The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California Sherburne Friend Cook 533 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Aboriginal Population of
the North Coast of California

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California

Author: Sherburne Friend Cook

Release date: September 26, 2010 [eBook #33812]

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33812

Credits: Produced by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF
CALIFORNIA ***

T HE A B OR IGIN A L
P OP U L AT ION
OF T HE N ORT H C OA S T
OF C A L IF OR N IA

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:

1. Kroeber. This author shows (1925, p. 18) a list of fifteen villages (four of
them compound) which he says are "recent counts of houses or house pits
recollected as inhabited." In addition he shows on his map (p. 9) a number
of other towns, some of which he regards, and so designates, as being
temporarily or intermittently inhabited and hence not to be included in any
computation of permanent population. The house counts from his list are
shown in table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column headed "Kroeber, modern
memories."

2. Kroeber. On page 18 as well as on page 16 is given a census for the
fifteen villages mentioned above. This was made in 1852 by a "trader"
named York who lived many years in the vicinity. The census has all the
appearance of veracity and may be accepted as substantially accurate. It is
shown in table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column headed "Kroeber, 1852
census".

3. Waterman. This author presents his findings, all from informants, in three
ways. First are his textual descriptions, which are careful and
circumstantial. Second are his maps of a few villages, on which the house
locations are drawn with much detail. Third there is the summarizing list
(1920, p. 206), in which most of the textual and other data are incorporated.
With respect to house counts there are numerous discrepancies between
text, list, and maps, some of which are difficult to reconcile. Since from the
context it may be inferred that the list represents Waterman's final
evaluation, it must be used as the basic source of information.

4. Waterman. With the list on page 206 is also given a list of villages
derived from a map executed by a man named Randall, a county surveyor,

in 1866. Although no house counts are given, the list is useful for
establishing the existence of certain towns in the year 1866.

5. Merriam. The village lists for the Yurok follow Waterman and Kroeber
quite closely. However, Merriam was able to locate several inhabited places
which had escaped the attention of the other two investigators. These
villages have been added in table 2 (p. 92, herein) and a conservatively
estimated house count assigned to them.

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):

The Yurok recognize that a village normally contained more named house
sites than inhabited houses. Families died out, consolidated, or moved
away. The pit of their dwelling remained and its name would also survive
for a generation or two. If allowance is made for parts of villages washed
out by floods and possibly by mining, or dwellings already abandoned
when the Americans came and totally forgotten 60 years later, the number
of houses sites on these 30 miles of river may be set at 200 or more in place
of 173. In other words there were two houses to each three recognized
house sites among the Yurok in native times.

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- C P. 228. Two groups of house pits. No further
hipur 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- C See no. 23.
pets
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.

Kroeber,
House "modern Kroeber,
No. Source Count memories" 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 These sites extend along Mad River and around the
K through X shores of Blue Lake. Loud gives no specific data
AA through AK 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.
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.

TABLE 4

Wiyot Settlements

Mad River and Humboldt Bay

Wiyot settlements according to Loud, Merriam, and Nomland and Kroeber,
covering the Mad River and Humboldt Bay. The key designations are those
given by Loud. The house counts are from Loud with the exception of sites
B and C which are from Nomland and Kroeber and of several sites from
Merriam for which I have made my own estimates (indicated by the letters
Mp.). In all instances where a range is given by informants (e.g., 2-4
houses) the mean is placed in the table.

Loud's no. House count
3 3 Mp
4 and 5 12.5
6 3 Mp
7 11
8 3 Mp
H, I, J, 9 20

D-G
K-X 60 Mp
AA-AK
A 8
B 4
C 5.5
Y 4
Z 12
17 4.5
19 3 Mp
22 4 Mp
31 2 Mp
33 8 Mp
34 4 Mp
39 2 Mp
45 2
AL 4 Mp
48 2 Mp
58 9
65 3.5
67 9
68 3
69 3 Mp
73 9
77 6
79 10
80 3 Mp
83 3 Mp
84 3 Mp
86 3 Mp
88 3 Mp
90 3 Mp

91 2 Mp
AM 3 Mp
92 3 Mp
93 3 Mp
98 3 Mp
100 3 Mp
102 2 Mp
104 2 Mp
109 3 Mp
112 10
Others 15 Mp
Total 299

Eel River

Wiyot settlements on the Eel River as given to Nomland and Kroeber by the
informant John Sherman. The villages are numbered consecutively from the
list on pages 40 to 42 of their paper (1936). The list here is cut off at village
no. 32, which Kroeber, following Powers, puts as the limit of the Wiyot.
The presence of the Wiyot racial group above this point is controversial. For
numerous towns the informant uses the non-specific terms "few," "many,"
etc. These expressions have been transformed arbitrarily, but I think
conservatively, into numerical form as follows: Few = 2; several = 4; many
= 8; large = 10.

Sherman's estimate Final
Serial No. of house count estimate

1. few 2
2. few 2
3. 2-3 2.5
4. 2-3 2.5
5. 5-10 7.5

6. 5-10 7.5
7. 4-5 4.5
8. 1-2 1.5
9. 1-2 1.5
10. 10 plus 10
11. 5-6 5.5
12. several 4
13. several 4
14. 1-2 1.5
15. 1-2 1.5
16. 5-10 7.5
17. few 2
18. 0 0
19. 5-10 7.5
20. 0 0
21. large "20" 10
22. several 4
23. many 8
24. many 8
25. several 4
26. several 4
27. several 4
28. several 4
29. no statement
30. many 8
31. inhabited 2
32. many 8
Total 139

THE KAROK

The village distribution of the Karok was treated briefly by Kroeber in the
Handbook, pages 99 to 102, and far more exhaustively in a later paper
(1936). For the latter he secured the services of two good informants, a very
elderly Indian man named Ned and a woman, Mary Jacops, with whom he
examined the area carefully. The list set forth on pages 30 to 34 of his
publication must be regarded as definitive. It is true that Merriam has a very
complete list of Karok villages but his names vary linguistically from those
of Kroeber to such an extent that, save in a few instances, it is extremely
difficult to reconcile them. However, since Merriam's total is 115 for the
same territory where Kroeber finds 108 and since Merriam does not give
house counts the Kroeber list may be used exclusively.

Ned gave house counts but Mrs. Jacops did not. Kroeber amplified
wherever possible with data from Curtis (cited by Kroeber, p. 30, as The
North American Indian, 13:222). Ned's counts were very cautious since he
distinguished frequently between the number of houses he had seen at a
given site and the number he had heard were there. On the basis of such
distinctions Kroeber reduces the total count by a factor of one-sixth. He
states (p. 35):

Among the Yurok ... two occupied houses may be reckoned for each three
house sites recognized when full detailed data are at hand. They are
obviously not detailed for the Karok.

I must take issue with two points. With the Karok the counts were not based
upon house sites recognized but on the memory of inhabited houses by
informants. Hence the house site or pit theory cannot apply. In the second
place, a reasonably thorough examination of the published material on the
Yurok, Wiyot, and the Karok shows that the data for the Karok presented by

Kroeber represents the fullest detail of all with respect to the number of
houses.

Apropos of the same question it is of interest to point out the house counts
given by Ned for the fifteen villages also provided with counts by Curtis for
1860. Kroeber has tabulated these himself and shows that, despite variation
in individual detail, the total for Ned is 60 and that for Curtis is 57-60. The
identity is remarkable. Commenting on this situation, Kroeber makes the
following very significant statement (p. 35. fn.):

It is apparent that, for any particular settlement, no precise figure, even by a
good informant, is very reliable unless based on an enumeration of named
houses. But for a larger series of settlements the particular variations,
resulting from changes of residence or difference of times referred to, tend
to cancel each other out and to yield comparable and fairly reliable totals.

(Emphasis mine.) The present writer, consequently, can see no necessity for
a gross reduction of one-sixth of the computed population.

Kroeber's list shows 108 towns plus 10 mentioned by Curtis as being in
Karok territory on the Salmon River. The first 84 villages were covered by
Ned, who gave house counts for 61 of them. Using wherever possible the
houses actually seen, not merely heard of, by Ned we get a total of 248.
This is a little smaller than Kroeber's total for the same sites of 254. In this
group of 84 villages 9 have counts from Curtis but not from Ned, with a
total of 24 houses. By Kroeber's own showing Curtis' counts are as reliable
in the aggregate as those of Ned. Sites 85 to 108 are derived only from Mrs.
Jacops who did not give counts. Kroeber proposes (pp. 34-35) to reduce
these to 15 settlements and assign an average value of 4 houses per village.
This seems entirely reasonable, and gives us 60 houses. We may now add
the 10 villages on the Salmon River cited from Curtis by Kroeber and, to be
conservative, assign an average count of 3 houses each. The total of all
Karok houses then becomes 362. At the customary 7.5 persons per house
the population of the Karok is 2,715. or with sufficient accuracy, 2,700.

KAROK ... 2,700

THE HUPA

There are four sources of consequence for the Hupa population. The first is
the discussion to be found on pages 128 to 132 in the Handbook by
Kroeber, which includes a census furnished to the government by the Yurok
in 1851. The second is a monograph published by Goddard (1903). The
third is a particularly exhaustive village list compiled by Merriam. The
fourth is a map drawn by Gibbs in 1852, photostatic copies of which are to
be found in the Merriam collection.

The towns of the Hupa fall naturally into two subdivisions, the first
comprising those in Hupa Valley proper and the second those above the
valley which extended along the main Trinity River and its South Fork. The
first included 12 villages which are mentioned by name by Goddard and are
shown on his map. For most of them he indicates houses by dots and solid
squares which can easily be counted. Kroeber lists on page 129 the same 12
towns and all but one of them appear on Merriam's list. (These are
numbered 1-12 in table 5. p. 100, herein.) Village no. 2, Dakis-hankut, is
omitted by Merriam but is shown with houses by Goddard. Village no. 8,
Totltsasding, is stated by Kroeber to have been "unoccupied in 1850."
Goddard however merely says that it had been deserted for a long time. On
the other hand it had been sufficiently well known to the Yurok for them to
have a name for it, and Merriam does not question its existence. These two
villages may therefore be retained in the list.

With regard to the second group Kroeber gives two villages (nos. 13 and
14) as "permanent settlements." Above these come five towns (nos. 15 to 19
inclusive) lying on the main Trinity River, which are mentioned by name by
Kroeber. Although they are mentioned "in early sources" as being in the
area Kroeber nevertheless does not think they should be added to his list.
However, they are cited by Merriam, for the same area, and three of them

are shown with house counts on Gibbs's map. Their existence seems
therefore to be assured. They are probably the "5 other villages in and
above Hupa Valley, not positively identified" which are cited in the Yurok
list by Kroeber on page 131.

No. 20, Tjelding, is given by Kroeber as certain and is included by
Merriam. The remaining villages, although not specifically mentioned by
Kroeber or Goddard, are given in his list by Merriam with the explicit
statement that "these were permanent villages. There were also several
camps along the south side of Trinity." Since Merriam is the only
investigator who has made a thorough examination of this area, his work
must be accepted.

With respect to house counts it is interesting to compare the six villages in
Hupa Valley which occur, on the one hand, on the Yurok list of Kroeber or
on the Gibbs map and, on the other hand, on Goddard's map. The former
give a total count for these towns of 82 houses, whereas Goddard shows 78.
The Yurok census and Gibbs's map were formulated in 1851 and 1852
immediately after the advent of the whites. Goddard presumably derived his
data from informants in or about the year 1900. From the two sets of figures
it is clear that Goddard's cannot be too high and therefore those he gives for
villages not covered by the earlier sources must be reasonably reliable.
Goddard's total for 11 sites is 128, or an average of 11.6 houses per
settlement. In default of other information this value, rounded off to 11,
may be applied to no. 8.

Passing to the second group, we find that the five villages above Hupa
Valley on the main Trinity River are shown on the 1851 census list as
having 23 houses. The map by Gibbs assigns house counts to three of these,
nos. 15, 16, and 19 with 4, 3, and 6 houses respectively. The average from
the census is 4.6 houses per village and that from Gibbs is 4.3. We may
accept from these data the value 4.5 as representing the mean house count
for villages outside Hupa Valley proper. This is notably lower than the mean
for the valley itself but is consistent with the poorer, more remote terrain.

Using Goddard's counts and the 1851 census where possible and
supplementing by the estimate given above for the other villages we get a
total of 198 houses for the Hupa. At 7.5 persons per house the population
would have been 1,485. This is considerably above Kroeber's "barely
1.000" (p. 130).

A further question presents itself at this point. Should we accept without
reservation the Yurok value of 7.5 inhabitants per house? Two lines of
evidence become pertinent here. Goddard in describing Hupa society makes
the following statements (p. 58):

A typical family consisted of the man and his sons, the wife or wives of the
man, the unmarried or half-married daughters, the wives of the sons, and
the grandchildren. To these may be added unmarried or widowed brothers
or sisters of the man and his wife.... All the children born in the same house
called each other brothers and sisters, whether they were children of the
same parents or not.

(Emphasis mine.) To this Kroeber adds (p. 132): "The ultimate basis of this
life is obviously blood kinship, but the immediately controlling factor is the
association of common residence; in a word, the house." Now the social
family in the usual monogamous tribe included the father, mother, children,
and occasional close relatives. This was the underlying assumption of
Kroeber's estimate of 7.5 persons as the social family among the Yurok.
Here, very clearly, the social family was far more extensive, perhaps in
occasional instances as much as double the Yurok value. At any rate the
value 7.5 seems definitely too low.

Another approach is through the data furnished by Kroeber on page 131 of
the Handbook. Here he shows a population census taken from seven
villages in the year 1870 (the last item "sawmill" may be deleted as
impossible to place). The total is 601 persons. Goddard's data show for
these same seven villages a house count of 92 for the years centering
around 1850. The direct average number of persons per house would be
6.53. Meanwhile Kroeber points out the disparity between the sexes: 232

males and 359 females. This he attributes to warfare alone, a dubious
conclusion. Regardless of cause, however, we may calculate that in the
absence of this male mortality and with a normal sex ratio of approximately
unity the population would have been twice the female number or 718. The
average number per house under such conditions would then have been
7.80.

