TABLE 5
Hupa Villages
According to Kroeber (K), Goddard (Go), Gibbs (Gi), and Merriam (M). The numbering is purely arbitrary and is based on Kroeber's list. The house counts are from Goddard's map, the Yurok census of 1851 as cited by Kroeber (p. 131), and the 1852 map of Gibbs.
THE TOLOWA
Apart from the discussion by Kroeber in the Handbook (pp. 124-125) there have been two published attempts to enumerate the villages of the Tolowa. One of these was by Waterman (1925) and the other by Drucker (1937). Of all these the treatment by Drucker is the most complete since he had the advantage of a knowledge of the earlier work. Although he may have missed settlements in the interior, for present purposes we must accept his list as a working basis.
Drucker mentions 23 villages, all located on the coast or along the lower reaches of the Smith River. Kroeber gives 10 sites from which he computes the population, at the Yurok rate of 45 inhabitants per village, as 450. Waterman gives 14 places, which, at the same rate, would yield 630. Drucker has house counts for 13 of his villages, with a total of 88 houses or 6.76 houses per village. At the Yurok count of 7.5 persons per house, which Kroeber says applies to the Tolowa, the average population per village would be 51. Kroeber's estimate of 45 is thus quite close. There is no good reason to suppose, in view of the lack of any good evidence to the contrary that the other 10 villages of Drucker were smaller than those for which he gave house counts. Thus we may add 68 houses, making a total of 156 and a population of 1,186. Kroeber would of course reduce by one-third but the reasons for so doing are no more compelling with this than with any other tribe.
Drucker (p. 226) states that his house counts are as of 40 to 50 years ago. This means, first, that the houses were described to him by informants as known to them in their youth to be inhabited (hence no reduction necessary) and, second, that the counts represent the situation during the period of 1885 to 1895.
Now the counts published for all the tribes hitherto considered were based upon the conditions obtaining at approximately 1850, 35 to 45 years earlier. In other words, Drucker's figures cannot in any sense represent the aboriginal state, for there must have been a marked decline in population and in number of houses among the Tolowa between 1850 and 1890. The implication is, startling as it may seem, that the population estimate given above is much too low.
Some idea of what may have happened can be secured by a brief reconsideration of Waterman's Yurok data. It will be remembered that Waterman shows detailed maps of 19 villages, including not only houses once standing but also houses standing and inhabited when he saw them in 1909. The ratio of the former to the latter is 189 to 38. There were of course many more houses standing in 1890 than in 1909, although the population did not decline materially during these particular twenty years. Hence the ratio found by Waterman for the Yurok cannot be applied directly to the Tolowa. Nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that a count made among the Yurok in 1890 would have shown that not more than half as many houses were being inhabited then as had been in 1850. If so, Drucker's total of 156 might be doubled, giving 312 and a population of 2,372. Such an estimate may appear totally at variance with the other known facts pertaining to the tribe but I am inclined to adhere to it.
Further support for such a view comes from consideration of relative population decline since 1850. On page 19 of the Handbook Kroeber cites the federal census of 1910 as showing 668 persons for the Yurok and on page 130 over 600 for the Hupa. He thinks that the Hupa were less numerous than the Karok and the latter less numerous than the Yurok. With respect to the Karok he says (p. 102): "It is also clear that the proportional loss of the Karok in the past 65 years has been relatively mild, possibly not exceeding one half." In another connection he discusses at some length the reasons why the Hupa suffered less than many other tribes—primarily because of their protected position and the lack of mining in their area. Now the Wiyot in 1910 had 150 people and the Tolowa 120. If their loss had been of the order of one half, as Kroeber feels is the case with the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa, then the population of the Wiyot in 1850 would have been in the vicinity of 300 and the Tolowa 240. Actually, in his original estimates Kroeber did set the figures for these tribes not much higher: 800 for the Wiyot and 450 for the Tolowa. Kroeber thus defeats his own argument with respect to the small decline and protected position of the Karok and Hupa. For the position of the Wiyot and the Tolowa were the most exposed to white influence of any of the Northwestern tribes. They were located on the fertile, commercial, and well settled coast. Many types of evidence point to their early and rapid disintegration and almost extinction. They should have suffered the worst losses and did. Hence it is not as far fetched as it might seem at first sight to ascribe to the Tolowa a population in 1850 of nearly 2,400.
