confirmation, leaving 22. Seven of the latter are +given by Merriam alone, in addition to those appearing on Barrett's +list. Merriam mentions Mah-to-chutte and also Ma-chah-tah, each of +which he says was a "big rancheria." It is very probable that these +were variants of the same name or were parts of the same village. Hence +they may be combined as representing Stewart's Mato. Merriam also +mentions Kah-ba-de-la-chut-te and Kah-baht-be-dah-chut-te, which appear +to be variants for Stewart's Kabedile. Also included are +Bo-shahm-koo-che (Bocamkutci), Cha-bo-tse-y-chut-te (Kabotsiu), and +Tan-nah-shil-chut-te (Tanacil), all of which are stated by Stewart (p. +35) to have been parts of Kulakau. This reduces Merriam's effective +list to 17. + +Mato is stated by Merriam to have been a "big rancheria." This is in +line with Stewart's impression that the village contained at least 250 +persons. This number may therefore be accepted without much hesitation. +Kabedile (or Kah-baht-be-da-chut-te) is said by Merriam to have had 30 +to 40 house holes. He also mentions the fact that the Mexicans +perpetrated a massacre here in 1846, in the course of which 25 were +killed and many children stolen for slaves. If we take the lower limit +mentioned for houses and reduce one-third, we still get a probable 20 +houses, which at 14 persons per house gives a minimum population of 280 +persons. Stewart gives Kulakau and the three villages considered to be +parts of it equal rank with Mato and Kabedile. Merriam says of +Cha-bo-tse-y-chut-te (Kobotsiu) that it was a "big village." Hence we +may safely ascribe 250 persons to the town. + +Merriam adds certain comments on the villages. Boo-tah-kah-chut-te had +a "big round house." Che-ah-po-y-chut-te was of "fair size but no +roundhouse." She-ko-ki-chut-te consisted of "two big rancherias and +roundhouse." The other 10 villages are listed merely by locality +without additional information. We encounter here a clear instance of +the perplexity which pursues us throughout the Pomo area. We must +accept either the combined word or Barrett and Merriam that there were +numerous subsidiary villages inhabited in Sherwood Valley during +aboriginal times or the word of Stewart that there were not. At this +point it must be emphasized again that by 1840 the Northern Pomo had +been invaded by Spanish-Mexicans from the San Francisco Bay region and +their aboriginal social order had been partially disrupted. +Furthermore, we know that they had been exposed to serious inroads by +disease, such as the great smallpox epidemic of the 1830's. In +particular, that of 1837, the so-called "Miramontes epidemic," began at +Fort Ross and is known to have seriously involved the Russian River +Valley. There is much reason to believe, therefore that the population +decline began by 1830, with its accompanying shifting and consolidation +of villages. Both Barrett and Merriam did their field work among the +Pomo from 1900 to 1910, say as an approximate date 1905. A +seventy-year-old informant at that time could thus actually remember +the year 1840. But a similar individual in 1935 could remember of his +own knowledge only to 1870. He would have to draw on second- and +third-hand information imparted by his forefathers. As Stewart (p. 29) +says of one of his Sherwood Valley informants his "father'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 correction 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 inhabitants 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 Heintzelman. + +This officer listed eight names which can be indentified 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 communication) that + this term may signify _Yo kai pomo_ ("south valley people") who + would have lived near Ukiah. But Heintzelman states that they lived + between 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: "Possibly refers to Little Lake or Willits + Valley people _mtomkai_, or _bitomkai_ (1908, p. 128, fn.), or to + _mitoma_, on a knoll in the town of Willits (ibid., p. 145)." The + latter hypothesis appears the more probable (Stewart, 1943, p. 36 + ff., discusses this subtribe at length). Heintzelman adds the + information that the Maa-to-ma-pomas are divided into seven tribes, + of which the _Sho-he-shas_ are the most numerous. Barrett (1908, p. + 146, fn.) thinks that the latter people are the Chow-e-chak of + M'Kee. Heintzelman further says that the territory covered extends + from Metumki (Little Lake) Valley to the coast. + + 8. _So-as._ Barrett considers (personal communication) that this + name refers to the village of _sosa-tca_, in Sherwood Valley (cf. + 1908, p. 147). + +Irrespective of conflicts in terminology it appears that Heintzelman +fairly well covered the area usually assigned to the Northern Pomo +under the eight designations just listed. His total population value is +5,350, slightly greater than but very close to the estimate derived +from ethnographic data (i.e., 5,040). This close correspondence will be +seen as specially significant when we come to examine his report on the +Central and Southern Pomo. + + _Northern Pomo ... 5,040_ + + +CENTRAL POMO + +_Ukiah._--In the Ukiah area are included four of Stewart's subtribes: +the Yokaia of Ukiah Valley, the Ciego of Largo, the Cokoa of Hopland, +and the Yobakeya of Echo. There are all consolidated by Merriam in his +manuscript entitled "Tribe List of Yo-ki-ah Pomo" and will be +considered together. + +Stewart is very positive that these four tribes all lived in one +central village. He says regarding the Yokaia: "Although several +villages are given by Barrett for this area, there is no doubt that +during the winter months the population was concentrated in one main +village" (p. 43). Regarding the Cokoa: "Politically, as well as +geographically, the Cokoa resembled the Yokaia. Both had a single +central village of importance where the population was concentrated" +(p. 43). Merriam credits Barrett with 37 village names, to which he +adds none himself. Of the 37 he confirms only 13. Since the other 24 of +Barrett are doubtful, they may be excluded. Of Merriam's 13 Stewart +says specifically that three were camps not permanent villages. Two, +Kah-chi-o (Katcayo) and Shah-na-na-oo (Caneneu) were proved by Stewart +to have existed only subsequent to the white invasion. One may belong +to the Booneville tribe and another is a tribal, not a village, name. +Four, Kah-ka-eu (Cokadjal). Ko-lo-ko (Koloko), Lema (Ciego), and Shanel +(Canel) were the main villages, as stated by Stewart. There remain +unaccounted for only Bok-shah (Barrett's Bokca), regarding which +Merriam says it had a sweathouse and was "practically permanent," and +Katch-a-wah-low. Merriam's conclusions thus coincide to a remarkable +degree with those of Stewart and justify the assumption that, where the +two investigators clearly differ, considerable weight should be given +to Merriam's account. + +The largest of the four main villages was Canel, or Shanel. Comment has +already been made upon the fact that both Stephen Powers' and Stewart's +informants, proceding from entirely different premises, reached the +conclusion that the town had a primitive population of 1,500. This +figure therefore, however incredible, must be accepted. It is +noteworthy in passing that if we apply the family number of 14 to the +104 houses shown by Powers on his map of the town, the population is +computed at 1,456, almost identical with the other estimates. + +For the Yokaia, originally settled at Cokadjal, Stewart says: "The +population ... has been variously estimated at from 500-1,000 +persons...." Since such estimates are likely to be somewhat low, and in +view of the size of Canel, we may take the upper limit, 1,000 +inhabitants. + +The status of Lema (Ciego) is dubious. Stewart says the people had no +chief and the tribe was composed of "soldiers." The town was very well +known at the time of white occupation, however, and must have held at +least 150 persons. + +The Yobakeya at Koloko were also warlike and Stewart calls them a +"small group." But he also says that one of his informants told him +there were about 60 survivors of the tribe in his youth (approximately +1865). This fact argues an aboriginal membership of at least 300 +persons. + +For the Yo-ki-ah linguistic subdivision of the Northern Pomo as +presented by Merriam the collective population is thus estimated at +2,950. + +_Point Arena._--The Point Arena area is a large territory comprising +300 square miles along the coast. Stewart designates its occupants the +Bokaya and includes three subtribes centering in the villages of Kauca, +Pdahau, and Lacupda. Merriam separates two groups, the Bo-yah, which +included Kauca and Pdahau, and the Kan-no-ah, or the Lacupda people +("Tribe List of Bo-yah" and "Tribe List of Kan-no-ah"). + +One of Stewart's informants, a woman born about 1880, said that the +aggregate population was 380. This appears much too low. Merriam lists +29 villages, of which many are taken from Barrett without confirmation. +On the other hand Stewart says (p. 48) regarding Pdahau: "there is no +doubt that other villages were occupied contemporaneously with it, +although it was impossible to get the exact status of all the sites +mentioned by Barrett." Hence the acceptance of some of Barrett's and +Merriam's villages must be considered. + +Merriam's list includes Stewart's three main villages. It also includes +Itcetce and Kodalau, which Stewart says were settled after the American +occupation. Merriam also gives the following, some of which are on +Barrett's list: + + 1. Kah-bim-mo ("permanent village") + + 2. Kah-sha-lem ("permanent village, large town. Inhabitants moved + many years ago to Cha-cha. Used as slaves by man named Shoemaker.") + + 3. Kah-sil-shah-ko ("acorn camp and winter rancheria") + + 4. Kah-ya-a-lin ("acorn camp and winter rancheria") + + 5. Kup-pish-ko ("permanent village") + + 6. Shah-dah ("permanent village") + + 7. We-chahl (of the Kan-no-ah, "very large permanent village") + +The remaining 17 village names are credited to Barrett without comment +or confirmation. + +Suppose we accept the values put on Pdahau, Kauca, and Lacupda by +Stewart's informant, i.e., respectively 200, 100, and 80. Then we +should allow 150 each for Merriam's "large" villages, nos. 2 and 7 +above. The other five were apparently small and may be conceded 30 +persons each. Of the final 17 sites it will be fair to admit the +probably simultaneous existence of two-thirds of them, or let us say +12, at the rate of 30 persons per village. The total for the area then +becomes 1,190 inhabitants. Using Stewart's figure of 300 square miles +for the area the density would thus be 3.97 persons per square mile or +less than Gifford found for the Coast Yuki. Such an estimate seems +extremely conservative. + +_Booneville and Yorkville._--In this area are found the Pdateya of +Booneville, which Stewart puts among the Northern Pomo, and the +Danokeya of Yorkville. The corresponding names used by Merriam are the +Lah-ta and the Ta-bo-ta. Very little is known of either group. Stewart +mentions the village of Lemkolil near Booneville and Late and Maboton +in the Yorkville region. Merriam gives Barrett's list (in his +manuscript entitled "Ta-bo-ta and Lah-ta") without comment. For the +Ta-bo-ta there are 10 villages and for the Lah-ta 9. Since we have +absolutely no other leads we may assign the three main villages 100 +inhabitants each, and deduct one-third from the remainder to allow for +Barrett's nonpermanent sites. There would then be 10 presumptive +villages with 30 persons each, or 300 for all of them. The total +population for the two groups together would then be 600. + +_Stewart's Point._--The tribe at Stewart's Point is known as the Kacia +(Stewart) or the Kah-chi-a (Merriam, manuscript entitled "Tribe List of +Kah-chi-a pomo"). Also included are Stewart's Yotiya of the Southern +Pomo, a group for which I find no account in Merriam's notes. + +Stewart has made a particularly exhaustive study of this group and +states that the population range extended from 800 to 1,200 persons. +Merriam gives 82 names of villages. Stewart makes it quite clear that +aboriginally the Kacia had no permanent settlements on the coast +itself. All their villages were at least four or five miles inland, +except Mitini and Powicana. We must delete therefore all the coastal +villages of Barrett and Merriam except the two mentioned. This +immediately removes 27 names, leaving 55. Of these, 16 are mentioned by +Stewart as "villages which were occupied more or less permanently" (p. +50). Five of them had assembly houses. Of the remaining 39 sites, 30 +are confirmed by Merriam from Barrett's list or are given by him in +addition to Barrett. If we consider that the larger, known population +of the villages such as Mitini balances errors in Merriam's list and +the mean number of persons per