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:

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):

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.

No. Source House
Count   Kroeber,
"modern
memories"   Kroeber,
1852 census   1 l 7           2 t 4           3 l 25 23+ 22+   4 l 9   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 13   7   33 l 13 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 21   14   45 l 11 45 l 8 14   6   47 l 4 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
K through X
AA through AK These sites extend along Mad River and around the shores of Blue Lake. Loud gives no 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.

class="table"> 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.