UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS

ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS

Editors (Berkeley): J. H. Rowe, R. F. Heizer, R. F. Murphy, E. Norbeck Volume 16, No. 5, pp. 157-238, plates 9-11, 2 figures in text, 18 maps

Submitted by editors May 6, 1957 Issued August 1, 1958 Price, $1.50

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California

Cambridge University Press London, England

Manufactured in the United States of America

PREFACE

In March, 1950, the University of California assumed custodianship of an extensive collection of original and secondary data referring to California Indian ethnology, made by Dr. C. Hart Merriam and originally deposited with the Smithsonian Institution. Since that time the Merriam collection has been consulted by qualified persons interested in linguistics, ethnogeography, and other specialized subjects. Some of the data have been published, the most substantial publication being a book, Studies of California Indians (1955), which comprises essays and original records written or collected by Dr. Merriam.

The selection and editing of the material for the Studies volume made us aware of the extent of the detailed information on ethnogeography which a thorough survey of the Merriam data would provide. We therefore approached Dr. Leonard Carmichael, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, with the proposal that a qualified graduate student be appointed as research assistant to study and prepare for publication a discrete amount of Merriam record material, remuneration for this work to be paid from the E. H. Harriman fund, administered by the Smithsonian Institution for preparation and publication of Dr. Merriam's ethnological data. This proposal was approved, and Mr. Martin Baumhoff began his one year of investigation on September 15, 1955.

After discussion, we agreed that the area where tribal distributions, village locations, and aboriginal population numbers were least certainly known—and also a field where the Merriam data were fairly abundant—was the territory of the several Athabascan tribes of Northwestern California. Under our direction, Baumhoff patiently assembled all the available material on these tribes, producing what is certainly the most definitive study yet made of their distribution and numbers.

In this monograph the importance of the Merriam data is central, although they are compounded with information collected by other students of the California Athabascans. We believe that the maps showing group distribution represent the closest possible approximation to the aboriginal situation that can now be arrived at.

The Department of Anthropology hopes to be able to continue the work of studying and publishing the Merriam data on tribal distributions. It takes this opportunity to express its appreciation of the coöperation of the Smithsonian Institution in this undertaking.

A. L. Kroeber

R. F. Heizer

[Pg iv]
[Pg v]

CONTENTS

MAPS

CALIFORNIA ATHABASCAN GROUPS

BY

MARTIN A. BAUMHOFF

INTRODUCTION

In 1910 C. Hart Merriam, already well known as a naturalist, came to California and began the study of California ethnography which was to occupy him for the rest of his life. Almost every year from then until his death in 1942 Merriam spent about six months in the field, talking to Indians and recording their memories of aboriginal times. All this field work resulted in an immense collection of data on the California Indians, most of which has never been published (see Merriam's bibliography in Merriam, 1955, pp. 227-229).

In 1950 the greater part of Merriam's field notes was deposited at the University of California, with the intention of making them available for study and publication. One volume of papers has already appeared (Merriam, 1955), and the present study is part of a continuing program.

The California Athabascans were selected as the first group for study at the suggestion of A. L. Kroeber, the reason being that the Athabascans have been and still remain one of the least known aboriginal groups in the State. This is not because they were conquered early and their culture dissipated, as is true of the Mission Indians; there were scarcely any whites in the California Athabascan area before the 1850's. Indeed, as late as the 1920's and '30's there were many good Athabascan informants still available. The reason for the hiatus in our knowledge lies in an accident in the history of ethnology rather than in the history of California.

The early work among the California Athabascans was done by Pliny Earle Goddard. Goddard began his studies of the Athabascans in 1897 at the Hoopa Indian Reservation, where he was a lay missionary. He stayed there until 1900, when he

During this same period A. L. Kroeber was engaged in gathering material for his classic Handbook of California Indians. Because of the scarcity of ethnographers in those years Kroeber could not afford the time to work in the Athabascan area and duplicate Goddard's investigations. Kroeber did study the Hupa and the Kato at either end of the Athabascan area but, except for a hurried trip through the region in 1902, he did not work with the other groups, and the responsibility for the ethnographic field work therefore devolved upon Goddard.

Goddard, however, was not primarily an ethnographer but a linguist, and he directed his chief efforts toward linguistic investigations. He has published an impressive body of Athabascan texts and linguistic analyses but, except for his Life and Culture of the Hupa (1903a), almost nothing on the culture of the Athabascans.