village was 30, then the total for the +group is 46 times 30, or 1,380. To this should be added, according to +Stewart, 100 for the Yotiya, making 1,480 in all. This is somewhat, but +not excessively, greater than Stewart's estimate. + +For the Central Pomo as a whole we may turn once more to the record +left by Heintzelman. For the area here 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, pp. + 43-45). + + 2. _Sinals._ This term clearly refers to the village 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. + + 4. _Ta-bi-tas._ These were "in Anderson's Valley" 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 Northern and Central Pomo. + +Since the region of Ukiah, Hopland, Booneville, Point Arena, and Fort +Ross was well explored and even extensively 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 entire 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 +ignorance 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 survived in Alexander Valley are here omitted since they may +be more appropriately considered as contributing to the predominantly +Wappo population. Likewise, the village 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 estimating the +population of the Southern Pomo, however carefully it may have been +secured. The Spanish and Mexican missionaries, accompanied by the +military, entered 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 by +Indian or white informants. Merriam, following Barrett, lists about 80 +village names but in very few instances 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 Dry Creek Stewart + 2. Amako Cloverdale Stewart, Merriam + 3. Makahmo Cloverdale Stewart, Merriam, Kroeber + 4. Amatio Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam + 5. Kale Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam + 6. Mukakotcalg Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam + 7. Wotokkaton Healdsburg Merriam, Kroeber + 8. Tsoliikawai Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam + 9. Batiklechawi Sebastopol Merriam, Kroeber + 10. Masikawani Sebastopol Stewart, Merriam + 11. Hukabetawi Santa Rosa Merriam, Kroeber + 12. Kabetsiuwa Santa Rosa Stewart, Merriam + 13. Gualomi Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam + 14. Chichiyomi Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam + 15. Levantoyome Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam + +If each of these fifteen villages had a population of only 300 Indians, +a low value considering the huge congregations 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 missions for +conversion. This would mean an average of 402 persons for the three +subtribes or villages just mentioned, Levantoyome, Gualomi, and +Chichiyome. Extended 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 subdivisions +the southern group possessed the most favorable habitats and the most +prolific food supply. The population 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 persons per square +mile. The corresponding value for the Clear Lake Pomo is 7.34. The area +of the Southern Pomo, including the five groups discussed here was 745 +square miles. At the northern density of approximately 8 persons per +square mile the population would have been 5,960. + +The two methods employed therefore yield essentially similar results +and make possible the estimate of 6,000 persons for the Southern Pomo. + +According to Alexander Taylor (1860-63, Ser. I, folio page 5) Captain +J. B. R. Cooper, an American, went to Santa Rosa as early as 1827. +Apparently following his statements Taylor says "it was estimated" that +2,000 Indians lived in Sonoma Valley and 1,500 in Santa Rosa Valley. In +another place (Ser. I, folio page 3) Taylor states that "when Capt. +Cooper settled the Molino Rancho, in Santa Rosa Valley, in 1834, there +were living in his neighborhood as many as 2,000 Canimares." The latter +term refers of course to the southeastern portion of the Southern Pomo. + +We should not accept these pioneer estimates of Indian population +without examination and qualification. Neither should we reject them, +equally uncritically, as automatically exaggerated and mendacious, and +hence worthless. It is quite likely that Cooper knew more about the +number of Indians on his ranch than any other white man, at the time or +since. It is relatively unlikely that Cooper had any motive for +propagating a completely false report. On the other hand, it is wholly +possible that Cooper may have been inaccurate or careless in his count. +Nevertheless the Cooper estimate is quite in conformity with our other +sources of population information. + +It was stated previously that 402 baptisms are on record from three +rancherias in the Santa Rosa area. To these may be added 220 others +whose names are clearly Pomo in character, making a total of 622. At +the rate of three aboriginal inhabitants to one baptism in this region, +the territory concerned--and this is very close to Cooper's home--would +have contained 1,866 people. The mission data thus in general support +Cooper's figure. + +Cooper says that in 1834 there were "in his neighborhood" 2,000 +Canimares. Since the Molino ranch embraced the region north of +Sebastopol and west of Santa Rosa, his "neighborhood" may be considered +as including the Sebastopol and Santa Rosa groups of the Southern Pomo, +leaving the Healdsburg, Cloverdale, and Dry Creek groups beyond his +horizon. The estimates cited by Taylor refer rather ambiguously to the +period between 1827 and 1834, let us say roughly 1830. The earliest +Pomo conversions which are recognizable from the mission records were +at San Rafael in 1820. These Pomo had therefore been subjected to +intense missionization for at least ten years prior to Cooper's +appearance. The population consequently must have been seriously +depleted when he first saw the Santa Rosa Valley. + +If we disregard entirely the factor of depletion and accept Cooper's +1834 estimate of 2,000 Canimares around Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, we +may allow an equivalent population for the other three Southern Pomo +provinces. This yields a total of 5,000. If we attempt to make any +correction for depletion, we very quickly reach the figure already +arrived at by other methods, viz., 6,000. + +That a comprehensive population reduction was in progress throughout +the era of 1820 to 1850 and later is attested by the report of Major +Heintzelman. His figure for the