went to Berkeley to work for his doctorate in linguistics under Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the University of California. Between 1900 and 1909 Goddard was associated with the University as student and professor and during this time he visited the Athabascans periodically, until he had worked with virtually all the groups considered in this paper.

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