ESTIMATES BASED ON VILLAGE COUNTS

Wailaki (Eel and North Fork).—The present list gives a total of 67 villages among the Eel River and North Fork Wailaki. For purposes of calculating population I have excluded 13 of them (nos. 6, 9, 16, 31, 38, 40, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, 66, 67) because they are summer camps in the hills, rock shelters used only briefly, or specialized fish-drying camps. These places do not seem to have been used simultaneously with the main villages. This list appears to be a substantially complete count from Horseshoe Bend south, but it is clear that neither Merriam nor Goddard visited the area north of this, and the village count suffers as a result. There are about 16 river-miles south of Horseshoe Bend, including both the main Eel and North Fork, and there are 49 main villages on this stretch, yielding an average of 3.1 per river-mile. If we apply this figure to the 7 river-miles above Horseshoe Bend, we get 21.7 villages for that stretch rather than 5, as given by ethnographers. We may reduce this figure to 15, because this stretch of the river appears to offer a less desirable location (Goddard, 1923a, p. 107).

This calculation gives a total of 69 villages for the entire group, considerably less than Cook's total of 87 (Cook, 1956, p. 104). The reason for the difference is that Cook bases his estimate on Goddard's data, with the territory of the Wailaki extending above Kekawaka Creek, whereas I have taken Kekawaka Creek as the boundary.

The house count per site for this group must be extrapolated from Goddard's house-pit counts (1923a, pp. 103, 105) on the sites of two of the tribelets. This figure has been calculated by Cook, who takes Goddard's house-pit count for 20 sites as "92 pits." For two localities, however, Goddard 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" (Cook, 1956, p. 104). Cook then reduces the figure by 20 per cent to allow for the probability that not all the house pits represent simultaneously occupied houses. His average number of houses per site is 4, which would not appear to be an overestimate. If we take this figure, we have a total of 276 houses for the Wailaki as against Cook's figure of 348, which was based on a greater area.

Cook takes 6 persons per house as the average density for the Wailaki. This figure is arrived at in several ways. The figure of 7.5 per house is well established for the Yurok and sets an upper limit for the Wailaki area. Goddard appears to have based his population estimate on a mean of 4.5 persons per house, almost certainly too low, and Cook compromised at 6 per house. This figure is supported by independent observation by Foster on the Round Valley Yuki (Cook, 1956, p. 107). The social organization and the habitat of the Yuki and Wailaki are nearly identical, so the population per house should be the same for both groups.

Accepting the figure of 6 persons per house, we get a total population of 1,656 for the Eel Wailaki and the North Fork Wailaki, as compared with Cook's figure of 2,315 and Goddard's figure of between one and two thousand.

Pitch Wailaki.—Goddard (1924) records 33 villages for the Pitch Wailaki. For two of the four tribelets, the count is virtually complete. For a third tribelet, the T'odannañkiyahañ, Goddard lists 6 villages and indicates that there were probably more (1924, p. 225). If, to allow for these possible villages, we add 5 to the total above, we get a total of 38 villages for three tribelets, or an average of 12.7 per tribelet. Although the fourth tribelet, the Tchokotkiyahañ, had a poorer habitat than the other three (Goddard, 1924, p. 222), we may assume that it had at least 8 villages, an estimate which is probably conservative in view of its extensive territory. We then get a total of 46 villages for the Pitch Wailaki.

Goddard counted house pits in 22 village sites and got an average of 5 per site. If we reduce this to 4 to account for unoccupied pits, we have an estimate of 184 houses for the Pitch Wailaki, as against 172 estimated by Cook. On the basis of 6 persons per house this gives a population of 1,104 as against 1,032 by Cook and between 650 and 800 by Goddard.

For all Wailaki combined we get a total of 2,760. Cook's figure is 3,350, Kroeber's is 1,000, and Goddard's is between 1,650 and 2,800—average of 2,225. The difference between the figure presented here and Cook's figure is mostly due to the adjustment I have made in the Wailaki boundary from the one used by Goddard.

Mattole.—The village lists of Merriam and Goddard give a total of 42 villages for the Mattole. I have excluded 5 of these from calculation of population estimates, one because it is a summer camp and four others because the frequency appears too great, in places along the coast, to make simultaneous occupation likely. This leaves a total of 37, very likely a conservative estimate since Goddard gives a number of names of villages not located and therefore not included in our calculations.

Cook estimates 6 houses per village for the Mattole on the basis of comparison with the Wiyot, Yurok, Tolowa, and Chilula. Goddard counted house pits for a few sites of the Mattole and they appear to average less than that. Not much reliance can be placed on this average, because the sample was very small. However, the number of houses per site is probably not as high as among the Yurok. I have compromised with a figure of 5.4, the same as the estimate for the Sinkyone, the eastern neighbors of the Mattole.

Cook takes Kroeber's Yurok figure of 7.5 persons per house in calculating Mattole population. The social organization here is more nearly like that of the southern Athabascans, so I have used 6 per house. This figure gives a total population of 1,200 as against 840 figured by Cook for the Mattole exclusive of Bear River. The difference here is due to the fact that Goddard's village lists were not available to Cook. If they had been, he would have obtained a figure of 1,665, or nearly double his actual estimate.

Lolangkok Sinkyone.—For the Sinkyone on the northern part of the South Fork of the Eel we have a nearly complete village count. South of Larabee Creek Goddard and Merriam give a total of 46 villages. North of Larabee Creek on the main Eel the village count is incomplete, but Merriam gives 8 place names. That these place names represent village names is clear from the Merriam place names farther south which can be checked against Goddard's data. Together, these give a total of 54 villages but leave out the areas of Bull Creek and the upper Mattole River. We may assume 5 villages in each of these, surely a conservative estimate in view of the density of sites on Salmon Creek and South Fork. We thus have an estimate of 64 villages for the Northern Sinkyone.

Goddard counted house pits in 24 of the sites he recorded. They come to a total of 162 or 6.7 per village. If we reduce this by 20 per cent to account for unoccupied pits, we get an average of 5.4 houses per site or a total estimate of 346 houses among the Lolangkok Sinkyone. At 6 persons per house this estimate yields a total population of 2,076.

Hupa.—In the present village list there are 11 villages in Hoopa Valley and 16 above the valley on the main Trinity and on South Fork. Of these sixteen, three have been rejected as being in Chimariko territory (nos. 25, 26, 27). Cook has argued, reasonably, it appears, that the villages in Hoopa Valley average 11 houses, whereas the villages above the valley average 4.5 houses each. This average gives a total of 193 houses for the Hupa.

Cook has estimated that there is an average of 10 persons per house among the Hupa. This figure is arrived at by the following line of reasoning: according to a census taken in 1870 there was a total of 601 persons in 7 villages at that time, of which 232 were male and 359 were female. This count indicates a disproportionate number of males and Cook therefore calculates a population of twice the number of females, or 718, as a more normal population. Goddard's data give the number of houses for these villages as 92, a figure Cook takes as representing the situation in 1850. This combination yields an average of 7.8 persons per house. Since there had certainly been a decline in population between 1850 and 1870, Cook proposes that the figure for the density of population be raised to 10 persons per house.

But Goddard does not say what period his figures represent, so I propose to follow a line of reasoning similar to that of Cook but to use different figures. The number of houses for 6 villages in 1851 is reported by Gibbs (see map, pl. 9). We may compare these to the 1870 population estimates as given by Kroeber (1925a, p. 131). If we adjust for male attrition by calculating population as twice the female population, or 640 (see table 1), we get a density per house of 7.8, exactly the same figure that Cook gets.

TABLE 1

Hupa Population, 1870[1]
VillageMalesFemalesHouses
Honsading25309
Miskut32496
Takimitlding517420
Tsewenalding143110
Medilding7510028
Djishtangading14369
Total21132082

[1] Kroeber, 1925a, p. 131.

That there was a decline in population between 1850 and 1870 is agreed by all authorities. This fact makes it very attractive to accept Cook's proposed density of 10 persons per house for the Hupa in aboriginal times. But there are two objections to this procedure. For one thing, the population figures for 1870 may be inaccurate. In the census of that year, there were reported 874 Indians of all tribes on the Hoopa Reservation (Kroeber, 1925a, p. 131). But in the same year another agent reported only 649 Indians on the reservation. This is a 25 per cent reduction, and if we reduce the population estimate of 640 by 25 per cent, we get 480 as the estimate for 1870 and a density per house of 5.9. If we raise the population of 480 to account for the 1850-1870 reduction, we are again close to the figure 7.5 persons per house. This calculation is presented merely to indicate that the figures are not reliable.