TOLOWA ... 2,400
THE ATHAPASCANS
THE CHILULA
With the Chilula we encounter the first of the small Athapascan tribes of Northwestern California. Their villages have been studied intensively by Goddard (1910), who lists 18 but gives no house counts.1Merriam, who re-examined Goddard's report likewise finds 18 sure villages plus 21 summer camps and 2 places of indeterminate character.
Merriam deviated from Kroeber very widely in his tribal names for the Athapascan groups. It is probably preferable to retain Kroeber's terminology without prejudice to Merriam simply because Kroeber's names are at the present time much the more widely accepted and used. Merriam's material pertaining to the Chilula is to be found in his manuscript entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut Camps and Villages." He thus includes the Chilula among the Whilkut.
The closest approach to a house count is reported by Kroeber (1925, p. 138) who states that six of the identified settlements showed 17, 7, 4, 2, 4, and 8 house pits respectively. This is an average of 7. Kroeber considers that the customary one-third reduction should apply and in this instance with considerable justification, since there were no living informants and the villages had not been inhabited since the 1850's. However, the careful study of the Yurok by Waterman demonstrated that the apparent ratio of contemporary house pits to former known inhabited houses was approximately 10 to 9 rather than 3 to 2. It is hence legitimate to reduce the average value of houses per village for the Chilula from 7 to 6. With 18 sites this means 108 homes. Applying the Yurok value of 7.5 persons per house instead of the probable Hupa value of 10. we get a population of 810 persons. This is somewhat greater than Kroeber's estimate of 500 to 600.
Chilula ... 800
1Since completion of this manuscript, Mr. Martin R. Baumhoff of the Department of Anthropology has discovered village lists filed many years ago by Pliny E. Goddard, which cover Athapascan territory in addition to that held by the Wailaki. Mr. Baumhoff is now analyzing the new data and his results will probably necessitate an upward revision of the population figures given here.
THE MATTOLE
That portion of the Mattole living on Bear River have been studied by Nomland (1938) through information supplied by a single very old informant. The house and family relationships appear to resemble those found among the Wiyot directly to the north, although no numerical data of any kind are given. The data hitherto presented have yielded as average number of houses per village, 6.0 for the Yurok. 4.5 for the Wiyot, 6.8 for the Tolowa, and 6.0 for the Chilula. The mean of these averages is 5.8, or let us say in round numbers 6, a value which seems reasonable for those Athapascan tribes for which there are no direct counts. The Yurok family number of 7.5 also appears applicable.
Merriam in his list entitled "Nekanne Tribe and Villages" mentions only three villages on Bear River but Nomland (1938) in her more careful examination of the territory found 8. Hence the population of this group may be set at 360.
Apart from Bear River the Mattole territory included the drainages of Davis Creek and the Mattole River, together with the west bank of the Eel River for a short distance above the Wiyot. Davis Creek is much smaller than Bear Creek and probably was sparsely settled. Nevertheless Nomland's informant mentioned individuals who were from Davis Creek and hence it must be assumed that there was at least one and very likely as many as two villages there. The Mattole River was larger than Bear River and has been well covered by Merriam in his list entitled "Bettol or Pettol (Mattol) Tribe and Villages." He cites 10 named villages. In addition, he includes the Kooske, who he says were a "very large band and village ('hundreds of people') formerly on Koosky (or Cooskie) Creek on or near the coast 2-1/2 or 3 miles southeast of Punta Gorda lighthouse." He also cites two indentures for Indians of this tribe which he found in the Eureka court house.
The 2 villages on Davis Creek and the 10 on Mattole River would yield 540 persons. If we accept Merriam's description of the Kooske tribe, we may add another 300. The total for the Mattole would then be a population of 1,200.
Mattole ... 1,200
THE WHILKUT
For information on the Whilkut we are indebted to Merriam for the only village list extant. He covers the tribe, together with the Chilula, in his list entitled "Geographic Arrangement of Hwilkut Camps and Villages," revised, according to a pencil notation of the title sheet, in 1939.