The net result is that the California Athabascans are virtually unknown, and Merriam's fresh data provide an opportunity to piece together the available evidence.

The Merriam files, deposited at the Department of Anthropology of the University of California, contain information on each of the tribes of California, some of it being information gathered by Merriam himself, the rest clippings and quotations from various historic and ethnographic sources. The primary and secondary materials are easily distinguished, since Merriam gave scrupulous citations to his sources.

Merriam's own data consist of word lists, ethnogeographical material, and random notes on various aspects of native culture. I have not used his word lists, since their usefulness is primarily linguistic and I am not competent to perform the necessary linguistic analysis, but all the random ethnographic notes which he recorded for the Athabascan groups are here included under the discussion of the appropriate tribes.

Most of the Merriam Athabascan material is geographic, consisting of lists of villages and place names, of descriptions and lengthy discussions of tribal boundaries. Obviously Merriam attempted to gather a complete file of this sort of information, and he was largely successful. His work provides a good basis for establishing boundaries and for locating tribelets and villages.

Another important source of information, serving the same purpose, is the Goddard material. Evidently Goddard very much enjoyed the long horseback trips he made with an informant, who could point out the village sites, landmarks, and other points of interest of his native territory. This information, carefully recorded by Goddard, has proved extremely valuable in the present work, the more so since it represents firsthand observation.

Goddard's ethnogeographic work for three of the California Athabascan groups has already been published (1914a; 1923a; 1924). Besides this, the present writer has been fortunate enough to have access to Goddard's unpublished notes, which contain information on several hundred additional villages in the area. These notes were in the possession of Dr. Elsie Clews Parsons, Goddard's literary executor, and on her death they were sent to the University of California by Dr. Gladys Reichard. They remained in the files of the University of California Museum of Anthropology until their use in the present work.

This unpublished material of Goddard's consists of a group of file cards, on each of which is typed the name, location, and any other pertinent data for a single village. Some of the lists are accompanied by maps, showing precise location of the villages. In the lists for which there are no maps but only verbal descriptions of the sites, the township, range, and quarter section coördinates are given. The township and range coördinates have been changed since Goddard's time, in accordance with the more accurate surveys of the last thirty years, but county maps of the appropriate period provide a perfectly adequate way of locating Goddard's sites within a few hundred yards.

It is clear, on the basis of internal evidence, that there is or was more Goddard material than is now accessible to the present author. For the Kato, for instance, Goddard says that he recorded more than fifty villages (Goddard, 1909, p. 67); all that remain in his notes are two village cards numbered 51 and 52 respectively. There may also be some data, once recorded but now lost, from the Lassik, Nongatl, and Shelter Cove Sinkyone. I have communicated with the American Museum of Natural History, where Goddard was a member of the staff, and with Indiana University, where some of his manuscripts are deposited, but neither of these institutions has any knowledge of the material in question.

The Merriam and Goddard material, taken together, provides a fair amount of information on the geography of the California Athabascan groups. We are now in the position of knowing a great deal about the location of the tribes, tribelets, and villages of these people, while we know very little about their way of life, except what can be gained by inference from the surrounding groups.

The author's thanks are due to Dr. A. L. Kroeber and Dr. R. F. Heizer, who gave their full coöperation throughout the preparation of the present paper. Dr. Henry Sheffé was kind enough to advise on the statistics used in the section on population.

ATHABASCAN CULTURE

The following sketch of Athabascan culture attempts to provide some background for the later discussion of the various groups. In this sketch I have not used the material from the Hupa, since they are virtually identical with the Yurok and not at all typical of the more southern Athabascans.

Subsistence.—For information on Athabascan economy I have relied heavily on Essene's account of the Lassik (1942, p. 84). There was, no doubt, variation among the different groups, but for the most part, they must have followed a similar pattern.

The most difficult time in the annual cycle of food production was winter. There were then few fish and almost no game animals or crops for gathering. From late November to early March people had to rely on food that had been stored the previous year. Essene's informant said that about every four or five years there would be a hard winter, but she could remember only one when people actually starved to death.

In February or March the spring salmon run began, and after that the danger of starvation was past. At about this time the grass began to grow again, and the first clover was eaten ravenously because of the dearth of greens during the winter.