Northern Pomo, it will be recollected, +was definitely within the range of the population determined from +ethnographic data. His value for the Central Pomo was only one-third of +that computed by other methods, and the discrepancy was accounted for +on the basis of the decline in numbers from the first white contact to +1855, the year of Heintzelman's trip. At the end of his report he makes +the statement that "south of the Canyon of the Russian River there are +about eight hundred indians." In other words, the Southern Pomo (which +all lie south of the canyon) had dwindled to no more than 800. The +converse may also be maintained. Since Heintzelman had a very good +check on the population of the well-settled south and since, according +to all known testimony, the attrition among the Indians of this area +had been appalling during the preceding 30 to 40 years, it follows that +the original population must have been very much greater than that +conceded by Heintzelman. Hence a level of several thousand may be +accepted. + + _Southern Pomo ... 6,000_ + + +NORTHEASTERN POMO + +This little tribe, living on the border of the Sacramento Valley, has +never been investigated thoroughly. Barrett (1908) listed 13 rancherias +but Merriam's informants (manuscript entitled "Sho-te-ah or Northeastern +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_ + + + + +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 recognizable +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 approximately 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 informants 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 into the missions. Beginning, as +indicated above in 1783, gentiles from the north shore were brought in +small numbers to the Mission Dolores for conversion. In 1817 San Rafael +was established, and within a few years the missionaries 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 Rosa and Sebastopol. Meanwhile +a considerable number of converts had been taken to San Jose, and +subsequently some found their way to Sonoma. Fortunately 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 records indicating geographical location. Deleting all really +doubtful cases we have the following numbers of baptisms + + San Francisco 896 + San Rafael 916 + Solano 48 + San Jose 162 + +The total is 2,020 persons. + +A baptism at any of the four missions constituted a net withdrawal of +one person from the native community, since all converts from the +immediate vicinity of the missions could be easily kept at the mission +establishment or could be recaptured without difficulty if they +escaped. Hence the total baptism number must very closely approximate +the total population of the area over a period of forty years. But the +wild population was undoubtedly decreasing owing to other causes from, +say, 1790 to 1830. The presence of the Spanish soldiers or missionaries +always introduced diseases and caused disruption of native society to +such an extent that the death rate outran the birth rate. Hence the new +converts were being drawn from a diminishing population. + +Another factor is fugitivism. Intimate contact with the white man for a +long period taught the native what to expect in the missions and on the +ranches. Consequently there always was a fraction of the Indian +community which eluded the best efforts of the missionaries and which +made good its escape beyond the periphery of Spanish and Mexican +influence. Many of these natives never returned to their original +homes. Still other sources of attrition were the kidnaping of adults +for labor on the ranches during the 1820's and the promiscuous killing +of all sexes and ages during the frequent armed encounters between +white men and red men. + +Although for the Coast Miwok the above-mentioned causes of loss cannot +be assessed numerically with any approach to accuracy, nevertheless +their total effect must have been considerable. As a purely arbitrary +but essentially reasonable guess we may say that they produced a +one-third reduction in the net aboriginal population. Then, if the +remaining two-thirds was baptized, the initial value would have +exceeded 3,000. This is twice the figure selected by Kroeber (1925, p. +275) who says that "the Coast branch may have numbered 1,500." Yet it +is difficult to see how, with a total baptism count of over 2,000, the +aboriginal level could have been any lower than 3,000. + + _COAST MIWOK ... 3,000_ + + + + +THE WAPPO AND THE LAKE MIWOK + + +These two ethnic groups are combined, together with the small corner of +the Wintun living in the lower Napa Valley, in order to complete this +survey of the area north of San Francisco Bay. + +Direct area comparisons between the territory here concerned and that +held by the Pomo and the Coast Miwok can lead to only very tentative +conclusions. If we use the region delineated by Barrett (1908) on his +large-scale map, the peoples mentioned above occupied approximately 950 +square miles of land surface. The density of population was reckoned +for the Pomo at 8.0 per square mile and that for the Coast Miwok, with +a population estimated at 3,000, comes to 3.4. The equivalent estimates +for the Wappo and Lake Miwok would be respectively 7,600 and 3,260. +There are no grounds for immediate decision whether either is too high +or too low. Consideration of the character of the terrain is not very +helpful since the Wappo-Lake Miwok habitat resembled that of the Pomo +in some respects and that of the Coast Miwok in others. We must +therefore turn to other devices. + +In contrast to the Coast Miwok the Lake Miwok and the Wappo have been +the subjects of ethnographic studies of direct value to the population +problem, particularly those of Barrett (1908) and of Driver (1936). In +considering these data, and also those furnished by the mission +records, it will be desirable to split the region into six small areas +along the lines indicated by the map given by Kroeber in the Handbook +(1925, pl. 27, opp. p. 172). Hence we have (1) the Lake Miwok, (2) the +Western Wappo, (3) the Northern Wappo, (4) the Central Wappo, (5) the +Southern Wappo, and (6) the Wintun of Napa Valley. As a starting point +we may select the Western Wappo. + +The names and the location of the villages differ widely as presented +by the three investigators of the area. The confusion is rendered even +more profound because Barrett in his terminology takes account of the +Pomo occupancy of