Merriam gives 15 villages for the Hoechkienok or "Upper Redwood" tribe, 3 for the Kotinet or "Blue Lake and North Fork Mad River" tribe and 15 for the Mawenok, who lived "on Mad River from opposite Korbel up to the ranch of John Ahlgren about 21 miles in air line." The Chilula and Mattole were credited with 45 persons per village. The habitat of the Whilkut lies on smaller streams and is generally less favorable than that of the Chilula or the Mattole. Hence the number may be reduced to 40 per village. The total is then 1,320.
Whilkut ... 1,300
THE KATO
There are only two usable ethnographic sources of information concerning villages among the Kato. The first is the rather casual treatment given the group by Barrett (1908) in his monograph on the Pomo. He lists 17 villages as having existed in the area comprising the modern stretch running from Laytonville to Branscomb and a few miles north and south thereof. No village sizes are given (pp. 281-283) and no discussion of community organization. Merriam in his list "Kahto Tribe and Villages" mentions the 17 villages of Barrett and adds 3 others derived from his own informants, making a total of 20.
Since there is no explicit information regarding village size, we may adopt the value used for the Whilkut,i.e., 40 persons per village. This would mean a population of 800.
Barrett and Merriam, however, give data only for the southernmost part of the Kato range, including an area of approximately 150 square miles. The remainder of the Kato territory extended some distance along the upper waters of the South Fork of the Eel River and its area may be reckoned as 100 square miles or 40 per cent of the entire Kato territory. On the other hand, living conditions were not as good in this portion of the range and the density was probably less than in the vicinity of Laytonville and Branscomb. Hence we may add 300 persons (rather than the full 40 per cent) and consider the total as 1,100.
With the Kato we arrive at an area where it becomes possible to utilize historical and documentary, as well as ethnographic, sources of information. For the period 1850-1856 there are three accounts left us by white men who were direct observers, as distinguished from data supplied from memory to modern white men by Indian informants. With respect to the region north of San Francisco Bay these observations by Americans must be regarded as supplementary to the basic ethnographic material derived from Indians. Nevertheless they are of considerable value in confirming, negating, or modifying the ethnographic data.
Two primary sources are pertinent here. The first is the expedition of Colonel Redick M'Kee, one of the three "commissioners" sent out in 1851 to negotiate treaties with the California Indians. M'Kee went first to Clear Lake, then up the Russian River, over to the Eel River watershed, down to Humboldt Bay, and eventually up the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Two records of this expedition were kept. The first, and far better known, is the Journal of George Gibbs, which was later published by Henry R. Schoolcraft (1860). The other is the Minutes of the expedition, written by John M'Kee, a relative of the Colonel. These Minutes, together with considerable correspondence, were published in Senate Executive Document No. 4, 33rd Congress, Special Session (1853).
The second source is a report written by Major H. P. Heintzelman at the request of Indian Agent Henley, in 1855. Major Heintzelman (1855) made a survey of the tribes of Sonoma and Mendocino counties which might be placed upon a reservation at the mouth of the Noyo River. He interviewed numerous headmen, or chiefs, of community units and reported on the Indian population. His total, for the territory extending from the upper Eel River to San Francisco Bay was 21,200, a figure in excess of the value conceded by ethnographers.
According to George Gibbs (1860, p. 118), the M'Kee expedition, on August 30, 1852, reached the Batimdakia (spelled also Ba-tim-da-kia) Valley, which was supposed to be at the head of the South Fork of the Eel River. John M'Kee implies that this valley was on the Middle Fork of the river but there is little doubt, judging from the route taken, that it was actually Long Valley, on the east branch of the South Fork. He says that the valley was inhabited by the Cabodilapo tribe and that a careful count showed 497 Indians. Since not all the natives could be located, John M'Kee estimated the actual population as 500 to 600. In a letter from Redick M'Kee to the commissioner in Washington, dated September 12, 1852 (1853, p. 185) it is stated that the population "may be" 600. M'Kee's counts, particularly in the Clear Lake Region, are generally regarded as too low. Hence his figure of 600 for Long Valley must be considered conservative. It should also be borne in mind that M'Kee saw only the east branch of the South Fork of the Eel River, which takes its origin in Long Valley. He did not get over to the west branch, which runs through Kato territory past Branscomb. Now Barrett shows eleven villages on the east branch and its tributaries, or an average of 55 persons per village. At the same rate the six villages on the west branch would add 330 for a total of 930 in the southern range of the Kato.