It must be borne in mind that the population count is of 1870 and the house
count is of 1850 or earlier. Although Kroeber feels that there was no
population decline, apart from the effect of warfare on the males just
mentioned, I cannot agree with him. In the face of the overwhelming
evidence for a tremendous decline subsequent to 1850 on the part of the
Indian population throughout all California it is impossible to concede
complete immunity to any one tribe no matter how well protected it might
have been. Consequently, we must allow for a reduction from 1850 to 1870
even on the part of the females. It is impracticable to set any sure figure on
the decline but a value of 20 per cent would be very conservative,
particularly in comparison with all the northwestern tribes. This would
mean a population for the seven villages of 879, or say 900 in 1850. On this
basis the number of persons per house becomes 9.78.

I think therefore we are justified in ascribing 10 persons to each Hupa
house. If so the population would have been 1,980, or approximately 2,000.
It is entirely possible that even this is too conservative an estimate.

HUPA ... 2,000

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.

Houses Houses Houses
from from from Houses
1851 Goddard's Gibb's by
No. and Name census map map estimate

1. Honsading: K, M, Go, 9 11 9
Gi
2. Dakis-hankut: K, Go 7
3. Kinchuwikut: K, M, 8
Go
4. Cheindekotding: K, M, 12
Go
5. Miskut: K, M, Go, Gi 6 11 6
6. Takimitlding: K, M, 20 14 20
Go, Gi
7. Tsewenalding: K, M, 10 6 10
Go, Gi
8. Totltsasding: K, M, Go 8
9. Medilding: K, M, Go, 28 23 28
Gi
10. Djishtangading: K, M, 13 9
Go, Gi
11. Howunkut: K, M, Go 14
12. Haslinding: K, M, Go 9
13. Kachwunding: K 4.5
14. Mingkutme: K 4.5

15. Sehachpeya: K, Gi, M 4
16. Waugullewatl: K, Gi, 3
M
17. Ahelta: K, M 23
18. Sokeakeit: K, M
19. Tashuanta: K, M, Gi 6
20. Tjelding: K, M 3
21. Tiltswetchaki: M 4.5
22. Chilchtaltung: M 4.5
23. Ostantung: M 4.5
24. Hlitchchoochtung: M 4.5
25. Klokumne: K, M 4.5
26. Tahchoochtung: M 4.5

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. 1 Merriam, 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

1 Since 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: the Car-toos and the Ba-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.

Approximate Density in
area in persons per
Tribe sq. mi. Population sq. mi.

Chilula 210 800 3.86
Mattole 210 1,200 5.72
Whilkut 250 1,320 5.28
Kato 270 1,100 4.07
Wailaki 575 3,347 5.82
Coast Yuki 150 756 5.04
Mean 4.96

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 informants not to 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.

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 be one.

2. Two "hamlets" are given by name. Since these are quite close together
and in the same terrain, it may be assumed that two sites 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 were two
semipermanent 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 least two village 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 having one site occupied at a given time.

6. Here was one winter village and one beach village with no camp sites
mentioned. Thus we may count one occupied 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 all four.

8. Three hamlets are mentioned by name.

9. Two villages are mentioned by name.

10. One village mentioned.

11. One village 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.

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 the nohot with 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 the important villages 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

THE HUCHNOM

This important subdivision of the Yukian stock lived along the South Eel
River and its affluents from a point below the junction with Outlet Creek to
the head of Potter Valley, at which region they merged with the Pomo. They
were a river people, with their villages all placed on the banks of the Eel
and one or two of the larger tributaries.

The original modern ethnographic account of the Huchnom was by Barrett
(1908), whose description of villages is accepted almost verbatim by
Kroeber in the Handbook (pp. 202-203). A more recent account, derived
from one informant, is given by Foster (1944, pp. 225 ff., App. 1).

Barrett describes and shows on his map 13 villages, of which 11 are on the
Eel and 2 on Tomki Creek. Of the former 5 are located close together along
the boundary between the Huchnom and the Northern Pomo. This territory
is shown on Foster's map as being within the confines of the Pomo; hence
some confusion might arise, were it not that both Barrett and Kroeber are
very positive in ascribing the sites to the Huchnom, not the Pomo. Barrett's
map is undoubtedly more accurate for this area than Foster's.

Barrett calls all these "old village sites," as opposed, for example, to
modern inhabited villages. He makes no distinction as to size. Kroeber in
taking over Barrett's list refers to them as "main settlements." Foster states
(p. 227) that "village organization and society in general were about like the
Yuki." Hence it could be inferred that the 13 places were all of the nohot
type, and thus that a total population of 2,470 is implied.

This may not, however, be entirely justified. Kroeber says settlements not
communities and Barrett says villages. Reference therefore may have been
to individual dwelling places not to groups or constellations. Foster begs the
question entirely by referring merely to the work of the previous
investigators as "ample." On the other hand, if the Huchnom organization
was similar to that of the Yuki, as Foster avers, then at least some of the
names mentioned must have been community capitals, or nohots, the
smaller villages peripheral to which have been forgotten.

We have a few additional items which are helpful. The northernmost
village, cipomul, is said by Foster's informant to have been the residence of
a "captain." Hence it was a principal village or nohot. Three villages are
stated by Barrett (and so shown on his map) as having been located on both
banks of the Eel River. Such extension suggests a size greater than that of a
small parasitic hamlet, whether or not they may be regarded as nohots.

Moreover the distribution of Barrett's sites along the river is interesting.
According to his map, the line of 11 villages along the stream, disregarding
minor meanderings of the latter, extended about 40 miles. From the
northern border and going upstream there are 6 villages in the first 25 miles,
the minimum distance between any two being 3 miles. Since the usual
distance between a primary village and its satellites among the Yuki,
according to Foster, is not more than a mile or two, none of these 6
settlements can have been of the secondary type. The cluster of 4 named
towns along the 5 miles of river at the extreme south were quite close
together, and not more than 2 of them may have been of this type. At the
headwaters to the extreme east there was one definitely isolated village,
which may be placed in the larger category, as may also the two sites on
Tomki Creek. Of the 13 places given by Barrett there is therefore reason to
believe that at least 11 were of the nohot variety.

Indirect confirmation of this conclusion comes from comparison of the
Huchnom village distribution with that of the subtribes of the Yuki proper.
The Tanom had 6 nohots scattered along approximately 20 miles of the Eel
River and the Witukomnom had 4 or 5 along some 15 miles of stream
valley. The Huchnom territory was about 270 square miles and, judging
roughly from the maps of Foster and Barrett, the Tanom and the
Witukomnom areas were approximately 200 square miles each. The Tanom
possessed at least 6 nohots and the Witukomnom 9 (Foster's data). Hence
the average area covered per nohot would be 33 for the Tanom and 22 for
the Witukomnom. If we allow 11 primary villages or nohots for the
Huchnom the average area covered by each would be 25, entirely within the
same range. Now the character of the terrain for the three groups did not
differ in any essential respect. Hence there is no reason to suppose that the
population density of the Huchnom, computed on a riparian or area basis,
was any less than that of the other two subtribes. Furthermore I can see no
evidence pointing to a smaller individual community or village population
among the Huchnom. Eleven nohots or village constellations would yield a
total population of 2,090, or approximately 2,100, an estimate somewhat

smaller than the one given previously but one which I can find no reason
for further reducing.

Some confirmation of the figure derived from village data is contained in
the survey of Heintzelman (1855). He mentions as one of his principal
divisions the Bi-lo-ki, a name which is the same as Balokai. The latter were
the Pomo of Potter Valley, according to Kroeber and also Barrett (p. 128).
This group, Heintzelman says, included 3,000 persons. However, he breaks
them down into six smaller divisions and says that "these Indians reside
between Clear Lake and the heads of Eel, Russian and Trinity Rivers." The
six divisions are: Tar-toos, Si-dam, Po-ma Pomes, Si-mas, Di-no-kis, and
Du-che-calla-os. The Si-dam and Po-ma Pomes are undoubtedly Potter
valley Pomo. The Si-mas, according to a personal communication received
from Dr. Barrett, are probably Yuki from the region of the headwaters of the
South Eel River (the tcimaia mentioned in the Ethnogeography of the
Pomo, 1908. p. 247). The Di-no-kis and the Du-che-calla-os Dr. Barrett is
unable to identify. The Tar-toos are undoubtedly Huchnom (see Barrett's
monograph, 1908. p. 256; also confirmed by personal communication).
Their number is given by Heintzelman as 1,600. This value, for 1855,
bespeaks an aboriginal population not far from 2,000. Hence again the
ethnographic method is supported by the estimate of the contemporary
observer.

Huchnom ... 2,100

YUKI TOTAL ... 9,730

THE ATHAPASCANS AND THE YUKI

If we total all the Yukian divisions, including the Coast Yuki and the
Huchnom, we get 9,730 persons. Similarly, the Athapascan tribes
collectively give 15,450. The combined total is 25,180. Some of the groups,
such as the Tanom and Huchnom, may have been overestimated, but this
will be compensated by underestimates for other groups, such as the
Onkolukomnom. If we accept as valid the published ethnographic data of
Barrett, Kroeber, Foster, and Gifford, together with the manuscript material
of Merriam, it is very difficult to fix the population of the Athapascan and
Yukian stocks at a figure much below 25,000.

In this connection it is interesting to consider the estimates of Heintzelman,
because his figures for the Kato and for the Huchnom have been shown to
conform in general to those derived from village lists.

Many of Heintzelman's Indian names cannot now be identified and his
localities are frequently vague and obscure. However, a reasonably clear
line can be drawn between the Pomo and those tribes living north of the
Pomo.

The first five groups mentioned in the report are unequivocally Pomo. Then
come the "Bi-lo-ki, Po-mes" with the six divisions previously mentioned
called Tar-toos, Si-dam, Po-ma Pomes, Si-mas, Di-no-kis, and Du-che-
calla-os. The Si-dam and Po-ma Pomes are Potter Valley Pomo. The Tar-
toos are Huchnom. The Si-mas are probably southeastern Yuki. The Di-no-
kis and Du-che-calla-os cannot be identified by Dr. Barrett (personal
communication) and are therefore probably not Pomo. Since the whole
group was said by Heintzelman to reside "between Clear Lake and the
heads of Eel, Russian and Trinity Rivers" these two unidentified divisions

may be ascribed to the Yuki. The numerical aggregate of the four Yukian
divisions is 2,450.

Following the Bi-lo-ki on Heintzelman's list are the Me-che-pomas who
inhabit the east part of Kinamoo Valley and the "Eel River Mountains," 40
miles northeast of the proposed site, i.e., Fort Bragg. Covelo is almost
exactly 40 airline miles northeast of Fort Bragg. Barrett (1908, p. 249, fn.)
says that the Pomo name for Round Valley is maca-kai, and quotes another
variant, Me-sha-kai. In a personal communication he states his belief that
Round Valley is here referred to. Along with the Me-che-pomas
Heintzelman lists the Be-dar-ke-sill, which he says are found in the south
part of Trinity County and the north part of Mendocino County, 50 miles
from Fort Bragg. Since the name cannot be identified, the people may be
allocated on the basis of location alone to the southern part of the Wailaki.
The aggregate population of these two groups is given as 2,100.

The next seven names on Heintzelman's list are the Car-toos, Ba-tims, Kab-
in-a-toos, Kon-ispilla, Koss-ill-man-u-pomas, Kam-ill-el-pomas, and So-as.
These are all stated to be north of the selected site, Fort Bragg, with the
most remote tribe 35 miles away. In his textual statement Heintzelman says
that he went up the coast as far as Cape Mendocino, but from his times and
distances it appears more likely that he reached approximately the
Mendocino-Humboldt County line before turning eastward and going
inland. This would bring him just about 30 or 40 miles above Fort Bragg.

It has already been pointed out that the first two names of this group. Car-
toos and Ba-tims, refer to the Kato. Dr. Barrett thinks that the third name,
Kab-in-a-toos, may possibly be the Kabenapo of Clear Lake. He says
(personal communication):

We know that the Lake people visited the coast. Perhaps Heintzelman
encountered some of these kabenapo over on a salt-gathering expedition to
some point on the coast north of Fort Bragg.

If Barrett is correct, then this tribe must be excluded from the present
enumeration. The Kon-is-illa cannot be traced, yet the name has definite
similarity to the Coast Yuki name (Pomo form) Kabesillah, as given by
Kroeber in the Handbook (p. 212). Koss-ill-man-u-pomas cannot be
identified, but Barrett says that Kam-ill-el-pomas is the same as kamalal
pomo, a name given by the Pomo to the Coast Yuki (1908, p. 260). The
term So-as is thought by Barrett to refer to the village sosatca in Sherwood
Valley.

All these groups are clearly stated by Heintzelman to lie north of Fort
Bragg. Nevertheless, in view of the possibility that Kab-in-a-toos may
represent Clear Lake inhabitants and that the So-as may be a village in
Sherwood Valley, and hence be Pomo, these two divisions may be omitted
from consideration. The remainder may with considerable safety be
ascribed either to the Coast Yuki, the Kato, or perhaps the Sinkyone on the
coast above the Yuki. The total for the five divisions is 1,700 persons.

The next five names on Heintzelman's list are quite definitely Northern
Pomo. Then come, as the last two tribes, the Ki-pomas and the Yo-sol-
pomas. The former were said to inhabit Kinomo Valley, 40 miles from Fort
Bragg, and the latter to live on the coast 50 miles north of Fort Bragg.
According to Barrett, the Ki-pomas are probably the Kai Pomo of Powers
(1908, p. 279, fn.). If so, they lived not in Kinomo Valley (Round Valley)
but in the area between the headwaters of the South Fork of the Eel River
and the Middle Fork of the Eel. Thus they must have been Athapascan,
whether Kato, Sinkyone or Wailaki, it is now impossible to say. The Yo-sol-
pomas are probably the Yu-sal Pomo of Powers, who were an Athapascan
people near Usal, on the coast above Westport (see Barrett, 1908, p. 260).

The Ki-pomas and the Yo-sol-pomas had a combined population of 2,200.
Thereafter Heintzelman says: "From the Yo-sol-pomas to Eel River on the
north, and east to the ridge from Humboldt to Kin-a-moo Valley there
cannot be less than four thousand...." The area thus delineated is very
ambiguous. It may be taken roughly, however, as embracing—according to
the general map in Kroeber's Handbook—the southern third of the territory

of the Mattole and Sinkyone, together with that of the Kato and the Wailaki.
To this must be added the region which includes all branches of the Yuki.