The herb-gathering and salmon-fishing activity lasted until the spring rains ended in April or May, when the people left their villages on the salmon streams and scattered out into the hills for the summer. Usually only a few families would stay together during the summer, while the men hunted deer, squirrels, and other animals and the women gathered clover, seeds, roots, and nuts. Food was most plentiful at this season, and the places visited varied with the abundance of different crops. If a certain crop was good, the Indians would spend more time that summer in the area where the crop grew best. The next year they might go somewhere else. The vegetation of the Athabascan habitat is not well enough mapped to permit a precise delineation of these various summer camping grounds.

In September or October, when the acorns were ripe, the Indians would return to their winter villages and smoke meat for storing and probably store the acorns. Each family built a new house to protect it from the heavy winter rains. After the first rain in the fall the

It is evident that the crucial factor in the economy was the amount of food stored for winter and that this food supply was a controlling influence on the size of the population, since, in bad years, people starved. At least, this was so for the Lassik, and it was no doubt true among the other groups as well. Salmon, meat, and acorns were doubtless the chief foods stored, and thus population size would have responded quite sensitively to the quantity and condition of the salmon, deer, and oak trees.

Social organization.—For social organization I have had to rely mostly on Nomland's accounts of the Sinkyone and Bear River groups (1935, 1938). The primary social unit among the California Athabascans was the simple family, including a man, his wife, and his children. Although polygyny was known, at least among some groups, it was rare, and the possessor of two wives was reckoned a rich man. Most marriage was by purchase; the levirate and sororate were common. Divorce was also common and might be obtained by a man because of his wife's barrenness, laziness, or infidelity.

The next social group, larger than the family, was the tribelet. Kroeber (1932, p. 258) has defined the tribelet as follows.

Each of these [tribelets] seemed to possess a small territory usually definable in terms of drainage; a principal town or settlement, often with a chief recognized by the whole group; normally, minor settlements which might or might not be occupied permanently; and sometimes a specific name, but more often none other than the designation of the principal town. Each group acted as a homogeneous unit in matters of land ownership, trespass, war, major ceremonies, and the entertainment entailed by them.

This definition, given for the Pomo, fits the Athabascan area very well. Merriam usually refers to these groups as "bands," while Goddard calls them "subtribes." In the body of this paper I use the word "band" when quoting or paraphrasing Merriam, otherwise I call them "tribelets."

The tribelet was the largest corporate group in the area. A larger group, which I call the tribe, has been identified by most ethnographers. This latter group ordinarily had no corporate functions, unless it happened to be coterminous with, and therefore indistinguishable from, the tribelet. The tribe, as the term is used here, was a group of two or more tribelets—or occasionally one single group—with a single speech dialect, different from that of their neighbors. The tribe was also culturally uniform, but not necessarily distinct from its neighbors in this respect. The similarity between people of a single tribe evidently gave them a feeling of community but had no further effect on their social or political organization.

The following tribes have been identified in the Athabascan area, each including several tribelets, except for the Bear River tribe, which consists of one single tribelet.

Kato: The Kato probably included at least 2 tribelets, but we have no information on this point.

Eel River Wailaki: 9 tribelets.

North Fork Wailaki: 6 tribelets.

Pitch Wailaki: 4 tribelets.

Lassik: Probably several tribelets, but there is no information.

Nongatl: There is evidence of 6 subgroups of the Nongatl. Some of these may be dialect divisions, that is, tribes. The information is not sufficient to permit definition and they have therefore been grouped under Nongatl. The extent of Nongatl territory indicates that there must have been several tribelets.

Lolangkok Sinkyone: There were at least 2, and possibly more, tribelets.

Shelter Cove Sinkyone: There were at least 4 tribelets.

Mattole: 2 tribelets.

Bear River: The Bear River tribe consists of a single tribelet.

Whilkut: The 4 subdivisions of the Whilkut—Chilula Whilkut, Kloki Whilkut, Mad River Whilkut, and North Fork Whilkut—all appear to be tribelets. It is possible that the Mad River Whilkut spoke a different dialect than the other groups and, if so, they should be given tribal status. The evidence is not clear on this point and I have therefore included them simply as a Whilkut tribelet.

Hupa: 2 tribelets are to be distinguished for the Hupa proper. In addition, Merriam distinguishes the South Fork Hupa as a distinct dialect division. The linguistic separation is not supported by Goddard or Kroeber and I have therefore included the South Fork Hupa under the Hupa proper, but as a separate tribelet. This gives a total of 3 tribelets for the Hupa.