Heintzelman lists a group of seven names, representing Indian communities, which he says are up to 35 miles north of the site selected for the reservation,i.e., Fort Bragg, or the mouth of the Noyo River. Heintzelman's distances and locations, as well as his names, are exceedingly hazy. Some of the seven names mentioned may refer to the northern Pomo, and some very likely pertain to the coast Yuki. Nevertheless two are undoubtedly Kato: theCar-toosand theBa-tims(the former is cognate with Kato, and the latter must refer to Batimdakia Valley). The aggregate population is 700, according to Heintzelman. This is only slightly larger than M'Kee's 600. Allowing for conservatism on the part of M'Kee and over-liberality by Heintzelman, a fair estimate is 650. Alternatively, since Heintzelman saw the country three years after M'Kee had passed through, and the population may have diminished somewhat, the figure 700 secured by Heintzelman may well refer to both branches of the South Fork of the Eel.
For the Laytonville-Branscomb area we now have three estimates: by derivation from purely ethnographic data, 800; from the M'Kee reports, 930; and from the Heintzelman report, 700. Regardless of minor detail, the first method seems to yield results entirely consistent with direct contemporary evaluation.
Adding 300 to account for the remaining Kato territory we may retain the estimate of 1,100 for the tribe as a whole.
Kato ... 1,100
THE NONGATL, LASSIK, AND SINKYONE
For the three remaining northern Athapascan tribes we possess very little data of a strictly ethnographic character. Neither Kroeber nor Nomland (1935, 1938), who has studied some of these groups, have been able to secure any pertinent information regarding villages. Nor has Merriam been more successful. His list covering the region, under the title "Athapaskan Tribes, Bands and Villages Speaking the Nungkahl Language," mentions not more than two dozen villages in all and these are very widely scattered.
The entire failure of competent investigators such as those mentioned to come upon material traces of inhabited sites among these three tribes might be taken as indicative of a very small population. However, the existence of heavily inhabited areas to all sides of the region held by these tribes makes it unlikely that there was any large stretch of country which was devoid of a sizable Indian population. It is much more probable that numerous villages of the Lassik, Nongatl, and Sinkyone once did exist but that they were wiped out almost completely by the white frontiersmen in the early 'fifties before any observer left a record of them. As an indication of their fate may be mentioned the tales told by Bledsoe (1885) in his "Indian Wars of the Northwest" and by various witnesses in the Report to the California Legislature (1860) on the "Mendocino War."
When we are presented with such an entire lack of direct data, we are quite justified in falling back on the indirect area-density method. Thus the densities are tabulated below for the five other Athapascan tribes (including the Wailaki, considered subsequently) and for the Coast Yuki, a tribe in the region for which we have very accurate counts.
The close correspondence in density of the six tribes listed is noteworthy, and tends to lend confidence in the reliability of the ethnographic source material upon which these estimates are based.
The areas with which we are dealing are reasonably large; they are also relatively homogeneous in the ecological sense. All lie within the redwood-transition belt (except the Wailaki, which border it on the east), and all are characterized by small, perennial, salmon-bearing streams, along which the Indian villages were placed. There is nothing outstandingly different about the terrain occupied by the Lassik, Nongatl, and Sinkyone, except that perhaps it lies somewhat higher on the streams (but the Wailaki are still higher) and contains fewer flats and open valleys. The three tribes being considered had respectively 325 square miles, 700 square miles, and 615 square miles of territory. If the density was 4.96 persons per square mile the population would have been, to correspond, 1,612; 3,472; and 3,050. If we allow for a somewhat poorer habitat, these values may be reduced a little, say to 1,500; 3,300; and 2,900. It is difficult to see how the estimates can be carried much lower.
Nongatl, Lassik, and Sinkyone ... 7,700
THE WAILAKI
The Wailaki were studied by Goddard (1923, 1924), who published two papers concerning them. The first covered the main portion of the tribe along the Eel River and the second the Pitch group which lived along some of the tributaries of that river. Goddard found the Wailaki proper, as they may be termed, to consist of 18 communities or subtribes, each living in one to several villages, and the Pitch group to consist of 4 subtribes. One peculiarity of the villages was that they were inhabited only during the six winter months, the people in the summer dispersing through the hills in search of small game and plant food. Although the villages were occupied only half the year, nevertheless they can be used for computation of population since there were no other fixed abodes with which they can be confused.