The population estimates based upon the village lists of the ethnographers
are as follows: one-third the Sinkyone, 970; one-third the Mattole, 400; the
Kato, 1,100, the Wailaki, 3,350; and the Yuki as a whole, 9,730. The general
total is 15,550. By comparison Heintzelman's figure for approximately the
same area is 12,450. Considering the imponderable and unassessable factors
involved in both computations the correspondence is remarkably close,
particularly in view of the fact that Heintzelman was not in the region until
1855, at which time the population was by no means aboriginal.

THE POMO

From a poverty of ethnographic material with the more northerly tribes we
pass to an embarrassment of riches with the Pomo. (Barrett, 1908; Gifford,
1923, 1926; Gifford and Kroeber, 1937; Kniffen, 1939; Stewart, 1943). The
first major study was that of Barrett in 1908. Barrett's principal contribution
was a painstakingly compiled list of Pomo tribes, villages, and camp sites
as recalled by his informants during the years 1903 to 1906. However he
missed the significance of the Pomo community style of social organization
with its implications for evaluation of village size and importance and
hence probable population. Moreover, many of his place names have since
been shown to be wrongly applied. His work remains therefore chiefly
valuable as a compilation and check list against more recent and more
critical work.

Gifford's two papers (1923, 1926) stand as models of investigation of a
single social unit, the village of Cigom. They are useful in a wider sense as
a point of departure and a basis for comparison with other communities,
particularly in the Clear Lake region. The work of Gifford and Kroeber
(1937), although primarily dealing with cultural matters, contains much
pertinent information concerning the sixteen communities investigated
together with several paragraphs pertinent to the population problem.

Kniffen (1939) made a careful study of the geographical and ecological
status of certain selected groups: the Clear Lake area, the Kacha of Russian
River, and the Coast Pomo. Steward (1943) reviewed the boundaries and
villages of all groups except a few on Clear Lake, using also the ecological
approach.

When one attempts to establish what were the Pomo community groups and
chief villages, he encounters a great deal of divergence of opinion on detail

among these investigators, due largely to differences among informants.
Without extensive field work, which might in fact now be impossible, many
of the discrepancies cannot be resolved. On the whole, the later students
appear to have come closer to the truth and are probably more reliable.

CLEAR LAKE POMO

Gifford said (1937, p. 122) that there were 11 communities on Clear Lake.
Kniffen reorganized them to make 12, after which Stewart returned to a
count of 11. This last number, therefore, may be accepted as final. Each of
them consisted of a single principal village of considerable size. A classical
example is Cigom. Other inhabited spots within the community area have
usually been recognized but whether they were permanent or shifting
villages or camp sites usually is not clear. For this reason the population has
been discussed by ethnographers since Barrett simply on the basis of the
group, without much reference to the number of sites known to have
existed. The single exception I would make to this procedure is to take
account of the number (not necessarily the names and location) of the
villages known to have possessed assembly houses, since the presence of
these implies some degree of permanence. A community with one capital
village and several such accessory sites would, other things being equal,
create the presumption of a larger aggregate population than a community
with a capital village and one or no subsidiaries.

There is a more definite population estimate for the Clear Lake region than
we have for many other native groups. L. L. Palmer in his History of Napa
and Lake Counties (1881), cites figures for the aboriginal population of the
Clear Lake communities which he obtained from an informant who could
well remember the days before the advent of the white man. These figures
have been subject to some disparaging criticism by more modern students.
The chief objection advanced is that the book is one of the many county
histories which appeared as commercial ventures in the 1880's and which,
on the whole, were very carelessly written. Palmer, however, as his text

shows, was much interested in the fate of the natives and took considerable
pains to secure informants who could give him data. There is no ground for
impugning either his honesty or his competence. Moreover, it is difficult to
see why informants seventy years ago should be any less reliable than they
are now. Hence I can see no reason for not accepting his figures as they
stand, subject to the limitations of his informant's knowledge.

With regard to those limitations it should be noted that the informant was a
native of the Kulanapo community on the west side of the lake. He should
therefore have had closest acquaintance with his own people and the
adjacent group, the Habenapo. His figure for the Kulanapo was 500, a value
which Kniffen attacks on the ground that Palmer's informant intentionally
exaggerated the importance of his own group. This is a wholly gratuitous
assumption and inconsistent with the fact that, since more was known at
that time about the west-shore people, his figures could easily have been
checked, had they been widely at variance with the facts. In the second
place, the figure for the Habenapo was given as 300. Now Barrett (1908, p.
194) quotes even more specifically from Palmer:

The Hoo-la-na-po (Kulanapo) tribe was just below the present site of
Lakeport.... At one time there were two hundred and twenty warriors, and
five hundred all told in the rancheria. They are now reduced to sixty. Sal-
vo-di-no was their chief before the present one, Augustine.

If we are going to discredit the testimony of the chief concerning his own
village thirty years previously, we had better throw out along with it the
information secured from septuagenarians who have to recount at second
hand what their forefathers told them.

Some confirmation of Palmer's figure for the Habenapo is given by Barrett
(1908, p. 195), who mentions a statement from the Report of the
Commissioner for Indian Affairs in 1858 referring to the Lupillomi. The
latter in turn are identified by Barrett as the Habenapo. The Commissioner
said: "Upon the Lupillomi ranch, near Clear Lake, there are some three

hundred Indians." Although by 1858 there may have been some reduction
and mixing of population, the identity is striking.

Although the figures of Palmer's informant may be relied upon for his home
territory at the southwestern corner of the Lake, for the north, east, and
southeast shores he may have been inaccurate, being less familiar with
those sections. The chief evidence for such a conclusion lies in the
discrepancy between his figure for Cigom and that secured by Gifford after
a meticulous and exhaustive examination of every individual who had lived
in the village. Palmer's figure is 160 whereas Gifford's is 235. Thus
Palmer's informant clearly underestimated, by a ratio of 2 to 3. Hence it is
not unreasonable to increase Palmer's figures for the communities remote
from the area of his informant.

If we ignore for the moment Palmer's data and neglect individual
differences between communities, it would be possible to take Gifford's
figure of 235 for Cigom as representing the average for a Clear Lake
community. The population of the area would then be 2,585. Let us,
however examine the eleven communities individually (following Stewart's
outline, 1943, App. 1, pp. 57-59).

1. Bachelor Valley and Tule Lake. Stewart gives Cinal as the principal
village with Homtcati and Xaro as villages with assembly houses. In his
text on page 41 he says that these villages plus Mamamamau "were
occupied under the leadership of one chief." Hence there were at least three
secondary or subsidiary "occupied" villages. In addition, in footnote 30 to
page 41 he points out that Kniffen had set apart a portion of the area under
the name of Yobotui. Kniffen (1939, p. 368) gives the Yobotui the status of
an independent group and shows a principal village under that name on his
map. The group, whether single (Stewart) or compound (Kniffen), was
clearly of quite large size. This is in line with Palmer, whose informant gave
a population of 120 for most of the group but set apart Yobotui with an
additional 150. Stewart's group, with two possible main and two or three
subsidiary villages, is credited by Palmer with 270 people. Since the area

lay in the extreme north, this estimate may be raised, in conformity with the
Cigom case, by 50 per cent, making 405.

2. Scott's Valley. There were two groups here just prior to white settlement.
The first was designated as the Boalke, Boilkai, or Yimaba, with one
principal village Karaka (Stewart) or two "significant winter villages,"
Noboral and Karaka (Kniffen). Palmer's informant said they had 180 people
and, since they lived near him, his figure may be accepted without change.
The other group were the Komli, which are placed as a separate group by
Stewart. All authorities agree, however, that they were Russian River
natives who in relatively recent times migrated to Scott's Valley. Palmer
says they had 90 people, a reasonable figure. The total for the two groups is
thus 270.

3. Upper Lake. Here was a well defined group, with only one village,
Xowalek. The History of Lake County gives them 150, which because of
the distance from Lakeport may be increased to 225.

4. Another group in the same vicinity was the Danoxa, with a principal
village of the same name plus either two or three villages with assembly
houses. Palmer says they had 100 inhabitants, which may be increased to
150. From the number of villages it might be supposed that Danoxa was
larger than Xowalek. But in giving the figures Palmer's informant may have
confused the two groups; 375 seems a reasonable value for the two together.

5. Clear Lake, east. Gifford's value of 235 may be accepted without further
comment for Cigom.

6. Lakeport. The status of the Kulanapo has already been discussed.
Palmer's figure of 500 seems reasonable.

7. Kelseyville. The Habenapo are assigned a population of 300.

8, 9, and 10. Lower Lake. The three groups inhabiting the entire region of
the southeast were the Kamdot, Elem, and Koi. Each had a principal village
plus from two to four others with assembly houses. They are in the same

terrain with and appear to be quite similar to Cigom. Palmer gives for the
three a total population of 390, which, if increased by 50 per cent, would
mean 585. If, on the other hand, we regard them as being of the same
character as Cigom we could multiply 235 by 3 and get 705.

A curious contributory bit of evidence can be derived from Gifford's study
of land ownership in this area (1923). Gifford shows that the ownership of
property at Cigom was communal but at Kamdot, Elem, and Koi, it was a
family matter. He lists very carefully the exact ownership of the tribal real
estate. There were 22 tracts belonging to the village of Cigom but 85
belonging to families of Elem, 38 to families of Koi, and 57 to families of
Kamdot. From this we can derive the minimum number of families for
these places, for the tracts were simultaneously owned by different families.
Using a factor of 6 persons per family the population of Elem would be
510. In this connection it is of interest that Gifford during the same
investigation found that two subsidiary villages were occupied
simultaneously with the main village. Thus he states (p. 86): "A second
mainland overflow village, which was once contemporaneously inhabited
with insular Elem and mainland Behepkobel, was Mucokol...." (Emphasis
mine.) A principal village the size of Cigom or larger plus two accessory
villages of only 100 each would bring the population to 435. Thus there can
be little doubt that Elem had fully 500 inhabitants. On the basis of family
number the figures for Koi and Kamdot would be respectively 228 and 342,
or, say, 230 and 340.

According to the data above the total population of the Clear Lake basin
was 3,155, which may be rounded off to 3,150. When Kroeber originally
formulated an estimate of the population of the Pomo communities, based
largely upon Barrett's study, he set the average per community at 100. Later
(Gifford and Kroeber, 1937, p. 119) he reduced the probable number of
communities and reset the population limits at 75-300. with a likely average
of 200. The average we get here is 287, considerably larger than Kroeber
would allow. However, all the available evidence seems to support the
conclusion that, for the Clear Lake region at least, the community size was
somewhat larger than stated by Kroeber.

A puzzling secondary question is what disposition to make of the Lileek,
the small Wappo group associated with the Habenapo. These people came
very late and settled among the Habenapo, probably after the effect of the
white invasion farther south had begun to be felt. Palmer's informant said
there were about 100 of them. They might be added to the Habenapo but, in
view of the doubt concerning their origin and history, it is perhaps best to
disregard them entirely.

Clear Lake Pomo ... 3,150

NORTHERN POMO

For the remainder of the Pomo we have no such clearly defined body of
knowledge as for the Clear Lake group. Thus it is necessary to consider
each subdivision or subtribe separately. As a preliminary step, however, it is
desirable to discuss the problem of house and family number in so far as it
relates to the Pomo.

In Gifford's analysis of Cigom we possess a remarkably thorough treatment
of the demography of a single village, one which may be taken as
representative of the entire tribe, with the exception of the portion lying
along the coast. At Cigom Gifford found 47 social groups or families and
235 persons. The mean is 5.0 persons per family. However this figure
represents the period of 1850 and immediately thereafter, when the Clear
Lake population had already for several years suffered from contact with
the whites. Hence the aboriginal value must have been higher. Indeed
Gifford's study gives an amazing picture of the demographic dissolution of
the Pomo in the mid-nineteenth century.

Among the 47 families there were 57 persons who were described as "son"
or "daughter" and were obviously at or below the age of puberty at the
period the informants were recalling. This means only 1.21 children per
family, far below the minimum number (2.0) necessary for replacement.

Clearly the population was declining rapidly at that time. If there were 1.21
children and the family number was 5.0, the average number of adults was
3.79. For simple equilibrium or stability, such as we must assume existed in
pre-white times, at least 3 children must be found in every family. Thus
with 3.79 adults there would have to have been a family number of 6.79 or
say, 6.80 merely to maintain the population. Considering the relative
richness of the environment and the quite elaborate culture of the Pomo an
average of 7.0 is by no means excessive for the aboriginal Pomo.

That the Clear Lake Pomo were in a deplorable state at the time described
by Gifford is attested by the statements of his informants concerning the
subsequent fate of the 57 children mentioned in the text. Of these, 29, or
50.9 per cent, "died young." Such a tremendous child mortality is quite
consistent with our entire picture of the postcontact decline in Indian
population but is wholly at variance with any reasonable concept of
aboriginal conditions.

At Cigom Gifford found 20 houses, mostly of the multiple type so common
among the Pomo. Three of the houses held 4 families, three held 3, twelve
held 2, and two held 1. The average is 2.35 families per house or, in terms
of persons, 11.75 per house. This is of course based on the 1850 value of
5.0 persons per family. If we admit an aboriginal number of 7.0 persons per
family, then the number per house becomes 16.45 instead of 11.75.

In his study of Redwood Valley Kniffen (1939, pp. 373-380) puts the
population at 125 and the number of houses at 12. This would mean 10.4
persons per house, quite close to Gifford's value for Cigom in or near 1850.

In his chapter on the Pomo Stephen Powers (1877) described the village of
Senel (Sanel, Shanel) in the Russian River valley (p. 168 and map). He
shows on his map 104 houses and 5 assembly houses. The houses were
large and contained according to his estimate 20-30 persons each. This
estimate seems much too high. However, on other grounds he puts the
former population at 1,500 inhabitants, a figure which is arrived at entirely
independently by an informant of Stewart (1943, p. 45). Indeed Stewart

comments with reference to Powers that "my population estimate and
description closely approximate his." This means for 104 houses a mean of
14.42 occupants.

