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.