The other objection to accepting Cook's proposed figure for density is that the established figure for the Yurok is 7.5 persons per house. According to Cook, this figure was based on an underlying assumption that "the social family in the usual monogamous tribe included the father, mother, children, and occasional close relatives" (Cook, 1956, p. 99). As a matter of fact, Kroeber's estimate is not based on this assumption but is an empirical estimate based on population counts and house counts (Kroeber, 1925a, pp. 16-19), and the figure is accepted wholeheartedly by Cook for the Yurok (1956, p. 83). But what is certainly clear is that the social organization, house type, and environment of the Hupa was virtually the same as that of the Yurok and therefore the population density per house must have been the same. It is therefore clear that we must accept either 7.5 persons per house or 10 persons per house as the population density for both the Hupa and the Yurok, and the question becomes one of comparing the reliability of the figures given for the Yurok with those given for the Hupa. Yurok figures appear to be intrinsically more reliable and are also earlier and I have therefore taken 7.5 persons per house as the density.

The population for the Hupa then comes to 1,475 as compared to 2,000 estimated by Cook and to less than 1,000 estimated by Kroeber.

Whilkut.—The number of permanent villages among the Whilkut has been estimated here at 69. This estimate excludes known summer camps and other villages away from the main salmon streams. For the Chilula Whilkut there are 23 villages. For the Kloki Whilkut there are 16 villages, including several which are not shown on the map but which are listed by Merriam as being on upper Redwood Creek. Ten villages have been taken from the North Fork Whilkut. Twenty villages are taken from the Mad River Whilkut even though only 16 are given in the village lists. Wherever both Merriam and Goddard worked the same area the latter has recorded substantially more villages than the former. I have therefore added 4 to the village count to make up for the presumptive lack, thus bringing the total up to 69.

House-pit counts from the Chilula Whilkut are listed for six villages by Kroeber (1925a, p. 138) as 17, 7, 4, 2, 4, 8, or an average of 7 per village. Kroeber reduces this average by a third, on the basis of his estimates for the Yurok and Hupa, to arrive at a figure of 5 houses per village. Cook (1956, p. 84) says the reduction should be only about 10 per cent, calculated on the basis of Waterman's study of the Yurok (Waterman, 1920), and he compromises, making a reduction of a seventh to use 6 as an average number of houses per village.

The sample used by Kroeber and Cook is so small that an estimate based on it of the average number of house pits per village is liable to considerable error. If we look at the figures for some of the surrounding groups, we find an estimate of 11 houses per village for the Hupa in Hoopa Valley, 4.5 for the Hupa outside the valley, 4 for the Wailaki, 4.5 for the Wiyot (Cook, 1956, p. 102), and 5.4 for the Lolangkok Sinkyone. The Whilkut terrain and culture is certainly more nearly like the region outside Hoopa Valley than inside it, so we are scarcely justified in estimating more than 5 houses per village.

On this basis we get a total of 345 houses for the Whilkut. Both Kroeber and Cook use the Yurok figure of 7.5 persons per house in calculating the population of this group. This figure may well be too high, and perhaps it should be more nearly the same as the estimate for the southern groups, but since I have no concrete evidence to support such a contention, I have also used the Kroeber and Cook figure. This gives a total population of 2,588 for the Whilkut.

Cook's figures for the groups which were formerly listed under the Chilula and Whilkut were 800 and 1,300 making a total of 2,100. Kroeber's figures were 600 and 400 for a total of 1,000. The difference between Cook's figures and those given here is partly due to the fact that Cook took the group on the North Fork of the Mad to be Wiyot, whereas I have them as Whilkut. Also Cook made a reduction of a ninth in his Mad River estimates because of the poor environment there. I have not done this because the Mad River region does not seem to me noticeably poorer than that along Redwood Creek.