The average of the three sets of data available give 13.76 persons per house,
a figure which may be rounded off at 14.0 in view of the probability that
Kniffen's estimate is a little low. It is noteworthy, furthermore, that neither
Gifford nor Powers gives any indication that all the houses in the villages
respectively studied were not simultaneously occupied. Indeed, with the
multifamily system it is difficult to see how they could stand deserted for a
considerable period of time.

The Potter Valley groups.—Stewart paid particular attention to the Potter
Valley groups and determined the central or capital villages to have been
Canel, Sedam, and Pomo. Stewart also says that, whereas Canel was the
main village in its area, Yamo was the most populous. Sedam was one of
the largest villages in the valley and Pomo was somewhat smaller. By
comparison with the Clear Lake towns it is appropriate to consider the three
principal towns (including Yamo with Canel) as having approximately 200
inhabitants each, or 600 in all. The next question concerns peripheral or
outlying villages, of which there were certainly a considerable number.
Stewart says that the Canel were "distributed" among 12 villages (including
Yamo). Moreover "my informant (JSm) insisted that these villages were all
occupied at the same time ... each having a 'curing' sweathouse; however all
were under one chief, and there was only one ceremonial or 'devil' house"
(p. 40). Barrett (1908, fn. 129, p. 142) says his informant called three of
these villages camps only. At the same time Barrett lists 9 villages,
excluding Kachabida and Canekai, 6 of which correspond to villages of
Stewart. Merriam lists 10 villages, only one of which is in addition to those
of Barrett or Stewart. Although there is some overlap, it seems clear that
there were at least 12 villages apart from Canel, Sedam, and Pomo. Of these
Yamo has already been considered. Kachabida, mentioned by Barrett and
Merriam, was one of those which migrated to the Clear Lake region shortly
before 1850 and must therefore be excluded, since its people have already
been counted among the Clear Lake Pomo.

Canekai lay several miles to the northeast in the hills. It is simply shown by
Stewart on his map as lying in the territory of Sedam. Merriam, however,
calls it a "small tribe," the shanel-kaah, and cites Gibbs (1860), who
mentioned the group under the name of the Shanelkaya. Evidently a fair-
sized village or minor subtribe once existed in the area. At least 100 persons
must be ascribed to it.

Deducting Yamo, Kachabida, and Canekai and three of Stewart's villages
which Barrett said were camp sites there remain 11 villages supported by
the word of at least one of the three above-mentioned authorities. Five are
given by all three of them, 4 by two of them and 2 by one alone. It is safe
therefore to allow 10 villages in addition to the 5 already accepted (i.e.,
Canel, Sedam, Pomo, Yamo, and Canekai). Concerning the size we have no
data but they must all have been relatively small. Three houses each would
seem a reasonable estimate, yielding at the Pomo rate of 14 persons per
house 42 inhabitants for each village or 420 for the aggregate. Thus,
counting 600 for Canel, Sedam, Pomo, and Yamo, 100 for Canekai, and 420
for the balance, we get 1,120 as the best estimate for the Potter Valley
subtribes.

Calpella and Redwood Valleys.—This area is divided by Stewart into two
subtribes, the Masut of Calpella and the Katca of Redwood Valley. This
course is also followed by Kniffen who made a special investigation of the
Kacha (Katca). On the other hand Merriam included both groups in his
tribe, the Mah-soo-tah-ka-ah (his manuscript entitled "Northern Pomo").

The Kacha tribe all lived in the village given as Kacha by Kniffen and as
Kabelal by Barrett, Merriam, and Stewart. Kniffen says "there must have
been about 125 people in the valley...", but gives no supporting data. He
does, on the other hand, mention that the village had 12 houses (1939, p.
375). At the aboriginal Pomo number of 14.0 there should have been 168
instead of 125 inhabitants. It is quite possible that Kniffen was thinking in
terms of the early 1850's and hence made a low estimate. It appears to the
present writer that 170 is preferable.

Masut is given by Barrett and Stewart as a village but by Merriam as a
tribe. Another village near by, Chom-cha-de-lah (Merriam) or Chomchadila
(Powers, Kroeber) is admitted by Stewart and in fact given as the main
village in his appendix (p. 57). Stewart also adds two villages, Diskabel and
Kobida. It is evident that there were several villages closely clustered
together. Stewart thinks there were four. Of these Masut and Chom-chah-
de-lah were apparently large and the others perhaps small. We may allow
150 each for the larger ones and 50 each for the smaller, making 400 in all.

The village of Matuku lay in the same territory. This is given the status of
tribe by Merriam but was involved in the migrational movements between
the Calpella region and Clear Lake. Hence its population is difficult to
evaluate. Perhaps 100 persons will be adequate.

In near-by Coyote Valley lived the tribe called by Powers the
Shodokaipomo. This seems to be the general name for the subtribe and
perhaps also for one of their villages (Barrett and Merriam). In addition,
Merriam, following Barrett, lists Shah-chahm-kah-oo (called Shashamkau
by Kroeber). Powers (1877) in commenting on this group has this to say:
"Mr. Christy states that there were between three hundred and four hundred
(people) when he arrived." Since there is no specific reason to doubt Mr.
Christy's word, we may set the population of the subtribe at 350. The total
for the entire area is 1,020.

There are for the Calpella-Redwood Valley region 8 reasonably well
authenticated villages, as follows:

Kabelal (Barrett, Merriam, Stewart)
Masut (Barrett, Stewart)
Chom-cha-de-lah (Powers, Barrett, Merriam, Stewart, Kroeber)
Matuku (Barrett, Merriam, Stewart)
Shodo-kai (Barrett, Merriam, Powers)
Shah-chahm-kah-oo (Barrett, Merriam, Kroeber)
Diskabel (Stewart)
Kobida (Stewart)

Of these five may be regarded as principal villages and hence large; the
others may have been small. The average for all together is 127 persons per
village. If we allow 175 persons for each of the larger ones, we must
assume 50 for the smaller. These figures seem of the correct order of
magnitude.

Willits Valley.—The tribe inhabiting Willits Valley extended from the inland
valleys clear to the coast. Stewart makes it clear, however, in
contradistinction to Barrett, that they had no permanent villages actually on
the coast before they moved in that direction ahead of the American
advance to the north. The Northern Pomo thus, unlike the Coast Yuki, lived
a long distance inland and traveled to the seashore only as occasion
demanded from time to time.

Stewart lists 9 village sites: Mitom, the principal village; Tsamonda, a small
village; Nabo; Talel, with 8 dwelling pits; Tsaka, with 8 pits; Bakau; Cotsiu;
Kacebal; and one of unknown name. He says that there is no evidence that
all these were occupied at the same time, but "several must have been
occupied simultaneously because five were occupied by the parents of
Indians still living."

Much light is thrown on the situation in Willits Valley and adjacent areas by
the work of Merriam (in the manuscript "Northern Pomo"). Merriam splits
the natives into three dialectic subgroups: the But-kow-hah-po-mah of
upper Outlet Creek, the Sho-jul-po-ma of eastern Little Lake Valley, and the
Met-tum-mah of Willits Valley proper.

The But-kow-hah-po-mah had a principal village But-kow-hah-chut-te,
corresponding to Stewart's Bakau plus "3-4 rancherias." If we allow 150 for
the main village and a possible 25 each for the outlying rancherias, we get
250 for the group. This seems quite reasonable for a small, somewhat
isolated subtribe.

The Sho-mul-po-mah had for a principal village Sho-tse-yu-chut-te, which
is mentioned by Barrett and corresponds to Stewart's Cotsiu. In addition,
Merriam cites from Barrett 6 other villages, 4 of which he confirms as

villages. One of these, Tah-nah-kum-chut-te, he says contained a
sweathouse having a capacity of 200 people. According to a principle
enunciated by Powers (p. 168), but which is of somewhat doubtful validity,
the capacity of a sweathouse or assembly house is equivalent to one-third of
the population. Thus the Sho-mul-po-mah might have had 600 people.
However, if we allow that the principal village, by analogy with Kasha, had
175 and that each of the villages of Barrett which were confirmed by
Merriam had 4 dwelling houses each (i.e., 56 people) then the population
would be computed at 400.

In the Mitom region Merriam is very explicit. He mentions Me-to-mah-
chut-te, which corresponds to Stewart's Mitom, and says that it was the
"name applied by Me-tum-mah to all their villages in Metumki of Little
Lake Valley. There were 4 important permanent winter villages containing
about 600 people." These 4 villages were, according to Merriam: Cha-bo-
cha-kah-chut-te, Po-ka-hil-chut-te, She-o-kah-lau-chut-te, and Tsah-kah-
chut-te. The last corresponds to Stewart's Tsaka. Of the first village he says
it contained 40 to 50 house pits. This must be excessive for it would mean a
population of 560 persons in this village alone. Stewart says that Tsaka had
8 pits, or 112 persons. If we reduce the count for Cha-bo-cha-kah-chut-te to
300 instead of 560, we can still accept Merriam's figure of 600 for the group
of four.

We still have to account for Kah-be-shal-chut-te of Barrett and Merriam
(Stewart's Kabecal), Tsam-mom-dah-chut-te of Barrett and Merriam
(Stewart's Tsamonda). Nabo of Merriam and Stewart (also mentioned by
Gibbs). and Talel of Stewart. Talel and Nabo may have been part of the
Mitom complex but Tsamonda and Kabecal are too distant. If Tsamonda
was small, as Stewart says, we may allow 50 inhabitants. Kabecal must
have contained at least 100.

For the entire area, including all three of Merriam's linguistic groups, we
get a population of 1,650 inhabitants.

Sherwood Valley.—In this valley lived the Mato or Mato-poma of Stewart,
or the Mah-to-poma of Merriam, whose permanent villages were inland but
who ranged a large territory extending to the coast. According to Stewart
there were three minor divisions of the group, with three permanent
villages, Mato, Kabedile, and Kulakau, each of which had its own chief. On
no other evidence would we be justified in ascribing 200 persons to each
subgroup. Stewart says (p. 33): "The best guesses of my informants placed
the primitive population at about 500 persons, half of them in the main
village of Mato." That would give 250 to Mato and 125 each to Kabedile
and Kulakau. This estimate appears too low, particularly since the
informants were all born in the 1860's, twenty years after the first contact
with the white man.

Merriam (in his "Northern Pomo," together with a separate manuscript
entitled "Sherwood Valley rancherias") transcribed and checked Barrett's
village list. As was his custom he initialed in ink those names which he
confirmed by independent investigation, leaving unmarked those for the
existence of which he considered he had no certain evidence. For Sherwood
Valley he gives 25 names. Of these, 3 were taken from Barrett without
confirmation, leaving 22. Seven of the latter are given by Merriam alone, in
addition to those appearing on Barrett's list. Merriam mentions Mah-to-
chutte and also Ma-chah-tah, each of which he says was a "big rancheria."
It is very probable that these were variants of the same name or were parts
of the same village. Hence they may be combined as representing Stewart's
Mato. Merriam also mentions Kah-ba-de-la-chut-te and Kah-baht-be-dah-
chut-te, which appear to be variants for Stewart's Kabedile. Also included
are Bo-shahm-koo-che (Bocamkutci), Cha-bo-tse-y-chut-te (Kabotsiu), and
Tan-nah-shil-chut-te (Tanacil), all of which are stated by Stewart (p. 35) to
have been parts of Kulakau. This reduces Merriam's effective list to 17.

Mato is stated by Merriam to have been a "big rancheria." This is in line
with Stewart's impression that the village contained at least 250 persons.
This number may therefore be accepted without much hesitation. Kabedile
(or Kah-baht-be-da-chut-te) is said by Merriam to have had 30 to 40 house
holes. He also mentions the fact that the Mexicans perpetrated a massacre

here in 1846, in the course of which 25 were killed and many children
stolen for slaves. If we take the lower limit mentioned for houses and
reduce one-third, we still get a probable 20 houses, which at 14 persons per
house gives a minimum population of 280 persons. Stewart gives Kulakau
and the three villages considered to be parts of it equal rank with Mato and
Kabedile. Merriam says of Cha-bo-tse-y-chut-te (Kobotsiu) that it was a
"big village." Hence we may safely ascribe 250 persons to the town.

Merriam adds certain comments on the villages. Boo-tah-kah-chut-te had a
"big round house." Che-ah-po-y-chut-te was of "fair size but no
roundhouse." She-ko-ki-chut-te consisted of "two big rancherias and
roundhouse." The other 10 villages are listed merely by locality without
additional information. We encounter here a clear instance of the perplexity
which pursues us throughout the Pomo area. We must accept either the
combined word or Barrett and Merriam that there were numerous
subsidiary villages inhabited in Sherwood Valley during aboriginal times or
the word of Stewart that there were not. At this point it must be emphasized
again that by 1840 the Northern Pomo had been invaded by Spanish-
Mexicans from the San Francisco Bay region and their aboriginal social
order had been partially disrupted. Furthermore, we know that they had
been exposed to serious inroads by disease, such as the great smallpox
epidemic of the 1830's. In particular, that of 1837, the so-called
"Miramontes epidemic," began at Fort Ross and is known to have seriously
involved the Russian River Valley. There is much reason to believe,
therefore that the population decline began by 1830, with its accompanying
shifting and consolidation of villages. Both Barrett and Merriam did their
field work among the Pomo from 1900 to 1910, say as an approximate date
1905. A seventy-year-old informant at that time could thus actually
remember the year 1840. But a similar individual in 1935 could remember
of his own knowledge only to 1870. He would have to draw on second- and
third-hand information imparted by his forefathers. As Stewart (p. 29) says
of one of his Sherwood Valley informants his "father's father told JMc of
'old times'." It is hardly to be expected that an old man could very
accurately transmit population data secured as a small boy at his

grandfather's knee. For these reasons I think Merriam's village names
cannot be discarded, unless specific evidence proves that they are errors.
They must be accepted as villages which at one time were inhabited. There
remains of course the possible contingency that some of these places had
been abandoned before the advent of the first white influence or that they
were spots inhabited for a short time during the upheaval accompanying the
American invasion. Since there is no conceivable way in which we may
ascertain the true facts in detail, perhaps some arbitrary correction is
desirable. Consequently the following procedure is suggested: estimate the
population on the basis of all the Merriam names, then reduce by one-third.
Such a method should take care of all instances of temporary villages, camp
sites etc.

