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
*** 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 Cañon 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 "ó
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 "ó 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 33812-8.txt or 33812-8.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
[email protected]. 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
[email protected]
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.