Alexander Valley in the early years of the nineteenth +century, whereas Merriam and Driver ignore, not only the presence of +the Pomo, but also the names applied by them to settlements. On the +other hand, Driver's study is the most thorough of them all and for +this reason alone may well serve as the basis for consideration of +population. Driver lists (1936, pp. 183-184) 10 places which he calls +"permanent towns." Of these, one is located outside Alexander Valley +and hence may be disregarded; two are cited as of "unknown" location +and thus had better be disregarded also. There remain seven, all of +which Driver places on his map (p. 182). They are set forth below, +together with the names given by Merriam and Barrett which cannot be +reconciled with those 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 Russian 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 northernmost 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 or 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 Holko-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 + villages 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 following 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 possession of this section, and for which only Pomo names + could be obtained." It is clear therefore 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 occupancy. +Driver and Barrett agree with respect to Koticomota and Pipoholma. +Netstul, Owotelpeti, and Unutsawaholma 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 informants 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 presents. 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 numbers discovered by +Driver at Unutsawaholma are explicable on the basis of the later date +(1870) taken as the base line. At any rate there can be no doubt that +the two villages were remarkably alike in composition of population. + +In computing aboriginal population at Cigom and the surrounding country +it was pointed out that Gifford actually 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 changing. It now appears that, if +Unutsawaholma "formerly" had 17 houses, with 11.5 persons per house, +the "former" population would have been approximately 195, or in round +numbers 200. + +Returning the matter of houses, Driver says (p. 184) that his +informants "estimated" the number, but he thought the estimates were +too high. (The number for the village of Unutsawaholma was evidently +known exactly.) I think we have to concede Driver's point but we still +do not know how great was the exaggeration. We note that Unutsawaholma +with 17 sure houses "formerly" had 1 sweathouse but no designation +"large" or "small." Of the two "large towns" one had 2 sweathouses and +the other had 1 sweathouse and 40 ordinary houses. The same numbers +were assigned to two other villages but they were not called large or +small. The one called "small" had 1 sweathouse. The village, therefore, +with 1 sweathouse and 17 other houses, but not designated either large +or small, may be taken as approximately intermediate. The small town +may be assigned half this number, or 8 houses. Those with 40 estimated +houses, but not called large, may be assigned 25 houses each. Netstul, +a "large town" with 40 houses and 1 sweathouse, may be given 30 houses, +and Koticomota, a "large town" with 2 sweathouses, may be given 35 +houses. This is a purely arbitrary arrangement but it must come +somewhere near fitting the facts. + +On this basis we have six villages with a total of 140 houses and an +average of nearly 23. This would mean an aboriginal population of 1,610 +persons. If we were to admit no declining population in 1870 but if we +allowed that Unutsawaholma, with 17 houses, was of average size in +aboriginal times, the value would still be 1,010 for the population of +Alexander Valley. + +Driver states, in conjunction with his village list, "these certainly +not all inhabited at the same time." His opinion may be justified but +he cites no evidence in its support, and the circumstantial data +brought out with respect to each village separately does not indicate +that discontinuance of habitation occurred very long ago. It is true +that Alexander Valley was the scene of a minor intertribal war in the +early years of the nineteenth century, as the result of which the Pomo +were driven out by the Wappo. In the confusion there may have been some +shifting of inhabitants and reconstitution of villages, with the +consequence that the population came to include both racial elements. +Nevertheless, the data presented by Driver imply a total number of +inhabitants, at one time, of fully 1,610. If Barrett's eighth village, +Tekenantsonoma, on Sulphur Creek, is allowed 70 inhabitants, the total +is raised to 1,680. + +The Northern Wappo and the Lake Miwok form the next natural division. +It is preferable to treat these two groups together, and more or less +in defiance of strict tribal limits, because the precise boundary +between the Wappo and the Lake Miwok has never yet been determined to +the entire satisfaction of ethnographers and because the racial +affiliation of certain villages is still open to doubt. Bypassing the +ethnographic problem, therefore, we may consider the area south of +Clear Lake, which includes the headwaters of Putah Creek and upper Pope +Valley. The region embraces a rough triangle, the apices of which are +the modern villages of Lower Lake, Pope Valley, and Middletown. + +The ethnographic sources consist of the works of Merriam, Barrett, and +Kroeber. Merriam covered what he considered to be the Lake Miwok in a +manuscript entitled "Tu-le-yo-mi Tribe List" and the pertinent Wappo +villages in a manuscript entitled "Yukean." Barrett (1908) devoted +several pages to the Wappo (pp. 274-278) and to the Lake Miwok (pp. +314-317). Kroeber's discussion in the Handbook was based largely upon +these authorities but he later amplified his views in his paper (1932, +pp. 366-369) on "The Patwin and Their Neighbors." Since all three +investigators have contributed village lists, it will be necessary to +examine them in detail. Previously, however, one particular problem +requires brief mention. + +Within the area of the Lake Miwok and Northern Wappo there was once a +village or a pair of villages, the names and locations of which have +been the source of much controversy. Barrett (1908, p. 273) mentioned +"_loknoma_, from lok, goose, and noma, village, or _lakah-yome_ ... at +a point about three-quarters of a mile northeast of Middletown...." +Continuing the discussion at some length, Barrett finally suggests the +possibility that these people lived on the Locollomillo Rancho in Pope +Valley. + +Kroeber (1932, p. 366) found an informant who distinguished between +Loknoma and Lakah-yomi as two separate towns, both near Middletown. +Kroeber remarks: "Apparently the two 'capitals' Lok-noma and Lakah-yomi +stood close together, while their territories stretched apart, a +condition for which there is precedent." On his general map (1932, back +cover) he places Lok-noma almost at Middletown in Northern Wappo +territory and Lakah-yomi just to the north in the realm of the Lake +Miwok. + +Meanwhile Merriam, in his "Tu-le-yo-mi Tribe List," specifies two +rancherias. One is called Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot and is in Pope Valley, +whereas the other, at Middletown, is Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot. Merriam, +furthermore, reinforces his distinction by citing numerous Spanish +synonyms which he collected from the mission records. Thus for +Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot he mentions Alacyomi, Aloquiomi, Alocyome, and +Aloqui. For Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot he gives Laoquiomi, Laoquio, +Locollomillos, Laknomah, Locnoma, and Locolomne. The presence or +absence of the initial letter _a_ appears to have been the deciding +criterion, according to those who wrote in Spanish. + +On the whole it is probable, as Kroeber concluded, that two towns are +involved. One undoubtedly was near Middletown. The other may have been +near by, as stated by Kroeber, or it may have been in Pope Valley, as +suggested by Merriam. Fortunately we are not called upon to make a +decision since, for population estimates, it becomes irrelevant where +the exact locations were. The evidence is adequate that there were in +fact two important villages, of very similar name, lying within the +consolidated territory of the Lake Miwok and the Northern Wappo. + +We may now examine the village lists of Merriam, Barrett, and Kroeber. +All references to Kroeber are to his monograph of 1932. + + _Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot_ (Merriam). Refer to preceding discussion. + + _Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot_ (Merriam), _Loknoma_ (Barrett). Refer to + preceding discussion. + + _Tu-le-yo-me-po-goot_ (Merriam). _Tuleyome_ (Barrett), _Tule-yomi_ + (Kroeber). This is widely known as the largest village of the Lake + Miwok. + + _O-la-yo-me-po-goot_ (Merriam), _Oleyome_ (Barrett), _Ole-yomi_ + (Kroeber). This village is also known as having been large and + important. + + _Wen-nok_ (Merriam), _Guenoc_ (Barrett), _Guenoc_ (Kroeber). + Considerable mystery surrounds 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 Oleyome band, located 4 + miles northeast of Middletown. 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 village 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 investigators. + + _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 rendered very probable by the fact that + 57 persons are recorded as having been baptized at the mission of + San Rafael from _Lupuyome_. The village may have been destroyed in + the process of conversion 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 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), T_sok-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 +existence 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 comparison with the rancherias around +Clear Lake and in Alexander 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 reasonably sure, but by no means +certain, places we may ascribe 50 persons each. The nine doubtful ones +can certainly 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 assigned 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 the larger villages or even subtribes. We +would not expect them to conform in detail to any of the lists supplied +by modern ethnographers. The total baptism number may, however, be +taken as covering the area as a whole. + +The Lake Miwok (together with the Clear Lake Pomo) and the Northern +Wappo were the most remote people, north of the Bay, who were reached +for conversion prior to the secularization of the missions. All +activity in this area was confined to the period 1824-1834, and was +carried on by necessity through well organized, semimilitary, +semireligious expeditions. Owing to unavoidable obstacles it was +possible to get physical possession of and bring back to the missions +only a small proportion of the potential converts. The exact value of +this proportion can never be known, and indeed it undoubtedly varied +widely from place to place. A similar question arose in connection with +a previous study of the population of the San Joaquin Valley. For the +latter area the conditions were postulated that the site of native +residence was several score miles from the nearest mission, that a +formally organized expedition had to be undertaken, and that there was +able and determined opposition to missionization on the part of the +natives. Under such circumstances it was concluded on the basis of +evidence available that a fair approximation to the proportion of +natives actually baptized was 15 per cent of the existing population. +In most respects the situation south and southeast of Clear Lake was +very similar to that obtaining in the lower San Joaquin Valley and the +delta region. Hence the indicated baptism factor may be employed here. + +For the six major subdivisions mentioned above the total baptisms at +Solano and San Rafael were 264. If this number represents 15 per cent, +the population was 1,760, a value not basically different from the +arbitrary figure derived from the village lists. An intermediate +estimate, 1,800, will be taken for the population of the Lake Miwok and +Northern Wappo. + +For the Central Wappo there is a paucity of ethnographic data. +Furthermore the territory itself is very circumscribed, since Pope +Valley has been allocated for present purposes to the Northern Wappo +and embraces little more than the flat land within a radius of a few +miles from the modern town of Calistoga. Merriam cites only one name +(in the manuscript entitled "Yukean"), viz., _Mi-yahk-ma_. Barrett +(1908, p. 269) gives _Maiyakma_, together with _Nilektsonoma_ and +_Tselmenan_, which were close by. In