Applying the above principles, we may assign 150 inhabitants to Boo-tah-
kah-chut-te ("big roundhouse"), 50 to Che-ah-po-y-chut-te ("fair-sized but
no roundhouse"), and 200 to She-ko-ki-chut-te ("two big rancherias and
roundhouse"). Two houses, or say 30 persons, may be allocated to the other
10 sites of Merriam. The total would then be 700, which, reduced by one-
third, gives as a final value 470.

For the Mato-pomo as a whole the population figure is 1,250. It is difficult
to see how a much lower figure could be set for the area.

For the Northern Pomo collectively there has been derived a population
estimate of 5,040. It is of interest to compare this figure with the values
cited by Heintzelman.

This officer listed eight names which can be indentified as falling within the
group being discussed. They are as follows.

1. Si-dam. This is sedam of Barrett (1908, p. 141) and of Stewart (1943, p.
41), located in Potter Valley.

2. Po-ma Pomes. This is pomo of Barrett and Stewart, likewise in Potter
Valley.

3. Kal-il-na-pomas. This group was located between Martoo (Sherwood)
and Metumki (Little Lake) valleys and is possibly equivalent to kalal-
nokca, a village below Ukiah (Barrett, personal communication). However
the habitat specified by Heintzelman does not support Barrett's surmise. The
group undoubtedly lived much to the north of Ukiah.

4. She-bal-na-pomas. These were in Sherwood Valley and are referred to by
Barrett (1908, p. 147, fn.) as the Shi-bal-ni Pomo.

5. Calli-tal-pomas. Dr. Barrett is unable to identify the name but the people
lived in the same vicinity as the tribes mentioned previously. It is possible
that they may have been the kabelal of Stewart (1943. p. 39).

6. Yo-pomas. Dr. Barrett thinks (personal communication) that this term
may signify Yo kai pomo ("south valley people") who would have lived near
Ukiah. But Heintzelman states that they lived between Kinomo (Round)
Valley and Martoo (Sherwood) Valley, and hence must have been Northern
Pomo.

7. Maa-to-ma-pomas. With regard to these people Dr. Barrett writes me as
follows: "Possibly refers to Little Lake or Willits Valley people mtomkai, or
bitomkai (1908, p. 128, fn.), or to mitoma, on a knoll in the town of Willits
(ibid., p. 145)." The latter hypothesis appears the more probable (Stewart,
1943, p. 36 ff., discusses this subtribe at length). Heintzelman adds the
information that the Maa-to-ma-pomas are divided into seven tribes, of
which the Sho-he-shas are the most numerous. Barrett (1908, p. 146, fn.)
thinks that the latter people are the Chow-e-chak of M'Kee. Heintzelman
further says that the territory covered extends from Metumki (Little Lake)
Valley to the coast.

8. So-as. Barrett considers (personal communication) that this name refers
to the village of sosa-tca, in Sherwood Valley (cf. 1908, p. 147).

Irrespective of conflicts in terminology it appears that Heintzelman fairly
well covered the area usually assigned to the Northern Pomo under the
eight designations just listed. His total population value is 5,350, slightly

greater than but very close to the estimate derived from ethnographic data
(i.e., 5,040). This close correspondence will be seen as specially significant
when we come to examine his report on the Central and Southern Pomo.

Northern Pomo ... 5,040

CENTRAL POMO

Ukiah.—In the Ukiah area are included four of Stewart's subtribes: the
Yokaia of Ukiah Valley, the Ciego of Largo, the Cokoa of Hopland, and the
Yobakeya of Echo. There are all consolidated by Merriam in his manuscript
entitled "Tribe List of Yo-ki-ah Pomo" and will be considered together.

Stewart is very positive that these four tribes all lived in one central village.
He says regarding the Yokaia: "Although several villages are given by
Barrett for this area, there is no doubt that during the winter months the
population was concentrated in one main village" (p. 43). Regarding the
Cokoa: "Politically, as well as geographically, the Cokoa resembled the
Yokaia. Both had a single central village of importance where the
population was concentrated" (p. 43). Merriam credits Barrett with 37
village names, to which he adds none himself. Of the 37 he confirms only
13. Since the other 24 of Barrett are doubtful, they may be excluded. Of
Merriam's 13 Stewart says specifically that three were camps not permanent
villages. Two, Kah-chi-o (Katcayo) and Shah-na-na-oo (Caneneu) were
proved by Stewart to have existed only subsequent to the white invasion.
One may belong to the Booneville tribe and another is a tribal, not a village,
name. Four, Kah-ka-eu (Cokadjal). Ko-lo-ko (Koloko), Lema (Ciego), and
Shanel (Canel) were the main villages, as stated by Stewart. There remain
unaccounted for only Bok-shah (Barrett's Bokca), regarding which Merriam
says it had a sweathouse and was "practically permanent," and Katch-a-
wah-low. Merriam's conclusions thus coincide to a remarkable degree with
those of Stewart and justify the assumption that, where the two

investigators clearly differ, considerable weight should be given to
Merriam's account.

The largest of the four main villages was Canel, or Shanel. Comment has
already been made upon the fact that both Stephen Powers' and Stewart's
informants, proceding from entirely different premises, reached the
conclusion that the town had a primitive population of 1,500. This figure
therefore, however incredible, must be accepted. It is noteworthy in passing
that if we apply the family number of 14 to the 104 houses shown by
Powers on his map of the town, the population is computed at 1,456, almost
identical with the other estimates.

For the Yokaia, originally settled at Cokadjal, Stewart says: "The population
... has been variously estimated at from 500-1,000 persons...." Since such
estimates are likely to be somewhat low, and in view of the size of Canel,
we may take the upper limit, 1,000 inhabitants.

The status of Lema (Ciego) is dubious. Stewart says the people had no chief
and the tribe was composed of "soldiers." The town was very well known at
the time of white occupation, however, and must have held at least 150
persons.

The Yobakeya at Koloko were also warlike and Stewart calls them a "small
group." But he also says that one of his informants told him there were
about 60 survivors of the tribe in his youth (approximately 1865). This fact
argues an aboriginal membership of at least 300 persons.

For the Yo-ki-ah linguistic subdivision of the Northern Pomo as presented
by Merriam the collective population is thus estimated at 2,950.

Point Arena.—The Point Arena area is a large territory comprising 300
square miles along the coast. Stewart designates its occupants the Bokaya
and includes three subtribes centering in the villages of Kauca, Pdahau, and
Lacupda. Merriam separates two groups, the Bo-yah, which included Kauca
and Pdahau, and the Kan-no-ah, or the Lacupda people ("Tribe List of Bo-
yah" and "Tribe List of Kan-no-ah").

One of Stewart's informants, a woman born about 1880, said that the
aggregate population was 380. This appears much too low. Merriam lists 29
villages, of which many are taken from Barrett without confirmation. On
the other hand Stewart says (p. 48) regarding Pdahau: "there is no doubt
that other villages were occupied contemporaneously with it, although it
was impossible to get the exact status of all the sites mentioned by Barrett."
Hence the acceptance of some of Barrett's and Merriam's villages must be
considered.

Merriam's list includes Stewart's three main villages. It also includes Itcetce
and Kodalau, which Stewart says were settled after the American
occupation. Merriam also gives the following, some of which are on
Barrett's list:

1. Kah-bim-mo ("permanent village")

2. Kah-sha-lem ("permanent village, large town. Inhabitants moved many
years ago to Cha-cha. Used as slaves by man named Shoemaker.")

3. Kah-sil-shah-ko ("acorn camp and winter rancheria")

4. Kah-ya-a-lin ("acorn camp and winter rancheria")

5. Kup-pish-ko ("permanent village")

6. Shah-dah ("permanent village")

7. We-chahl (of the Kan-no-ah, "very large permanent village")

The remaining 17 village names are credited to Barrett without comment or
confirmation.

Suppose we accept the values put on Pdahau, Kauca, and Lacupda by
Stewart's informant, i.e., respectively 200, 100, and 80. Then we should
allow 150 each for Merriam's "large" villages, nos. 2 and 7 above. The other
five were apparently small and may be conceded 30 persons each. Of the
final 17 sites it will be fair to admit the probably simultaneous existence of

two-thirds of them, or let us say 12, at the rate of 30 persons per village.
The total for the area then becomes 1,190 inhabitants. Using Stewart's
figure of 300 square miles for the area the density would thus be 3.97
persons per square mile or less than Gifford found for the Coast Yuki. Such
an estimate seems extremely conservative.

Booneville and Yorkville.—In this area are found the Pdateya of Booneville,
which Stewart puts among the Northern Pomo, and the Danokeya of
Yorkville. The corresponding names used by Merriam are the Lah-ta and
the Ta-bo-ta. Very little is known of either group. Stewart mentions the
village of Lemkolil near Booneville and Late and Maboton in the Yorkville
region. Merriam gives Barrett's list (in his manuscript entitled "Ta-bo-ta and
Lah-ta") without comment. For the Ta-bo-ta there are 10 villages and for the
Lah-ta 9. Since we have absolutely no other leads we may assign the three
main villages 100 inhabitants each, and deduct one-third from the
remainder to allow for Barrett's nonpermanent sites. There would then be
10 presumptive villages with 30 persons each, or 300 for all of them. The
total population for the two groups together would then be 600.

Stewart's Point.—The tribe at Stewart's Point is known as the Kacia
(Stewart) or the Kah-chi-a (Merriam, manuscript entitled "Tribe List of
Kah-chi-a pomo"). Also included are Stewart's Yotiya of the Southern
Pomo, a group for which I find no account in Merriam's notes.

Stewart has made a particularly exhaustive study of this group and states
that the population range extended from 800 to 1,200 persons. Merriam
gives 82 names of villages. Stewart makes it quite clear that aboriginally the
Kacia had no permanent settlements on the coast itself. All their villages
were at least four or five miles inland, except Mitini and Powicana. We
must delete therefore all the coastal villages of Barrett and Merriam except
the two mentioned. This immediately removes 27 names, leaving 55. Of
these, 16 are mentioned by Stewart as "villages which were occupied more
or less permanently" (p. 50). Five of them had assembly houses. Of the
remaining 39 sites, 30 are confirmed by Merriam from Barrett's list or are
given by him in addition to Barrett. If we consider that the larger, known

population of the villages such as Mitini balances errors in Merriam's list
and the mean number of persons per village was 30, then the total for the
group is 46 times 30, or 1,380. To this should be added, according to
Stewart, 100 for the Yotiya, making 1,480 in all. This is somewhat, but not
excessively, greater than Stewart's estimate.

For the Central Pomo as a whole we may turn once more to the record left
by Heintzelman. For the area here being considered he lists five tribes.

1. Uk-a-is. These are stated to be located "above the canyon of the Russian
River," and are obviously the villages grouped around Ukiah. A discussion
of the Yokaia is given by Stewart (1943, pp. 43-45).

2. Sinals. This term clearly refers to the village of Shanel, already
mentioned with respect to population.

3. Bo-kas. These were located "in the vicinity of Fort Ross" and included no
doubt the Bokeya of Point Arena as well as the survivors around Fort Ross.

4. Ta-bi-tas. These were "in Anderson's Valley" and refer to the inhabitants
of the village Tabate (Kroeber and Stewart) or to the group called the
Pdateya by Stewart.

5. Bo-i-os. These were located "south of Booldam River on the coast," in
other words south of Big River near the boundary between the Northern and
Central Pomo.

Since the region of Ukiah, Hopland, Booneville, Point Arena, and Fort Ross
was well explored and even extensively settled by 1855, it is entirely
probable that Heintzelman recorded all the existing natives of the area.
Regardless of terminology the five names above leave no important fraction
of the territory unaccounted for. Heintzelman's total for the population is
2,100, a figure which should be compared with the value of 6,220 obtained
through the use of village lists, together with house and family number.

For the Athapascan and Yukian peoples, as well as for the Northern Pomo, a
marked correspondence could be observed between the two sets of data,
even though entire identity could not be achieved. For the Central Pomo, on
the other hand, there is a striking disparity: the Heintzelman estimate
reaches only one-third the value obtained from ethnographic sources. Since
Heintzelman could reach his maximum accuracy among the relatively well
known Central Pomo, as opposed to the remoter northern groups, we cannot
ascribe his low count to ignorance or carelessness on his part. The most
reasonable explanation is that the Central Pomo had already by 1855
suffered a reduction in population of from one-half to two-thirds of the
aboriginal level. Such an hypothesis is entirely consistent with all we know
of Mexican and American settlement in Sonoma and southern Mendocino
counties and, furthermore, tends to lend support to the much higher figures
reported by Heintzelman for the more northerly tribes.

Central Pomo ... 6,220

SOUTHWESTERN POMO

This group, consisting principally of the Kacia of Stewart's Point, has
already been discussed under the Central Pomo.

SOUTHERN POMO

In this area lived five large groups, named variously by different students,
centering around Dry Creek, Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, and
Sebastopol. The Pomo residue, mentioned by Barrett, and others who
survived in Alexander Valley are here omitted since they may be more
appropriately considered as contributing to the predominantly Wappo
population. Likewise, the village of Wilok, east of Santa Rosa, is probably
considered more satisfactorily in conjunction with the neighboring Wappo.

Modern ethnographic data are of little value for estimating the population of
the Southern Pomo, however carefully it may have been secured. The
Spanish and Mexican missionaries, accompanied by the military, entered
the area certainly before 1820 and by the year 1835 the Southern Pomo had
been relocated in the missions, conscripted for labor, or carried off by
disease. Shortly after 1840 the Americans began to appear and as a result
the original village pattern was completely disrupted. Hence it is relatively
useless to compute population from the sites which in recent years have
been remembered by Indian or white informants. Merriam, following
Barrett, lists about 80 village names but in very few instances endorses
Barrett's findings by subscribing his initials. To attempt any detailed
analysis of these sites would serve no useful purpose whatever.

