The Toda Population
The chapters on kinship and marriage will furnish object-lessons on the method of application of the knowledge derived from the genealogies to the study of social regulations. In the remainder of this chapter I propose to consider various problems connected with population, of biological as well as [[472]]of sociological interest. The data derived from the genealogies are here of distinct service, though, for reasons already considered, their value is not so great as in the investigation of social regulations.
Records of the numbers of the Todas have been taken at various times, beginning with what must have been a very rough estimate made by Keys[3] in 1812, in which the number of the Todas or Thothavurs was placed at 179. In 1821, Ward[4] estimated the numbers of men and women at 140 and 82 respectively, of whom the great majority lived in the Todanad district of the hills.
Hough[5] in 1825 found the population to consist of 145 men, 100 women, 45 boys, and 36 girls, altogether 326.
In 1838, Birch[6] gives the population as consisting of 294 men and 184 women, amounting to 478, but elsewhere in his paper he says that the number of the Todas was computed at about 800.
In 1847, Ouchterlony[7] found the number of the Todas to be 337, made up of 86 adult males, 87 male children, 70 adult females, and 94 female children. The proportion of males to females is only 173 to 164, showing a very much smaller preponderance of males than in any other estimate before or since.
In 1856, Grigg[8] gives 185 males and 131 females, altogether 316.
In 1866, Grigg gives the population as 704. If the estimates of this year and that of 1856 were correct, it would show that the population had more than doubled in ten years. It is evident that the census of 1866 is the first which gives anything approaching an accurate record of the Toda population. Even in this year there is one obvious source of error, for it would seem that those living at the foot of the hills, near Gudalur were not included, and probably twenty or thirty, if not more, would have to be added on this account. [[473]]
For the census of 1871 the records are conflicting. On p. 29 of the Manual, Grigg gives the numbers as 693, 405 males and 288 females. On p. 187 he gives instead of these numbers 376 males and 263 females, making a total of 639. Breeks gives the latter numbers and also a revised result which brings out the total population as 683. This figure, or the earlier of Grigg’s figures, evidently approximates to the correct population, which shows a slight falling off as compared with five years earlier.