In general, it may be stated that the California Athabascans did not have the strong local organization characteristic of Central California. Emphasis on wealth, although present, was less strongly developed than among the Yurok and therefore did not lead to the fragmented villages and tight family organization of that group. This statement, of course, does not apply to the Hupa, and probably not to the Whilkut, both of which were more like the Yurok.

Religion and the supernatural.—The clearest account of the religious practices of the Athabascans is given by Nomland (1938, pp. 93-98), who obtained her information from the Bear River woman, Nora Coonskin, herself a shaman. The account, however, may not be representative of the Athabascans as a whole.

The Athabascans thought that each person had a spirit which, leaving him when he died, might come back to earth as a small creature about two feet high. This returned spirit could communicate with shamans. When a person had a fainting spell, the spirit departed from the body and a shaman had to be called in order to get the patient's spirit back. If the shaman failed, the patient died. Shamans' spirits went to a special afterworld and were accompanied only by the spirits of other shamans.

Shamans were important among the Bear River people and probably among the other Athabascans as well. They might be either men or women; most often they were women, men being thought less powerful. The first signs of a shaman's power came in childhood, the visible signs being, for example, excessive drooling in sleep. If the childhood omens were proper, the training began about the age of twelve, under the direction of an older shaman, the main ceremony being a series of dances performed on five successive nights. Other ceremonies followed; then the girl was a full-fledged shaman. She was not supposed to use her power for a period of two to five years or it would harm her. The fee for training the initiate was large, 200 to 300 dollars in Indian money (perhaps a 6-8 ft. string of dentalia shells).

There were two types of shamans—curing shamans and sucking shamans. The curing shaman sang and danced for two nights while her spirit searched for the spirit of the patient. A shaman's fee was from five to ten dollars per night; if the patient died within two months, the fee had to be returned.

The sucking shamans could suck out pains which were causing illness. These shamans were paid more because they were more powerful; having greater power, they were in greater danger and had a shorter life expectancy.

Connections with other groups.—The foregoing account of economy, social organization, and religious practices does not by any means make up a complete picture of Athabascan life, but it illustrates certain salient factors. In particular, the connections with Northwestern California are clear. So far as influence from Northwestern California is concerned the Athabascans may be divided into three groups: the Hupa and Whilkut on the north are an integral part of the northwestern culture center; the Wailaki and Kato on the south are essentially Central Californian; and the groups in between are transitional, but more northern than southern in their outlook.

ATHABASCAN BOUNDARIES

In evaluating boundaries I have relied most heavily on the information of Merriam (map 3) and Kroeber (map 1). Merriam's data are contained in a 1:500,000 map of California, together with a descriptive text. The map and the description were made up by Dr. Merriam's daughter, Mrs. Zenaida Merriam Talbot, during the years 1939 to 1946, from information in Merriam's notes and journals, the latter of which are not accessible to this writer. Often, where Merriam's boundaries disagree with those of Kroeber or other authors, Merriam's line will follow a stream, whereas the alternative follows a ridge or drainage diversion. When the evidence is inconclusive, I have usually followed Kroeber's method and chosen the ridge rather than the stream as the boundary. In this area the streams are small and easily crossed during most of the year and therefore would not constitute a barrier sufficient for the divergence of dialects. On the other hand, the hills were visited only briefly for hunting and gathering; the population depended to a great extent on the products of streams for its subsistence, and consequently all the permanent villages were in the lowlands and canyons. For this reason, the ridges rather than the streams would tend to be boundaries. Kroeber has discussed this point more generally (1939, p. 216) and also in greater detail (1925a, p. 160).

EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES

The southern boundary of the Athabascans begins at Usal Creek on the coast and goes eastward for a few miles before swinging south to include the drainages of Hollow Tree Creek and the South Fork of the Eel in Kato territory. It turns north to enclose the headwaters of South Fork and proceeds along the ridge dividing Ten Mile Creek from the main Eel until it reaches the drainage of Blue Rock Creek; it then passes around north of the creek and crosses the Eel near the mouth of the creek. From this point it runs in an easterly direction around the drainage of Hulls Creek.

Kroeber's map in the Handbook shows the southern boundary beginning a few miles south of Usal Creek, but Merriam and Nomland both maintain that the creek itself is the boundary and Gifford (1939, p. 304) says that both Sinkyone and Yuki were spoken in the village situated at the mouth of the creek. The information of all four authors came from either Sally or Tom Bell, wife and husband, who are respectively Shelter Cove Sinkyone and Coast Yuki. I have accepted Merriam's boundary, since it agrees with Nomland's.