In addition to Goddard's monographs, we have a tribe list for a portion of the Wailaki from Merriam entitled "Tsennahkennes Bands and Rancherias." Both investigators surveyed independently 11 of the 18 subtribal areas and obtained the names of villages from informants. In his list on page 109 and in his text Goddard identifies 53 inhabited places. For two other subtribes, the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, he cites the villages by name in the textual descriptions on pages 106 and 107. There are a total of 18 for the two subtribes. Villages were not determined at all for the five northern subtribes.
For the first 11 subtribes Merriam gives a total of 46 villages. Of these, 30 can be identified with names furnished by Goddard, whereas 16 are in addition to Goddard's list. Goddard on the other hand gives 23 which were not secured by Merriam. Since both these workers operated carefully through informants and both were thoroughly conversant with the local dialects, we may accept the combined total of 69 villages, large and small, occurring within the territory of Goddard's first, or southernmost, 11 subtribes. The average is 6.27 villages per subtribe. For the Chiskokaiya and the Kaikichekaiya, Merriam mentions only one village each, that bearing the subtribal name. It is quite clear from his list that he did not push his field investigations into these groups. Hence we must fall back on Goddard's data, which include 18 villages in all. The average for the 13 subtribes therefore is 6.7 villages, and the total 87.
All the villages have long since been totally deserted and Goddard could count only house pits. (Merriam made no counts of any kind.) He did this for only two groups, the Baskaiya and the Slakaiya. Here he found and mentions on pages 103 and 105 twenty sites containing house pits. In all there were 92 pits but for two localities he specifies a certain number plus "several" others. If we allow 4 to represent "several" in each of these, then, the total number of pits is 100 and the average per site or village is 5.0.
Now since we are dealing here only with pits and not counts of houses remembered by informants, a reduction according to the Kroeber principle is justified for it is quite probable that all the houses once standing on the pits were not simultaneously occupied. When Kroeber has no other data, he recommends a reduction by one-sixth. I think that in this instance it would be proper to reduce by one-fifth, or 20 per cent. This would give an effective average of 4 houses per village. In the 13 communities covered by Goddard and by Merriam there were 87 villages, which at 4 houses per village would give a total of 348. No evidence is offered by either author to the effect that the remaining 5 subtribes differed in any essential way from the first 13. Hence we must ascribe to them 134 houses, making 482 in all.
We might use the Yurok family number 7.5, but Goddard's account carries the implication that perhaps the Wailaki family was somewhat smaller, suggesting a factor of 7.0 rather than 7.5. Goddard bases his estimates upon a mean population of 15 to 30 persons per village. This would mean 4.5 persons per house, certainly too low a value for the aboriginal social family. At four houses per village the family number would be 5.6, still probably somewhat too low. Perhaps a compromise is advisable, say at 6.0. The average village size could be then put at 25 persons, a figure definitely lower than was assumed for the more northerly Athapascan tribes but still one which seems to be indicated by the social organization described by Goddard. The total population of the Wailaki proper would then be 80 per cent of 482 houses multiplied by 6.0 or 2,315 persons.
Goddard indicates on page 108 his belief that the villages were not simultaneously inhabited. However, he adduces no evidence to favor this view. On the contrary, he mentions in his text four villages which were stated by informantsnotto have been inhabited within their memory, a circumstance which argues strongly that the villages they did claim were actually active at the time to which they were referring, i.e., just before the white invasion. It would appear to the writer that reducing the house count by 20 per cent and reducing the family number from 7.5 to 6.0 quite adequately compensates for any errors in the ennumeration of villages. Indeed the estimate here presented may be too conservative.
With regard to the Pitch group Goddard (1924) shows that the subtribe tokya-kiyahan had 15 villages. In fourteen of these he found 66 house pits, an average of 4.72 per village. At tciancot-kiyahan there were 16 villages, 7 of which had 35 house pits, or an average of 5.0. Todannan-kiyahan had 6 villages but the area was incompletely examined and there were probably more. The area of tcocat-kiyahan was not seen at all but there is certainly no reason why they should not have had at least 6 villages. At four houses per village the total, surely an underestimate, would be 172 and at 6.0 persons per house the population would be 1,032.