addition he lists _Mitustul_, five +miles to the west of Calistoga. It seems likely that we have here a +single small division, or tribelet, with the "capital" at Maiyakma and +with three smaller, peripheral villages. If we use the same population +estimates as we did farther north, we may ascribe 200 persons to +Maiyakma and 100 each to the others, making 500 in all. + +The mission records supply two items of interest. The first is a note +from Sonoma that there were baptized 103 persons from Mayacma "o +Tamalsimas." The latter name is probably a corruption of the term +written by Barrett as Tselmenan, and indicates that this village was +then in existence. The other item is from San Rafael which reported 9 +baptisms from Teluasuenhuca "o Tamalsimela." The total then is 112. + +The baptism factor of 15 per cent cannot be used here with confidence +because the upper Napa Valley was much more accessible to the San +Rafael Mission and particularly the Sonoma Mission than was the area +around and above Middletown. At the same time the distance and +difficulty of approach were somewhat greater than in the case of the +lower Russian River Valley near Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, for which +the baptism factor was taken as one-third. As a compromise we may take +a factor of one-quarter, or 25 per cent. This yields an estimated +population of 450, a figure which appears not unreasonable. + +For the Southern Wappo Merriam mentions Guiluc (MS "Yukean") and +Kaimus. The latter is very well known and is discussed by Barrett +(1908, p. 268). The former is in territory which was disputed between +the Pomo and the Wappo and may be either _wilikos_ (Wappo) or _Wilok_ +(Pomo)--see Barrett's treatment on page 269 of the Ethnogeography +(1908). For present purposes it may be considered as Wappo since it was +excluded from the Pomo in computing the population of the latter group. +Merriam cites no other names, but Barrett gives Annakotonoma and +Tsemanoma among the Southern Wappo (1908, p. 269) and Tcimenukme, +Tuluka, and Suskol as Wintun villages at the mouth of Napa River. +Annakotonoma was known to the missionaries as Callajomanos (and +variants), Guiluc as such, and Kaimus as Caymus (and variants). The +three Wintun villages have left no trace whatever in the mission +records under Barrett's names or any recognizable variants. This is +rather surprising, since the area was thoroughly converted by the +missionaries at San Rafael and at Sonoma. Very likely the baptisms are +in the record but under designations (and there are many) which do not +permit the allocation to a specific tribe or village. On the other +hand, the area itself is probably included in the appellation "Napa" +which appears to have covered the entire region from the present city +of Napa to the shore of the Bay. + +The sum of the recorded baptisms from Caymus, Guiluc, Callajomanos, and +Napa is 331. A baptism factor of 25 per cent cannot be employed because +the territory of these groups was very close to the Sonoma Mission, and +from numerous accounts by contemporary writers we know that +missionization was nearly complete. A factor of 50 per cent would give +a probable population of 662 and one of 75 per cent a population of +442. Both values are evidently too low. + +The final resource from which we may seek information is provided by +the accounts of the early American settlers. Chief of these is George +Yount, who entered Napa Valley in 1831 and took up a grant of land near +the present town of Yountville. Yount seems to have been a sober and +reliable citizen, and one who was accorded the respect of his fellow +pioneers. His story consists of a series of verbal recollections which +were written down in manuscript form by a friend, the Rev. Orange +Clark, who visited his ranch in 1851. The Clark manuscript, together +with other material, has been secured and published by Professor +Charles L. Camp (1923). + +Yount seems to have discoursed at length on the local Indians (1923, p. +55). His description of the tribes follows (I have omitted the +explanatory parentheses inserted by 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...." + +Four of these names are clear. The fifth, Ouluke, is very probably +Tuluka of Barrett. Since these five groups are sharply defined by the +Napa Valley and since Yount obviously was talking about that area, his +size estimate 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 [1851] left as + many hundreds.... The poor remnants of all the five tribes above + named now mingle & wander up and down the valley promiscuously + together...." + +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, continues 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, mentions some of the +subtribes of the Wappo, he gives no useful 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 the Mayacomas, the +Callajomanas, the Caymus, the Napa Indians, the Soscol, and the Ulacas. +He then adds the following: + + Their rancherias were numerous throughout 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 possibly 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 nevertheless devoted a full chapter to the Napa Valley Indians, +and gives evidence of having undertaken to secure such information 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 expands on +Hittell's quotation from Yount thus (1873, p. 19): Yount said that "in +round numbers there were from 10,000 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 perhaps 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" 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 livelihood 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 incensed 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 organized according +to ranches. Furthermore let it be noted that, according to his explicit +statement, the aboriginal village organization had broken down utterly, +and the Indians were living in new places in conformity with new +economic and social requirements. No wonder modern informants +frequently cannot look past the period of upheaval and give us a clear +picture of untouched aboriginal 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 given is 600, we may +with safety consider that 300 would represent a "large number." A +"still larger number" could reasonably be 400. The total then becomes +2,075. Menefee, however, is careful to state that this included only +the Indians who were "in some sense" permanently