It is clear from the opinions expressed by Kroeber and Stewart that the
Southern Pomo exhibited the same general type of social organization as
the Central Pomo, namely, a splitting into subtribes with each of the latter
inhabiting a single, large main village. Several of these have been
reasonably well identified, some by modern ethnographers and some by the
early missionaries and civil contemporaries. There are 15, the existence of
which is sufficiently well assured. They are as follows:

1. Amalako Dry Creek Stewart
2. Amako Cloverdale Stewart, Merriam
3. Makahmo Cloverdale Stewart, Merriam, Kroeber
4. Amatio Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam
5. Kale Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam
6. Mukakotcalg Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam
7. Wotokkaton Healdsburg Merriam, Kroeber
8. Tsoliikawai Healdsburg Stewart, Merriam
9. Batiklechawi Sebastopol Merriam, Kroeber
10. Masikawani Sebastopol Stewart, Merriam
11. Hukabetawi Santa Rosa Merriam, Kroeber
12. Kabetsiuwa Santa Rosa Stewart, Merriam

13. Gualomi Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam
14. Chichiyomi Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam
15. Levantoyome Santa Rosa Mission records, Merriam

If each of these fifteen villages had a population of only 300 Indians, a low
value considering the huge congregations in the Ukiah-Hopland region, the
total for the Southern Pomo could be set at 4,500.

There is a little contributory evidence to be obtained from the mission
records. These documents, which are to be found in the Bancroft Library of
the University of California, include baptism records for the missions of
San Rafael and Solano, those which drew upon the Pomo for converts. Up
to 1834 there had been baptized 268 persons from Levantoyome, 90 from
Gualomi, and 44 from Chichiyome. Conversions in peripheral areas like
that of the Southern Pomo were always far from complete, particularly at
the end of the mission period. Many of the natives were killed in the
incessant skirmishes and massacres of the time, many were enslaved
directly by rancheros, many died of disease, but by far the greatest number
simply fled the approach of the white man. It is quite reasonable to suppose
that not more than one-third of the natives were ever actually brought into
the missions for conversion. This would mean an average of 402 persons
for the three subtribes or villages just mentioned, Levantoyome, Gualomi,
and Chichiyome. Extended to the entire 15 known principal villages, the
total would be 6,030.

A second possible method consists of area-density comparisons. The over-
all density in the sum of the Potter Valley, Calpella, and Ukiah areas can
certainly have been no greater than that originally existing in the region of
the Southern Pomo, for of all the Pomo subdivisions the southern group
possessed the most favorable habitats and the most prolific food supply. The
population found for the three northern areas mentioned above was 5,090
and the area according to Stewart (pp. 57-59) was 585 square miles. The
density was thus 8.70 persons per square mile. The corresponding value for
the Clear Lake Pomo is 7.34. The area of the Southern Pomo, including the
five groups discussed here was 745 square miles. At the northern density of

approximately 8 persons per square mile the population would have been
5,960.

The two methods employed therefore yield essentially similar results and
make possible the estimate of 6,000 persons for the Southern Pomo.

According to Alexander Taylor (1860-63, Ser. I, folio page 5) Captain J. B.
R. Cooper, an American, went to Santa Rosa as early as 1827. Apparently
following his statements Taylor says "it was estimated" that 2,000 Indians
lived in Sonoma Valley and 1,500 in Santa Rosa Valley. In another place
(Ser. I, folio page 3) Taylor states that "when Capt. Cooper settled the
Molino Rancho, in Santa Rosa Valley, in 1834, there were living in his
neighborhood as many as 2,000 Canimares." The latter term refers of course
to the southeastern portion of the Southern Pomo.

We should not accept these pioneer estimates of Indian population without
examination and qualification. Neither should we reject them, equally
uncritically, as automatically exaggerated and mendacious, and hence
worthless. It is quite likely that Cooper knew more about the number of
Indians on his ranch than any other white man, at the time or since. It is
relatively unlikely that Cooper had any motive for propagating a completely
false report. On the other hand, it is wholly possible that Cooper may have
been inaccurate or careless in his count. Nevertheless the Cooper estimate is
quite in conformity with our other sources of population information.

It was stated previously that 402 baptisms are on record from three
rancherias in the Santa Rosa area. To these may be added 220 others whose
names are clearly Pomo in character, making a total of 622. At the rate of
three aboriginal inhabitants to one baptism in this region, the territory
concerned—and this is very close to Cooper's home—would have contained
1,866 people. The mission data thus in general support Cooper's figure.

Cooper says that in 1834 there were "in his neighborhood" 2,000
Canimares. Since the Molino ranch embraced the region north of
Sebastopol and west of Santa Rosa, his "neighborhood" may be considered
as including the Sebastopol and Santa Rosa groups of the Southern Pomo,

leaving the Healdsburg, Cloverdale, and Dry Creek groups beyond his
horizon. The estimates cited by Taylor refer rather ambiguously to the
period between 1827 and 1834, let us say roughly 1830. The earliest Pomo
conversions which are recognizable from the mission records were at San
Rafael in 1820. These Pomo had therefore been subjected to intense
missionization for at least ten years prior to Cooper's appearance. The
population consequently must have been seriously depleted when he first
saw the Santa Rosa Valley.

If we disregard entirely the factor of depletion and accept Cooper's 1834
estimate of 2,000 Canimares around Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, we may
allow an equivalent population for the other three Southern Pomo
provinces. This yields a total of 5,000. If we attempt to make any correction
for depletion, we very quickly reach the figure already arrived at by other
methods, viz., 6,000.

That a comprehensive population reduction was in progress throughout the
era of 1820 to 1850 and later is attested by the report of Major Heintzelman.
His figure for the Northern Pomo, it will be recollected, was definitely
within the range of the population determined from ethnographic data. His
value for the Central Pomo was only one-third of that computed by other
methods, and the discrepancy was accounted for on the basis of the decline
in numbers from the first white contact to 1855, the year of Heintzelman's
trip. At the end of his report he makes the statement that "south of the
Cañon of the Russian River there are about eight hundred indians." In other
words, the Southern Pomo (which all lie south of the canyon) had dwindled
to no more than 800. The converse may also be maintained. Since
Heintzelman had a very good check on the population of the well-settled
south and since, according to all known testimony, the attrition among the
Indians of this area had been appalling during the preceding 30 to 40 years,
it follows that the original population must have been very much greater
than that conceded by Heintzelman. Hence a level of several thousand may
be accepted.

Southern Pomo ... 6,000

NORTHEASTERN POMO

This little tribe, living on the border of the Sacramento Valley, has never
been investigated thoroughly. Barrett (1908) listed 13 rancherias but
Merriam's informants (manuscript entitled "Sho-te-ah or Northeastern
Pomo Tribe and Villages") allowed only 7. At 50 persons per village this
would indicate a population of about 350.

Northeastern Pomo ... 350

SUMMARY

The figures advanced here give the Pomo as a whole a population of 20,760
individuals. This is three times Kroeber's estimate but conforms to the
general level found in this review of the Northwest California tribes.

POMO TOTAL ... 20,760

THE COAST MIWOK

According to the maps shown by Barrett (1908) and by Kroeber (1925), the
Coast Miwok occupied an area of approximately 885 square miles in Marin
and southern Sonoma counties. A projection of the Pomo value of 8.0
persons per square mile would give 7,080 for the Coast Miwok, a result
which appears much too high.

A careful collection of former village sites through modern informants has
never been possible, even at the beginning of the present century, because
Marin County was infiltrated by the Spanish and the Indian life was thus
disrupted at a very early date. Indeed the first recognizable Coast Miwok
baptism was at San Francisco in 1783. Barrett and Kroeber have assembled,
to be sure mainly from the tradition handed down to informants by their
ancestors, a quite impressive list of villages. Barrett (1908, pp. 303-314)
gives 36, and Kroeber on his map (1925, p. 274) shows 42. If we arbitrarily
assigned a population of 100 each, we would have a total of approximately
4,000, probably somewhat too high a value. The difficulty is that we have
no clear means of gauging the size of the typical Coast Miwok village,
since no informants have been able to give a precise figure and since the
terrain occupied by this tribe is different from that held by the Pomo to the
north.

Even though the investigation of villages yields no very fruitful results, the
Mission records for the Coast Miwok provide a quite adequate solution of
the problem.

Unlike any other tribe north of San Francisco Bay the Coast Miwok were
thoroughly and completely brought into the missions. Beginning, as
indicated above in 1783, gentiles from the north shore were brought in
small numbers to the Mission Dolores for conversion. In 1817 San Rafael

was established, and within a few years the missionaries had made a clean
sweep to the coasts of the bay and the ocean and had begun to penetrate
north to the vicinity of Santa Rosa and Sebastopol. Meanwhile a
considerable number of converts had been taken to San Jose, and
subsequently some found their way to Sonoma. Fortunately we have the
baptism records, or their equivalent, of all these missions.

Identification of the Coast Miwok can be made in most of the records (1) by
the year and the location (e.g., the year 1817 at San Rafael); (2) by village
names identical with or similar to those listed by Barrett and by Kroeber;
(3) by linguistic affinities (such as the prefix echa- or the suffix -tamal);
and (4) by subsidiary notes in the records indicating geographical location.
Deleting all really doubtful cases we have the following numbers of
baptisms

San Francisco 896
San Rafael 916
Solano 48
San Jose 162

The total is 2,020 persons.

A baptism at any of the four missions constituted a net withdrawal of one
person from the native community, since all converts from the immediate
vicinity of the missions could be easily kept at the mission establishment or
could be recaptured without difficulty if they escaped. Hence the total
baptism number must very closely approximate the total population of the
area over a period of forty years. But the wild population was undoubtedly
decreasing owing to other causes from, say, 1790 to 1830. The presence of
the Spanish soldiers or missionaries always introduced diseases and caused
disruption of native society to such an extent that the death rate outran the
birth rate. Hence the new converts were being drawn from a diminishing
population.

Another factor is fugitivism. Intimate contact with the white man for a long
period taught the native what to expect in the missions and on the ranches.
Consequently there always was a fraction of the Indian community which
eluded the best efforts of the missionaries and which made good its escape
beyond the periphery of Spanish and Mexican influence. Many of these
natives never returned to their original homes. Still other sources of attrition
were the kidnaping of adults for labor on the ranches during the 1820's and
the promiscuous killing of all sexes and ages during the frequent armed
encounters between white men and red men.

Although for the Coast Miwok the above-mentioned causes of loss cannot
be assessed numerically with any approach to accuracy, nevertheless their
total effect must have been considerable. As a purely arbitrary but
essentially reasonable guess we may say that they produced a one-third
reduction in the net aboriginal population. Then, if the remaining two-thirds
was baptized, the initial value would have exceeded 3,000. This is twice the
figure selected by Kroeber (1925, p. 275) who says that "the Coast branch
may have numbered 1,500." Yet it is difficult to see how, with a total
baptism count of over 2,000, the aboriginal level could have been any lower
than 3,000.

COAST MIWOK ... 3,000

THE WAPPO AND THE LAKE MIWOK

These two ethnic groups are combined, together with the small corner of the
Wintun living in the lower Napa Valley, in order to complete this survey of
the area north of San Francisco Bay.

Direct area comparisons between the territory here concerned and that held
by the Pomo and the Coast Miwok can lead to only very tentative
conclusions. If we use the region delineated by Barrett (1908) on his large-
scale map, the peoples mentioned above occupied approximately 950
square miles of land surface. The density of population was reckoned for
the Pomo at 8.0 per square mile and that for the Coast Miwok, with a
population estimated at 3,000, comes to 3.4. The equivalent estimates for
the Wappo and Lake Miwok would be respectively 7,600 and 3,260. There
are no grounds for immediate decision whether either is too high or too low.
Consideration of the character of the terrain is not very helpful since the
Wappo-Lake Miwok habitat resembled that of the Pomo in some respects
and that of the Coast Miwok in others. We must therefore turn to other
devices.

In contrast to the Coast Miwok the Lake Miwok and the Wappo have been
the subjects of ethnographic studies of direct value to the population
problem, particularly those of Barrett (1908) and of Driver (1936). In
considering these data, and also those furnished by the mission records, it
will be desirable to split the region into six small areas along the lines
indicated by the map given by Kroeber in the Handbook (1925, pl. 27, opp.
p. 172). Hence we have (1) the Lake Miwok, (2) the Western Wappo, (3) the
Northern Wappo, (4) the Central Wappo, (5) the Southern Wappo, and (6)
the Wintun of Napa Valley. As a starting point we may select the Western
Wappo.

The names and the location of the villages differ widely as presented by the
three investigators of the area. The confusion is rendered even more
profound because Barrett in his terminology takes account of the Pomo
occupancy of Alexander Valley in the early years of the nineteenth century,
whereas Merriam and Driver ignore, not only the presence of the Pomo, but
also the names applied by them to settlements. On the other hand, Driver's
study is the most thorough of them all and for this reason alone may well
serve as the basis for consideration of population. Driver lists (1936, pp.
183-184) 10 places which he calls "permanent towns." Of these, one is
located outside Alexander Valley and hence may be disregarded; two are
cited as of "unknown" location and thus had better be disregarded also.
There remain seven, all of which Driver places on his map (p. 182). They
are set forth below, together with the names given by Merriam and Barrett
which cannot be reconciled with those of Driver.

Kotico-mota (Driver). Koticomota is mentioned by Barrett (1908. p. 271) as
having been taken from the Pomo by the Wappo and occupied by them.
Probably the largest town in Alexander Valley.

Nets-tul (Driver). This village is not mentioned by Barrett under this name,
although it is located near Barrett's Cimela and Koloko. Its existence,
however is confirmed by Merriam who calls it Net-tool.

Owotel-peti (Driver). This was located near the two preceding villages on
the east bank of the Russian River, in the vicinity of Barrett's Cimela and
Koloko. Driver mentions two summer camp sites, the people of which lived
here during the winter. Its status seems assured.

Pipo-holma (Driver). This was the northernmost village in the valley.
Barrett says (p. 271) this was an aboriginally Wappo town and took the lead
in the war with the Pomo.

Tsimitu-tso-noma (Driver). Driver says that this was a "small town" with no
sweathouse, and that the people sweated at Unutsawaholma. The name was
not known to either Barrett or Merriam and it is quite possible that it was a

summer camp, or a temporary site, or merely a suburb of one of the other
villages. Its existence as a permanent settlement is open to some doubt.

Unutsawa-holma-noma (Driver). This town also is not listed under the
given, or any similar, name by Barrett or by Merriam. However, in view of
the exhaustive study made of it by Driver its existence is indisputable. It
may be represented by the Cimela or Koloko of Barrett.

Osoyuk-eju (Driver). This is the only village shown by Driver as lying west
of the Russian River. Barrett gives no similar name but Driver reaffirms its
active existence by the mention of a summer camp site the people of which
lived in Osoyuk-eju in the winter.

Holko-mota (Driver). This is given by Driver as a camp site and probably is
identical with Holko-a-cho, which is called a rancheria by Merriam.
Driver's opinion is to be followed and the place should be regarded as a
summer camp.

Hut-mitul (Driver). A camp site.

Nuya-hotsa (Driver). A camp site.

Tcano-nayuk (Driver). A camp site.

Ts'awo-tul (Driver). A camp site.

Tico-mota (Driver). A camp site.

Halio-wahuk-holma (Driver). A camp site.

Walma-pesite (Driver). A camp site.

Ko-tish-hal (Merriam). Listed by Merriam as a rancheria, but we have no
further information concerning it.

Too-la-chil-le (Merriam). A rancheria, but no further information.

Cimela (Barrett). The Southern Pomo name is ossokowi. This village was
formerly occupied by the Pomo but the Wappo took possession after the
war. It undoubtedly corresponds to one of the villages placed by Driver at
approximately the same spot on the east bank of the Russian River.

Koloko (Barrett). This village was said to have been located near Cimela.
Regarding it the following quotation from Barrett is decisive (p. 272): "In
addition to these villages along Russian River which were occupied by the
Wappo, names of four other sites were obtained which, as far as can be
learned, were not occupied by the Wappo but were occupied by the
Southern Pomo before the Wappo took possession of this section, and for
which only Pomo names could be obtained." It is clear therefore that the
village as such had disappeared prior to the knowledge of Driver's
informants, if indeed these villages had ever been occupied by the Wappo.

Malalatcali (Barrett). See Koloko.

Acaben (Barrett). See Koloko.

Gaiyetcin (Barrett). See Koloko.

From this list there emerge six villages as certain. Driver's Koticomota,
Netstul, Owotelpeti, Pipoholma, Unutsawaholma, and Osoyukeju. Of these
Osoyukeju, on the west bank of the river, may be regarded as having
replaced Barrett's three villages, Malalatcali, Acaben, and Gaiyetcin, which
evidently did not survive Pomo occupancy. Driver and Barrett agree with
respect to Koticomota and Pipoholma. Netstul, Owotelpeti, and
Unutsawaholma may be considered to have replaced Cimela and Koloko.
The status of Tsimitutsonoma, as indicated above, is dubious, in spite of the
fact that Driver's informants gave it as a permanent town. In view of the
doubt it is better to omit it from consideration.

Directing our attention now to the six sure towns of Driver, we find in his
paper some very pertinent data with regard to their size and demographic

characteristics. The sizes and house numbers given on page 183 (Driver,
1936) are:

Koticomota: "large town"; 2 sweathouses.

Netstul: "large town"; 40 houses; 1 sweathouse.

Owotelpete: 40 houses; 1 sweathouse.

Pipoholma: 40 houses; 1 sweathouse.

Unutsawaholmanoma: 1 sweathouse; 11 houses in 1870; 17 houses
"formerly."

Osoyukeju: "small town"; 1 sweathouse.

Before discussing the house numbers in detail we should call attention to
Driver's analysis of the village Unutsawa-holma-noma. This analysis (1936,
pp. 201 ff.) he says is based upon "concrete genealogical census data of
about the year 1870." There can therefore be no argument concerning the
validity of the figures he presents. He found, in brief, that in this village
there were 11 houses, containing 21 families and 92 persons. The occupants
per house ranged from 4 to 21 with an average of 9, the families from 1 to 6
per house with an average of 2 (actually 1.91), and the persons per family
averaged 4.5 (actually 4.38).

When we examined Gifford's figures for the Clear Lake Pomo village of
Cigom we found 5.0 persons per family, 2.35 families per house, and 11.75
persons per house. The similarity between the two sets of values, derived by
different investigators independently, is clearly significant. Moreover, the
slightly smaller numbers discovered by Driver at Unutsawaholma are
explicable on the basis of the later date (1870) taken as the base line. At any
rate there can be no doubt that the two villages were remarkably alike in
composition of population.

In computing aboriginal population at Cigom and the surrounding country it
was pointed out that Gifford actually was dealing with a declining
population and that, if the aboriginal state were to be conceived properly,
his figures would have to be increased. For this reason the family number
was set at 7 instead of 5, which raised the number of persons per house to
16.45. Because of other evidence the latter value was reduced to 14.0.

For Driver's village the same considerations must apply. However, since the
family number was found to be 4.38, rather than 5.0 the aboriginal value
may be put at 6 instead of 7. Then, if the number of families per house is
1.91, the average persons per house would be 11.5, a figure which there is
no strong reason for changing. It now appears that, if Unutsawaholma
"formerly" had 17 houses, with 11.5 persons per house, the "former"
population would have been approximately 195, or in round numbers 200.

Returning the matter of houses, Driver says (p. 184) that his informants
"estimated" the number, but he thought the estimates were too high. (The
number for the village of Unutsawaholma was evidently known exactly.) I
think we have to concede Driver's point but we still do not know how great
was the exaggeration. We note that Unutsawaholma with 17 sure houses
"formerly" had 1 sweathouse but no designation "large" or "small." Of the
two "large towns" one had 2 sweathouses and the other had 1 sweathouse
and 40 ordinary houses. The same numbers were assigned to two other
villages but they were not called large or small. The one called "small" had
1 sweathouse. The village, therefore, with 1 sweathouse and 17 other
houses, but not designated either large or small, may be taken as
approximately intermediate. The small town may be assigned half this
number, or 8 houses. Those with 40 estimated houses, but not called large,
may be assigned 25 houses each. Netstul, a "large town" with 40 houses and
1 sweathouse, may be given 30 houses, and Koticomota, a "large town"
with 2 sweathouses, may be given 35 houses. This is a purely arbitrary
arrangement but it must come somewhere near fitting the facts.

On this basis we have six villages with a total of 140 houses and an average
of nearly 23. This would mean an aboriginal population of 1,610 persons. If

we were to admit no declining population in 1870 but if we allowed that
Unutsawaholma, with 17 houses, was of average size in aboriginal times,
the value would still be 1,010 for the population of Alexander Valley.

Driver states, in conjunction with his village list, "these certainly not all
inhabited at the same time." His opinion may be justified but he cites no
evidence in its support, and the circumstantial data brought out with respect
to each village separately does not indicate that discontinuance of habitation
occurred very long ago. It is true that Alexander Valley was the scene of a
minor intertribal war in the early years of the nineteenth century, as the
result of which the Pomo were driven out by the Wappo. In the confusion
there may have been some shifting of inhabitants and reconstitution of
villages, with the consequence that the population came to include both
racial elements. Nevertheless, the data presented by Driver imply a total
number of inhabitants, at one time, of fully 1,610. If Barrett's eighth village,
Tekenantsonoma, on Sulphur Creek, is allowed 70 inhabitants, the total is
raised to 1,680.

The Northern Wappo and the Lake Miwok form the next natural division. It
is preferable to treat these two groups together, and more or less in defiance
of strict tribal limits, because the precise boundary between the Wappo and
the Lake Miwok has never yet been determined to the entire satisfaction of
ethnographers and because the racial affiliation of certain villages is still
open to doubt. Bypassing the ethnographic problem, therefore, we may
consider the area south of Clear Lake, which includes the headwaters of
Putah Creek and upper Pope Valley. The region embraces a rough triangle,
the apices of which are the modern villages of Lower Lake, Pope Valley,
and Middletown.

The ethnographic sources consist of the works of Merriam, Barrett, and
Kroeber. Merriam covered what he considered to be the Lake Miwok in a
manuscript entitled "Tu-le-yo-mi Tribe List" and the pertinent Wappo
villages in a manuscript entitled "Yukean." Barrett (1908) devoted several
pages to the Wappo (pp. 274-278) and to the Lake Miwok (pp. 314-317).
Kroeber's discussion in the Handbook was based largely upon these

authorities but he later amplified his views in his paper (1932, pp. 366-369)
on "The Patwin and Their Neighbors." Since all three investigators have
contributed village lists, it will be necessary to examine them in detail.
Previously, however, one particular problem requires brief mention.

Within the area of the Lake Miwok and Northern Wappo there was once a
village or a pair of villages, the names and locations of which have been the
source of much controversy. Barrett (1908, p. 273) mentioned "loknoma,
from lok, goose, and noma, village, or lakah-yome ... at a point about three-
quarters of a mile northeast of Middletown...." Continuing the discussion at
some length, Barrett finally suggests the possibility that these people lived
on the Locollomillo Rancho in Pope Valley.

Kroeber (1932, p. 366) found an informant who distinguished between
Loknoma and Lakah-yomi as two separate towns, both near Middletown.
Kroeber remarks: "Apparently the two 'capitals' Lok-noma and Lakah-yomi
stood close together, while their territories stretched apart, a condition for
which there is precedent." On his general map (1932, back cover) he places
Lok-noma almost at Middletown in Northern Wappo territory and Lakah-
yomi just to the north in the realm of the Lake Miwok.

Meanwhile Merriam, in his "Tu-le-yo-mi Tribe List," specifies two
rancherias. One is called Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot and is in Pope Valley,
whereas the other, at Middletown, is Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot. Merriam,
furthermore, reinforces his distinction by citing numerous Spanish
synonyms which he collected from the mission records. Thus for Al-lok-yo-
me-po-goot he mentions Alacyomi, Aloquiomi, Alocyome, and Aloqui. For
Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot he gives Laoquiomi, Laoquio, Locollomillos,
Laknomah, Locnoma, and Locolomne. The presence or absence of the
initial letter a appears to have been the deciding criterion, according to
those who wrote in Spanish.

On the whole it is probable, as Kroeber concluded, that two towns are
involved. One undoubtedly was near Middletown. The other may have been
near by, as stated by Kroeber, or it may have been in Pope Valley, as

suggested by Merriam. Fortunately we are not called upon to make a
decision since, for population estimates, it becomes irrelevant where the
exact locations were. The evidence is adequate that there were in fact two
important villages, of very similar name, lying within the consolidated
territory of the Lake Miwok and the Northern Wappo.

We may now examine the village lists of Merriam, Barrett, and Kroeber. All
references to Kroeber are to his monograph of 1932.

Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam). Refer to preceding discussion.

Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam), Loknoma (Barrett). Refer to preceding
discussion.

Tu-le-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam). Tuleyome (Barrett), Tule-yomi (Kroeber).
This is widely known as the largest village of the Lake Miwok.

O-la-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam), Oleyome (Barrett), Ole-yomi (Kroeber).
This village is also known as having been large and important.

Wen-nok (Merriam), Guenoc (Barrett), Guenoc (Kroeber). Considerable
mystery surrounds this name, although it has been known and used for
nearly one hundred years. Barrett says that the Indians never employed the
name but that it referred to a subtribe, or group associated with the
Oleyome. Kroeber says that "it was admitted as a native name, but
untranslated." He thinks it may be identical with Wilok-yomi, a village
mentioned by his informant. Merriam says it was either (1) the name of a
lake the valley of which contained three rancherias or (2) on Oleyome band,
located 4 miles northeast of Middletown. In view of the wide divergence of
opinion the safest procedure is to consider the Guenoc as simply
constituting a portion of the Oleyome.

Kah-we-yo-me (Merriam), Kahweyome (Barrett), Kawi-yomi (Kroeber).
Merriam says the village was located on Cache Creek, as do Barrett and
Kroeber. Kroeber says: "My informant did not refer to the two sites
mentioned here by Barrett, Tsitsa-pukut and Kawi-yomi, and when asked

about the former replied that some of the Miwok had drifted there,
presumably in later years." If Kroeber's informant was correct, then both
Barrett's villages are postaboriginal and must be omitted from further
consideration.

Shoyome (Merriam), Coyome (Barrett), Kai-yomi-pukut (Kroeber). This
town is placed by all three authorities on Putah Creek, and hence is to be
distinguished clearly from the preceding town, Kah-we-yo-me. Furthermore
it was known to the pre-American Californians as Coyayomi, Joyayomi, or
Cauyomi. Its aboriginal existence seems established.

Pe-te-no-mah (Merriam), Petinoma (Barrett). This village is placed on
upper Putah Creek by both Merriam and Barrett; hence its existence is
probable.

Holilelemona (Merriam), Holilelenoma (Barrett). Barrett says this was a
camp site.

Koo-pa-choo (Merriam, MS "Yukean"), Kupetcu (Barrett). Barrett says this
was a camp site.

Uyuhanoma (Barrett). Yawi-yomi-pukut (Kroeber). Both authors place this
village near Middletown. Its existence is highly probable.

Hoo-koo-yo-me-po-koot (Merriam). Hukuyome or Siwiyome (Barrett).
Barrett says that this village was established in 1835 by survivors from
Oleyome. It is therefore not aboriginal.

Ka-bool-po-goot (Merriam). Kebulpukut (Barrett). Tubud or Tubul
(Kroeber). Existence highly probable since it is mentioned by three
investigators.

Kah-dah-yo-me (Merriam), Kadoi-yomi-pukut (Kroeber). Existence
probable.

Kil-le-yo-ke-po-koot (Merriam), Kilinyoke (Kroeber). Existence probable.

Lahl-mok-po-goot (Merriam), Lalmak-pukut (Kroeber). Existence probable.

Lu-pu-yo-me (Merriam). No details are given by Merriam but the existence
of the village is rendered very probable by the fact that 57 persons are
recorded as having been baptized at the mission of San Rafael from
Lupuyome. The village may have been destroyed in the process of
conversion and hence have been unknown to later informants.

Sahl-sahl-po-goot (Merriam), Shalshal-pukut (Kroeber). Existence
probable.

Sah-ti-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam). This village is mentioned by no other
investigator but there are recorded baptisms at Solano Mission from
Tsatiyome, which is undoubtedly the same name, hence its existence is
highly probable.

Tsit-sah-yome (Merriam), Tsitsapogut (Barrett), Tsitsa-pukut (Kroeber).
This village must be omitted because of the doubt cast by Kroeber's
informant. See Ka-we-yo-me.