Merriam maintains that the western boundary of the Kato runs along the South Fork of the Eel and he is partly supported in this by Barrett (1908, map), whose boundary includes the drainage of South Fork but not the drainage of Hollow Tree Creek. Barrett, however, disavows any certainty on this particular boundary. Kroeber's line, which does include the drainage of Hollow Tree Creek in Kato territory, is supported by a specific statement from Gifford (1939, p. 296) that "Hollow Tree Creek did not belong to the Coast Yuki although they fished there." I have therefore accepted Kroeber's version.

All authorities agree on the southern and eastern boundaries of the Kato as far north as the drainage of Blue Rock Creek. Merriam claims this drainage for the Wailaki, whereas both Kroeber and Foster claim it for the ta'no'm tribelet of the Yuki. It is evident that this territory was disputed, for it was the scene of several of the wars involving the Wailaki, the Kato, and the Yuki (Kroeber, 1925a, p. 165; 1925b). Kroeber obtained a detailed list of place names in this area from a ta'no'm Yuki, whereas Merriam's Wailaki information is only of a most general nature. For this reason I have given the territory to the Yuki.

All the authorities, except Foster, agree on the rest of the southern boundary of the Athabascans. Foster has the Yuki-Wailaki line cross Hulls Creek about five miles from its mouth instead of passing south of its drainage. Both Kroeber and Merriam favor the more southern line, and Goddard (1924, p. 224) says that the Wailaki claimed a fishing spot in the disputed area, so I have accepted this version.

The eastern boundary of the Athabascans runs north along the ridge separating the drainages of the North Fork and Middle Fork of the Eel until it reaches the headwaters of the Mad River. Thence it runs in a northern direction along the ridge that separates the drainage of the Mad River from that of the South Fork of the Trinity until it reaches Grouse Creek, where it turns eastward to cross the South Fork of the Trinity at the mouth of the creek. It continues north on the east side of South Fork, following the crest until it crosses the main Trinity about five miles above its confluence with South Fork, and then follows around the headwaters of Horse Linto Creek and Mill Creek.

Merriam's eastern Athabascan boundary conflicts with the one drawn by Kroeber, Foster, and Goddard in assigning the northern part of the drainage of the Middle Fork of the Eel to the Pitch Wailaki instead of to the Yuki. Merriam is almost certainly wrong here, for Goddard (1924) definitely does not include this area within Wailaki territory and his information in this region appears to have been especially reliable. Moreover, Merriam got his information from natives of the main Eel River, who were evidently not on good terms with their relatives to the east and knew little about them. I have therefore accepted the Kroeber boundary.

The next conflict is to the north of this, where Kroeber's boundary runs up the ridge separating the Mad River from the South Fork of the Trinity, whereas Merriam's runs along South Fork itself in the twenty miles from Yolla Bolly Mountain northwest to Ruth. Essene (1942) agrees with Merriam on this point, but his data add nothing to the argument, since he worked with the same Lassik informant as Merriam. I have accepted Kroeber's version because it is corroborated by both Goddard (1907) and Du Bois (1935, map 1), who agree in assigning the valley of the South Fork of the Trinity to the Wintun.

Kroeber and Merriam agree on the line running north of Ruth as far as a point about fifteen miles south of Grouse Creek, where Merriam's line drifts westward to follow the north-south channel of Grouse Creek for a short distance, whereas Kroeber's line follows due north along the drainage pattern. Essene supports Kroeber, but his informant did not come from this region so her testimony perhaps cannot be relied on heavily. I have accepted Kroeber's line because it follows the drainage pattern.

Kroeber's boundary also conflicts with Merriam's on the east side of South Fork. Kroeber's line runs along the ridge separating South Fork from the main Trinity whereas Merriam's runs along the Trinity itself. The testimony of Dixon on the Chimariko (1910, pp. 295-296) supports Kroeber, so I have accepted the latter's line.

The northern boundary of the Athabascans runs west, parallel to Mill Creek, crossing the Trinity a few miles south of its confluence with the Klamath, and then continues west until it reaches Bald Hills Ridge, which separates Redwood Creek drainage from Klamath River drainage. It continues north along this ridge and then turns east to cross Redwood Creek about ten miles southeast of Orick.