located, and puts the +unattached number in the "thousands." The latter can of course be +scaled down drastically. Hundreds would be a good substitute, with a +possible total of one thousand. The outcome then is that the Indian +population of Napa Valley as a whole in 1843 was about 3,000, or +identical with Yount's minimum estimate. + +What was, now, the population aboriginally? The mission baptisms are of +no use to us since the Indians in 1843 included most of the +ex-neophytes in the area. That there had already been a profound +reduction at that time is unquestioned. The north shore of the Bay had +been subject to military, clerical, and civilian incursion since the +beginning of the century. Lethal epidemics had swept over the country +repeatedly. Massacre and slaughter had been the rule rather than the +exception. Indeed, the open valley through Sonoma and Napa up to +Calistoga had suffered more seriously than any other area except +perhaps the delta of the Sacramento River. A population reduction from +the aboriginal level by one-third prior to 1843 would not be out of +line with the apparent facts. + +The estimates for the period 1840-1845 derived from Yount, Hittell, and +Menefee included the Central Wappo with the more southern groups. For +the Central Wappo the ethnographic sources and the mission records +indicated an aboriginal population of 450 or 500. However, it is +probably advisable to disregard this small division as a separate +entity and include it with the remaining Wappo and the Suscol Wintun. +If we then take Yount's minimum estimate of 3,000 for the Napa Valley +south of Mt. St. Helena and if we assume a one-third decrease in +numbers from aboriginal times to 1843, the final estimate for the area +becomes 4,500. + +The figure just derived is of course considerably greater than would be +indicated by either the ethnographic village lists or the mission +baptism records, but it must be conceded that the two last methods of +approach are inadequate for the situation existing in the Napa Valley. +On the other hand for a population of 4,500 and an area of 600 square +miles, the density would be 7.5 persons per square mile, or very close +to the value arrived at for the near-by Pomo. + +We have found by ethnographic derivation 1,680 persons for the Western +Wappo and 1,800 for the Northern Wappo and Lake Miwok together. Thus +the total for the Lake Miwok, the Wappo, and the Suscol Wintun as a +whole becomes approximately 8,000. + + _WAPPO, LAKE MIWOK, AND NAPA VALLEY WINTUN ... 8,000_ + + + + +SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES + + +For convenience of reference the population estimates presented in the +foregoing text are tabulated as follows: + + Yurok 3,100 + Wiyot 3,300 + Karok 2,700 + Hupa 2,000 + Tolowa 2,400 + Athapascans + Chilula 800 + Mattole 1,200 + Whilkut 1,300 + Kato 1,100 + Lassik 1,500 + Nongatl 3,300 + Sinkyone 2,900 + Wailaki 3,350 + ----- + Total 15,450 + + Yuki + Coast Yuki 750 + Yuki proper 6,880 + Huchnom 2,100 + ----- + Total 9,730 + + Pomo + Clear Lake Pomo 3,150 + Northern Pomo 5,040 + Central and Southwestern Pomo 6,220 + Southern Pomo 6,000 + Northeastern Pomo 350 + ----- + Total 20,760 + + Coast Miwok 3,000 + Wappo, Lake Miwok, Napa Valley Wintun 8,000 + ------ + + GRAND TOTAL 70,440 + + + + +BIBLIOGRAPHY + + +_Abbreviations_ + + AA American Anthropologist, Menasha, Wis. + BAE-B Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, + Bulletin + UC University of California Publications, Berkeley and Los + Angeles + -AR Anthropological Records + -IA Ibero-Americana + -PAAE American Archaeology and Ethnology + + +Barrett, S. A. + + 1908. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring 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. Appendix to Journals of the Assembly of the + Eleventh Session of the California Legislature, 1860. + +Camp, C. L. + + 1923. The Chronicles 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 Northwestern California. + UC-PAAE 10: 265-288. + + 1923. The Habitat of the Wailaki. UC-PAAE 20: 95-112. + + 1924. The Habitat of the Pitch Indians, a Wailaki Division. UC-PAAE + 17: 217-225. + +Heintzelman, H. P. + + 1855. Report dated San Francisco, Nov. 17, 1855. Original in U.S. + National Archive, Office of Indian Affairs, Record Group no. 75, + Letters Received, California, 1855. Enclosure to Doc. no. H 1100. + +Hittell, J. S. + + 1860. Notes on Napa Valley. In the Hesperian Magazine. 4: 53-61. + +Kniffen, F. B. + + 1939. Pomo Geography. UC-PAAE 36: 353-400. + +Kroeber, Alfred L. + + 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California, BAE-B 78, Washington, + D.C. + + 1932. The Patwin and Their Neighbors. UC-PAAE 29: 253-423. + + 1936. Karok Towns. UC-PAAE 35: 29-38. + +Loud, L. L. + + 1918. Ethnogeography and Archaeology of the Wiyot Territory. + UC-PAAE 14: 221-436. + +Menefee, C. A. + + 1873. Historical and Descriptive Sketch Book of Napa, Sonoma, Lake + and Mendocino ... Reporter Publishing House, Napa City, Calif. + +Merriam, C. Hart. + + Dates uncertain. Village Lists. Manuscripts in the possession of + the Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. + + After the decease of the late C. Hart Merriam his heirs generously + made available to the Department of Anthropology of the University + of California, Berkeley, a large and valuable collection of Dr. + Merriam's notes on California Indians. Among these papers are to be + found complete and very carefully recorded 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. 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. + + 1905. The Indian Population of California. AA 7: 594-606. + +M'Kee, John. + + 1853. 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. + +Nomland, G. A. + + 1935. Sinkyone Notes. UC-PAAE 36: 149-178. + + 1938. Bear River Ethnography. UC-AR 2: 91-126. + +Nomland, G. A., and A. L. Kroeber + + 1936. 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, O. 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 California 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: 528-543. + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Aboriginal Population of the North +Coast of California, by Sherburne Friend Cook + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION *** + +***** This file should be named 33812.txt or 33812.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/3/8/1/33812/ + +Produced by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |