Chapter II: Part 2

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.