For the entire Wailaki the indicated population is then 3,347 (or rather 3,350), a figure much in excess of previous estimates but justified by the data presented by Goddard and Merriam.
Wailaki ... 3,350
ATHAPASCAN TOTAL ... 15,450
THE YUKI
THE COAST YUKI
The Coast Yuki have been the subject of an admirable ethnographic study by Gifford (1939), who has assembled substantially all the data extant in modern times pertaining to families and villages. He shows very clearly that this tribe occupied its villages only in a transitory manner, that it had summer beach camps and inland winter settlements. To quote Gifford's words concerning the point (p. 296):
I use the terms camp, hamlet, and village interchangeably in this paper. No site seems to have been occupied the year around. All were more or less temporary. The presence of an assembly house marked the more frequently occupied sites.
I use the terms camp, hamlet, and village interchangeably in this paper. No site seems to have been occupied the year around. All were more or less temporary. The presence of an assembly house marked the more frequently occupied sites.
Hence it is necessary to examine Gifford's compilation of sites with as much care as possible in order to determine how many villages can properly be ascribed to the tribe.
It is also made clear in Gifford's paper that each of the eleven Coast Yuki groups had its own headman and ceremonial house. Each group had a frontage of seacoast together with a strip of territory which extended inland to the eastern limit of the tribe. Within this territory the group moved about with considerable freedom.
The following is a digest of the inhabited sites for the eleven groups. The groups are numbered (but the names omitted) in the order in which they appear on pages 296 to 303 of Gifford's paper.
1. One village is mentioned but no camp sites. For the group, therefore, the maximum number of sites occupied at any given time must beone.2. Two "hamlets" are given by name. Since these are quite close together and in the same terrain, it may be assumed thattwosites were simultaneously occupied.3. Here are mentioned three camp sites and two villages (Esim and Melhomikem), one with 7-9 houses and the other with 8 houses. There was also a village which had been settled after the coming of the white man, with 6 houses. It appears clear that aboriginally there weretwosemipermanent sites and a number of temporary settlements.4. For this group Gifford mentions one beach village by name, one inland village, name unknown, and three camp sites. Although the beach and inland villages may not have been simultaneously occupied, the existence of three additional camp sites implies more people than would be contained in a single settlement at one time. Hence it is reasonable to regard the group as consisting of at leasttwovillage units.5. There was one inland village with 6 houses (Onbit), one beach village (Lilpinkem) and one camp site with 8 houses. In view of the single camp site we have to regard the group as havingonesite occupied at a given time.6. Here was one winter village and one beach village with no camp sites mentioned. Thus we may countoneoccupied site.7. For this group there are known two villages, two hamlets, and one camp site, all with names. One hamlet had 3-4 houses and one village had 5 houses. Since there is no information on the location of the villages we may count allfour.8.Threehamlets are mentioned by name.9.Twovillages are mentioned by name.10.Onevillage mentioned.11.Onevillage mentioned.
1. One village is mentioned but no camp sites. For the group, therefore, the maximum number of sites occupied at any given time must beone.
2. Two "hamlets" are given by name. Since these are quite close together and in the same terrain, it may be assumed thattwosites were simultaneously occupied.
3. Here are mentioned three camp sites and two villages (Esim and Melhomikem), one with 7-9 houses and the other with 8 houses. There was also a village which had been settled after the coming of the white man, with 6 houses. It appears clear that aboriginally there weretwosemipermanent sites and a number of temporary settlements.
4. For this group Gifford mentions one beach village by name, one inland village, name unknown, and three camp sites. Although the beach and inland villages may not have been simultaneously occupied, the existence of three additional camp sites implies more people than would be contained in a single settlement at one time. Hence it is reasonable to regard the group as consisting of at leasttwovillage units.
5. There was one inland village with 6 houses (Onbit), one beach village (Lilpinkem) and one camp site with 8 houses. In view of the single camp site we have to regard the group as havingonesite occupied at a given time.