Goddard (1914a, pl. 38) indicates three Athabascan summer camps on the Yurok side of the dividing ridge. This may mean that some Athabascan territory was included in the Klamath drainage, but if so, it would contradict the testimony of the Yurok (Kroeber, 1925a, fig. 1; Waterman, 1920, map 2). However, the land away from the Klamath was little used by the Yurok (Kroeber, 1925a, p. 8), so it may be that this territory was claimed by both groups. I have accepted Kroeber's boundary here. Otherwise there are no conflicts on the northern boundary.

The western boundary of the Athabascans runs due south from Redwood Creek, following

A major conflict in the western boundary of the Athabascans involves the drainage of the North Fork of the Mad River. Kroeber and Loud both assign this area to the Wiyot, whereas Merriam assigns it to the Athabascans. Neither Kroeber nor Loud gives specific data in support of his contention; thus Merriam's specific local information quoted below, renders his line preferable.

Sunday, August 11, 1918.... I found two old men of the same tribe, who were born and reared at the Blue Lake rancheria 'Ko-tin-net—the westernmost village of the Ha-whil-kut-ka tribe.

I have therefore accepted Merriam's boundary.

From the Mad River south to the Eel there is general agreement except that, as usual, Merriam's lines tend to follow the streams, whereas those of Kroeber and Loud follow the ridges. Another conflict comes at the crossing of the Eel River. Curtis (1924, 13:67) says the line crosses at the mouth of the Van Duzen. Nomland (1938, map 1), Loud, and Merriam all agree with this. Powers (1877, p. 101) and Kroeber both locate the line a few miles up the river from this point at Eagle Prairie, while Nomland's Wiyot informant (Nomland and Kroeber, 1936, map 1) places the line even farther south at the mouth of Larabee Creek. The weight of evidence indicates that the line was probably near the mouth of the Van Duzen; Goddard (1929, p. 292) states that there was a Bear River village near there.

There is also some disagreement on the northern boundary of the Bear River group. Nomland says that it is at Fleener Creek, about five miles north of Bear River Ridge, whereas Kroeber indicates a line about two miles north of Bear River Ridge. Loud, Merriam, and Goddard, on the other hand, all indicate that the boundary is Bear River Ridge itself. Nomland's boundary is almost certainly in error, since Loud gives Wiyot villages occurring south of that line. Most of the evidence points to Bear River Ridge as the line, and this version has been accepted.

INTERIOR BOUNDARIES

There is no disagreement on the western boundary of the Hupa. It runs north and south along Bald Hills Ridge, dividing the drainages of Redwood Creek and the Trinity River. Merriam gives the Hupa two divisions—the Tin-nung-hen-na-o, or Hupa proper, and the Ts´ă-nung-whă, or Southern Hupa. The line dividing these two groups lies just north of the main Trinity to the east of South Fork and along Madden Creek to the west of South Fork. Kroeber (1925a, p. 129) and Goddard (1903a, p. 7) do not give any support for a linguistic division, as indicated by Merriam, but there does seem to have been some cultural difference.

In the division of the territory west of the Hupa Merriam differs radically from Kroeber and Goddard, although all three scholars divide the area between two groups. Kroeber and Goddard call the northernmost group Chilula, an anglicization of the Yurok word tsulu-la meaning "Bald Hills people," and the southern, Whilkut, from the Hupa word hoilkut-hoi meaning "Redwood Creek people" or "upper Redwood Creek people."

Merriam calls the first of his two divisions Hoilkut and says that they lived on Redwood Creek and on the North Fork of the Mad. This group he further subdivides into three parts: one, living on lower Redwood Creek, corresponds to the Chilula of Kroeber and Goddard; another, on upper Redwood Creek, corresponds to part of Kroeber's Whilkut; and a third, on the North Fork of the Mad River, corresponds to a part of Loud's Wiyot.

Merriam calls his second division Ma-we-nok. They live in the drainage of the main Mad River and correspond to a part of Kroeber's Whilkut.

It would appear that, except for Goddard's Chilula information (Goddard, 1914a), Merriam's data are the most detailed and therefore preferable. He had informants from lower Redwood Creek, from the North Fork of the Mad River, and from the main Mad River. For this reason I have accepted his boundaries. I therefore propose that all the peoples previously included under the terms Whilkut or Chilula be called Whilkut. This seems justified by Merriam's statements, on the one hand, that the Mad River Ma-we-nok differed but little in speach from their Whilkut neighbors, and, on the other hand, that the other groups in the area called themselves hoilkut or terms related to this.