6. Here was one winter village and one beach village with no camp sites mentioned. Thus we may countoneoccupied site.
7. For this group there are known two villages, two hamlets, and one camp site, all with names. One hamlet had 3-4 houses and one village had 5 houses. Since there is no information on the location of the villages we may count allfour.
8.Threehamlets are mentioned by name.
9.Twovillages are mentioned by name.
10.Onevillage mentioned.
11.Onevillage mentioned.
The irreducible minimum number of villages therefore totals 20. It is quite probable that some of the other sites might be or ought to be counted but, since the evidence concerning them is equivocal, they will not be included. The house counts for seven sites average 6.3 and since we are here dealing with informants' memories of inhabited houses, not house pits, this number need not be reduced. With respect to family number, the Yurok value of 7.5 is probably too high. For the type of culture characteristic of the Coast Yuki the more conservative value of 6.0 is probably better. This yields a population of 756, or approximately 750. It is difficult to see how this estimate could be reduced.
Coast Yuki ... 750
THE YUKI PROPER
Although the Yuki were a populous and important tribe, and although Kroeber, in the Handbook, devoted three chapters to their culture, they have been the subject of but one special study. Quite recently G. M. Foster (1944) resurveyed their ethnography and worked out their village organization in some detail. He utilized informants who were in their seventies during the period of 1935 to 1940 and who thus were born no earlier than 1860. Since the social and political organization of the Yuki was completely disrupted during the 'fifties, particularly at Round Valley, it is remarkable that Foster was able to secure so much apparently quite accurate detail. It is true that certain specific items of information derived by Kroeber from his informants of thirty or thirty-five years earlier are more reliable than the comparable data of Foster, nevertheless the over-all coverage by the latter is more complete. Foster's account will therefore serve here as the basis for a computation of population.
There were eight major subdivisions or subtribes, the spelling of whose names and the precise boundaries of whose territories are slightly differently presented by Kroeber and Foster. Merely for convenience the description of Foster is followed here. Of the eight subtribes the most numerous and most important were the Ukomnom, who inhabited most of Round Valley. Next in importance were the Witukomnom directly to the south. Most of Foster's work was devoted to these two groups.
With respect to village organization Kroeber brought out the basic fact that the tribe was organized by communities, rather than separate and wholly independent villages (1925, pp. 161-162).
The community always might and usually did embrace several settlements.... If designated it was referred to by the name of the principal village. This place name therefore designates at one time a cluster of several little towns and on other occasions one of these towns.
The community always might and usually did embrace several settlements.... If designated it was referred to by the name of the principal village. This place name therefore designates at one time a cluster of several little towns and on other occasions one of these towns.
Foster went one step further and clarified the internal organization of the community. He showed that within each cluster there was always a principal village of relatively large size called thenohotwith a constellation of small hamlets or, as he usually puts it, "rancherias" immediately adjacent. The former he likens to a host and the latter to a group of parasites. The nohot might contain as many as twenty-five houses and as many as 150 inhabitants. There might be anywhere from "2 to 6 to 8" rancherias per nohot. (See p. 176.) It is therefore possible, for certain subtribes, to obtain some idea concerning population from the list of inhabited places remembered by Foster's informants, particularly since Foster usually specifies what type of village is meant. This list is quite complete for the Witukomnom and the Ukomnom and partially so for the Tanom. Kroeber (1925, pp. 163-164) gives parallel data for a part of the Ukomnom, which can be to some extent brought into concordance with Foster's list.
The question of local population is difficult because in only one instance does Foster mention a specific figure: the largest nohot, which he says contained 25 houses and 150 people. It is of interest that elsewhere he states that the typical Yuki house would hold 4 to 8 persons. Thus he appears to accept without reservation a family number of 6. Now of course the average nohot was smaller and must have been intermediate between the maximum possible with twenty-five houses and the smaller villages which must have contained four or five. The halfway point is fifteen, a number which may be accepted with a fair degree of confidence. The nohot population would then be taken as ninety. The parasitic village or rancheria was definitely smaller. It could not have approached 15 houses yet by far the greater number of rancheria's must have had more than one or two. A reasonable compromise would be 4 houses and 25 inhabitants. With respect to the number of these hamlets per community the indefinite "2 to 6 to 8" may be set at four. Hence the community may be regarded as having on the average 190 inhabitants during pre-invasion times. There is no clear evidence to justify a larger estimate and on the other hand the whole context of both Kroeber's and Foster's discussion gives the impression of a group approaching 200 persons in number. This is somewhat but not materially greater than the mean number for the 22 subtribes of the Wailaki according to Goddard's data. That value was 153 and the subtribe among the Wailaki appears to have been very similar to the community among the Yuki.
For the Witukomnom Foster lists 15 places, of which 9 are designated as nohots and 6 as "small." Two points are apparent. First, the informants of Foster were recalling theimportantvillages which they had seen or been told about but had forgotten the minor sites, hence the great preponderance of nohots. In the second place, it is unnecessary for purposes of calculation to know the names or the number of the peripheral "parasitic" rancherias if we know the primary towns, the nohots, for, knowing a nohot, we know a community. Thus we may immediately set the population of the Witukomnom as at least 1,710 persons. If the informants gave incomplete data, then the number would be higher.
For the Ukomnom Foster lists 38 place names, most but not all of which lay in Round Valley. Of these 6 are specified as nohots. This would yield as a first approximation a population of 1,140. But for the Ukomnom we have some help from Kroeber. Many of Foster's remaining places are designated merely "rancheria," since his informants could remember no further details. For one of them, Kroeber says that there was a dance house present, which makes the site a nohot instead of a rancheria. Kroeber's group B includes the village of Pomo, which is not mentioned by Foster. This was the seat of a head chief, and therefore a nohot. In addition, Kroeber includes in this group 6 villages in Williams Valley. Foster says regarding "Flint Valley," by which he is evidently referring to the same locality, that his informants could remember no villages. This seems to be an instance where Kroeber's earlier informants could recall villages which Foster's later ones had forgotten, for there is no ground for doubting the accuracy of Kroeber's work. There is no implication that any of these sites was large, hence they may be regarded as the small type of village with about 25 persons apiece. We can therefore count 8 nohots plus 6 rancherias, which gives a population of 1,670 for the entire group.
A further check on the Ukomnom is provided by Foster's map of Round Valley (p. 158). In the valley proper he shows 37 inhabited villages, of which 25 are named and 12 are unnamed. Of the former, 7 are known to have been nohots. Taking the nohots at 90 persons and the other sites at 25 persons, one gets a total population of 1,380. A balance of 300 is by no means excessive for Williams Valley and the peripheral hills. Incidentally, this figure for Round Valley yields a density of roughly 45 persons per square mile, one which surpasses any other in California but one which is quite in accord with all the accounts of early settlers and explorers.
The Tanom, living on the Eel River to the northwest, are credited by Kroeber with six "divisions," the names for which he gives. Foster lists also six names, which he says are "probably districts named after the principal rancheria" (p. 159). There is no doubt that both authors are referring to communities or, as Kroeber calls them, "political units." Hence at 190 persons their aggregate population would have been 1,140.
For the other five subtribes we have very little direct information. Among the Huitinom Foster knows of two nohots and two rancherias, all at considerable distances from each other. The country was rugged but the area large and served by Black Butte Creek, a fishing stream with several tributaries. Two nohots and two rancherias would indicate a minimum of 330 people. It would not be excessive to place the number at 400.
The Suksaltatamnom lived to the northeast on the headwaters of the South Fork Eel River, close to the Pitch Wailaki. They are all dead and nothing whatever is known of their villages. Their number may be tentatively placed at 400, since in all other respects their habitat resembled that of the Huitinom.
On Onkolukomnom lived to the southeast in a large area centering around Lake Pillsbury. There are none left but Foster thinks (p. 160) "they are undoubtedly numerous." Certainly they must have exceeded the two preceding subtribes and an estimate of 600 should not be too much.
The Lalkutnom and the Ontitnom lived close together south and west of Round Valley. Regarding the former Foster says there were "a number of nohots and rancherias." If we allow four to be "a number" and assume that the rancherias were all subordinate to the nohots, the population would have been 760, a not excessive estimate. The Ontitnom, as far as Foster could determine, consisted of one nohot or, let us say, 200 persons.
Yuki proper ... 6,880