Tso-ke-yo-me-po-goot (Merriam), Tsok-yomi-pokut (Kroeber). Existence
probable.

Tumistumis (Barrett), Tumistumis-pukut (Kroeber). Existence probable.

Wo-de-di-tep-pe-po-goot (Merriam), Wodidaitepi (Kroeber). Existence
probable.

Al-lok-ko-boo-je (Merriam only). Existence possible.

Al-lok-woo-boo-te (Merriam only). Existence possible.

Haw-hawl-po-goot (Merriam only). Existence possible.

Hol-wah-poo-koot (Merriam only). Existence possible.

Oo-yoo-hah-no-mah (Merriam only). Existence possible.

Kalau-yomi (Kroeber only). Existence possible.

Kitsin-pukut (Kroeber only). Existence possible.

Shanak-yomi-pukut (Kroeber only). Existence possible.

Tsukeliwa-pukut (Kroeber only). Existence possible.

Reviewing the above compilation, we find four villages the existence, size,
and importance of which are beyond reasonable doubt. There are five the
names of which were known to the informants of all three ethnographers, or
can be found in the mission records. Hence their existence can be accepted
without serious question. Eight others were located by two, but not three,
ethnographers. The probability of their actual, aboriginal existence is not
high but on the other hand there is no clear reason for excluding them. Four
can be omitted from further consideration on the ground that they were
camp sites or were founded after 1850. Nine are reported by only one
investigator, and therefore all confirmation of their status is lacking. It is
quite unlikely that each of these was a permanent aboriginal village. On the
other hand, the fact that even one informant remembered the name is
presumptive evidence for existence of some sort. As a purely empirical
device, in order to settle the matter, let us assume that each of the nine
names represents a small village of 20 inhabitants.

With respect to the size of the villages we suffer from a complete lack of
any direct information. By comparison with the rancherias around Clear
Lake and in Alexander Valley we could consider that the four large towns
contained 200 persons apiece. The five highly probable villages are likely to
have been larger than many others, and may have contained 100 each. To
the eight reasonably sure, but by no means certain, places we may ascribe
50 persons each. The nine doubtful ones can certainly be covered by a total
of 200. The aggregate, then, is 1,900.

In default of further ethnographic help we must fall back on mission data.
In the records of San Francisco, Solano, and San Rafael it is possible to find
baptisms assigned to the following recognized villages: Coyome, Loknoma

(Lah-ki-yo-me-po-goot), Aloquiomi (Al-lok-yo-me-po-goot), Oleyome,
Tuleyome, and Lupuyome. These names are no doubt more or less generic
in character in that the missionaries were using them to apply to the larger
villages or even subtribes. We would not expect them to conform in detail
to any of the lists supplied by modern ethnographers. The total baptism
number may, however, be taken as covering the area as a whole.

The Lake Miwok (together with the Clear Lake Pomo) and the Northern
Wappo were the most remote people, north of the Bay, who were reached
for conversion prior to the secularization of the missions. All activity in this
area was confined to the period 1824-1834, and was carried on by necessity
through well organized, semimilitary, semireligious expeditions. Owing to
unavoidable obstacles it was possible to get physical possession of and
bring back to the missions only a small proportion of the potential converts.
The exact value of this proportion can never be known, and indeed it
undoubtedly varied widely from place to place. A similar question arose in
connection with a previous study of the population of the San Joaquin
Valley. For the latter area the conditions were postulated that the site of
native residence was several score miles from the nearest mission, that a
formally organized expedition had to be undertaken, and that there was able
and determined opposition to missionization on the part of the natives.
Under such circumstances it was concluded on the basis of evidence
available that a fair approximation to the proportion of natives actually
baptized was 15 per cent of the existing population. In most respects the
situation south and southeast of Clear Lake was very similar to that
obtaining in the lower San Joaquin Valley and the delta region. Hence the
indicated baptism factor may be employed here.

For the six major subdivisions mentioned above the total baptisms at Solano
and San Rafael were 264. If this number represents 15 per cent, the
population was 1,760, a value not basically different from the arbitrary
figure derived from the village lists. An intermediate estimate, 1,800, will
be taken for the population of the Lake Miwok and Northern Wappo.

For the Central Wappo there is a paucity of ethnographic data. Furthermore
the territory itself is very circumscribed, since Pope Valley has been
allocated for present purposes to the Northern Wappo and embraces little
more than the flat land within a radius of a few miles from the modern town
of Calistoga. Merriam cites only one name (in the manuscript entitled
"Yukean"), viz., Mi-yahk-ma. Barrett (1908, p. 269) gives Maiyakma,
together with Nilektsonoma and Tselmenan, which were close by. In
addition he lists Mitustul, five miles to the west of Calistoga. It seems likely
that we have here a single small division, or tribelet, with the "capital" at
Maiyakma and with three smaller, peripheral villages. If we use the same
population estimates as we did farther north, we may ascribe 200 persons to
Maiyakma and 100 each to the others, making 500 in all.

The mission records supply two items of interest. The first is a note from
Sonoma that there were baptized 103 persons from Mayacma "ó
Tamalsimas." The latter name is probably a corruption of the term written
by Barrett as Tselmenan, and indicates that this village was then in
existence. The other item is from San Rafael which reported 9 baptisms
from Teluasuenhuca "ó Tamalsimela." The total then is 112.

The baptism factor of 15 per cent cannot be used here with confidence
because the upper Napa Valley was much more accessible to the San Rafael
Mission and particularly the Sonoma Mission than was the area around and
above Middletown. At the same time the distance and difficulty of approach
were somewhat greater than in the case of the lower Russian River Valley
near Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, for which the baptism factor was taken as
one-third. As a compromise we may take a factor of one-quarter, or 25 per
cent. This yields an estimated population of 450, a figure which appears not
unreasonable.

For the Southern Wappo Merriam mentions Guiluc (MS "Yukean") and
Kaimus. The latter is very well known and is discussed by Barrett (1908, p.
268). The former is in territory which was disputed between the Pomo and
the Wappo and may be either wilikos (Wappo) or Wilok (Pomo)—see
Barrett's treatment on page 269 of the Ethnogeography (1908). For present

purposes it may be considered as Wappo since it was excluded from the
Pomo in computing the population of the latter group. Merriam cites no
other names, but Barrett gives Annakotonoma and Tsemanoma among the
Southern Wappo (1908, p. 269) and Tcimenukme, Tuluka, and Suskol as
Wintun villages at the mouth of Napa River. Annakotonoma was known to
the missionaries as Callajomanos (and variants), Guiluc as such, and
Kaimus as Caymus (and variants). The three Wintun villages have left no
trace whatever in the mission records under Barrett's names or any
recognizable variants. This is rather surprising, since the area was
thoroughly converted by the missionaries at San Rafael and at Sonoma.
Very likely the baptisms are in the record but under designations (and there
are many) which do not permit the allocation to a specific tribe or village.
On the other hand, the area itself is probably included in the appellation
"Napa" which appears to have covered the entire region from the present
city of Napa to the shore of the Bay.

The sum of the recorded baptisms from Caymus, Guiluc, Callajomanos, and
Napa is 331. A baptism factor of 25 per cent cannot be employed because
the territory of these groups was very close to the Sonoma Mission, and
from numerous accounts by contemporary writers we know that
missionization was nearly complete. A factor of 50 per cent would give a
probable population of 662 and one of 75 per cent a population of 442. Both
values are evidently too low.

The final resource from which we may seek information is provided by the
accounts of the early American settlers. Chief of these is George Yount,
who entered Napa Valley in 1831 and took up a grant of land near the
present town of Yountville. Yount seems to have been a sober and reliable
citizen, and one who was accorded the respect of his fellow pioneers. His
story consists of a series of verbal recollections which were written down in
manuscript form by a friend, the Rev. Orange Clark, who visited his ranch
in 1851. The Clark manuscript, together with other material, has been
secured and published by Professor Charles L. Camp (1923).

Yount seems to have discoursed at length on the local Indians (1923, p. 55).
His description of the tribes follows (I have omitted the explanatory
parentheses inserted by Camp).

"Within a distance of no more than One Hundred miles in length & twenty
in width, including the Napa Valley, were five distinct nations, no one of
which could converse together ... without an interpreter ... The names of
these five nations were as follows—The Napa, the Ouluke, Caymus,
Conahomanes & Miacamus, the last named tribe inhabited the region of the
Hot Springs of that valley...."

Four of these names are clear. The fifth, Ouluke, is very probably Tuluka of
Barrett. Since these five groups are sharply defined by the Napa Valley and
since Yount obviously was talking about that area, his size estimate was
excessive. He says 100 miles by 20, whereas the valley actually is about 40
miles in length from the Bay to Mt. St. Helena and perhaps on the average
15 miles in width, from the crest of one range across to the other.

With regard to numbers Yount says (1923, p. 56):

"It is not yet eight years [evidently referring to the year 1843] since the
above named valley swarmed with not less than eight thousand human
beings, of whom there are not now [1851] left as many hundreds.... The
poor remnants of all the five tribes above named now mingle & wander up
and down the valley promiscuously together...."

There is also an account of the destruction of the Caymus (1923, p. 59). A
great many, if not most of them, were killed by being burnt in a sweathouse.
The guilty parties were stated to be two Indians from San Rafael, but the
motives were obscure. This event occurred some time during the later days
of Yount's tenure, for, continues the manuscript, "at a period long previous
to the tragical event above related, Yount embarked in erecting a small flour
mill...."

Although Alexander Taylor, in his Indianology, mentions some of the
subtribes of the Wappo, he gives no useful population data. On the other
hand, John S. Hittell talked about the Napa Valley Indians in an article in
the Hesperian Magazine entitled Notes on Napa Valley (1860, p. 55). He
gives the same tribes, or subtribes, as were mentioned by Yount in the
manuscript edited by Camp. These were the Mayacomas, the Callajomanas,
the Caymus, the Napa Indians, the Soscol, and the Ulacas. He then adds the
following:

Their rancherias were numerous throughout the length of the valley.... It is
not known how many of these Indians there were, no census having been
taken nor any careful estimate having been made, at the time, by anybody.
Mr. Yount thinks their number was not less than three thousand, and
possibly twice as many. It would have been an easy matter to collect a
thousand warriors in those times.

Shortly afterward C. A. Menefee (1873) wrote a history of Napa and
adjacent counties, using Hittell and Alexander Taylor as his only written
authorities. No historical scholar in the professional sense, Menefee
nevertheless devoted a full chapter to the Napa Valley Indians, and gives
evidence of having undertaken to secure such information as he could from
local residents. His statements are not sensational and appear within
reasonable limits to be reliable.

He lists the six tribes exactly as does Hittell. He expands on Hittell's
quotation from Yount thus (1873, p. 19): Yount said that "in round numbers
there were from 10,000 to 12,000 Indians ranging the country between
Napa and Clear Lake. Of this number he [Yount] says there were at least
3,000 in Napa County, and perhaps twice that number." At one point
Menefee comments (1873, p. 18): "No estimate of their [Indians'] numbers
appears to have been made until 1823, and it was known that they had then
greatly decreased."

Menefee's principal contribution, however, is a rough computation of the
surviving Indian population in 1843. This estimate occurs nowhere else to

my knowledge, and I think was no doubt secured by Menefee through
personal interviews with early settlers. He says (1873, p. 18) that there were
50 to 100 Indians on the Bale rancho, 400 at Caymus rancho, 600 at
Salvador rancho, a "large number" at Soscol. Amplifying this count, he
says: "It was the custom of the Indians to establish their rancherias upon the
grants of the early settlers, in order to gain a livelihood by occasional
labor." Also: "These were in some sense permanently fixed and residing
constantly in one place. Besides these there were thousands of nomads, who
roamed the valleys and mountains...."

Menefee also describes the destruction of an Indian community, the
Callajomanas. This time it was a group of white ranchers from Sonoma
Valley who became incensed at stock depredations, came to the village, and
slaughtered 300 Indians—according to Menefee—as they emerged from a
sweathouse. Whether this tale is confused with the account of Yount on the
Caymus tragedy is difficult to say. The circumstances and the number of
Indians involved may well be garbled, but that some such incident took
place is highly probable.

If we now confine the area in question to Napa Valley, as all these persons
clearly intended, we are dealing with the Central Wappo, the Southern
Wappo, and the Wintun on Napa River. The best guess from the mission
records for the population is about 1,800. To allow an area of 15 by 40
square miles and the maximum Pomo density of 8 persons per square mile
would yield a population of 4,800. Yount said, according to Clark, as
transmitted by Camp (1923, p. 56), that the valley "swarmed" with not less
than 8,000 people in 1843. Yount, by way of Hittell and Menefee (1873, p.
19), put 10,000 to 12,000 from Napa to Clear Lake and 3,000 or "perhaps
twice that number" in Napa Valley alone. It is clear that Yount was not a
very accurate reporter and in default of actual knowledge made a broad
guess. Yet I doubt greatly if Yount would have put the number in thousands
—no matter how many—if there had actually been only a few hundred or a
few score Indians in the country at the time of his arrival. The presence of a
number approximating his low guess, 3,000, is not out of line with
probability.

Let us turn to Menefee. His figures for 1843 were organized according to
ranches. Furthermore let it be noted that, according to his explicit statement,
the aboriginal village organization had broken down utterly, and the Indians
were living in new places in conformity with new economic and social
requirements. No wonder modern informants frequently cannot look past
the period of upheaval and give us a clear picture of untouched aboriginal
life before the white man came!

Regarding the accuracy of the figures, specifically the three items for which
literal numbers are given, it can be said again, as was pointed out with
reference to J. B. R. Cooper, that a ranch owner should have known roughly
how many Indians were living in his own back yard. If we refuse to accept
these estimates, then we had better be prepared to reject most historical
testimony. We may then base our calculation on 75 Indians for the Bale
ranch, 400 for the Caymus ranch, and 600 for the Salvador ranch. The
Juarez and the Higuera ranches contained a "large number." Since the
largest number actually given is 600, we may with safety consider that 300
would represent a "large number." A "still larger number" could reasonably
be 400. The total then becomes 2,075. Menefee, however, is careful to state
that this included only the Indians who were "in some sense" permanently
located, and puts the unattached number in the "thousands." The latter can
of course be scaled down drastically. Hundreds would be a good substitute,
with a possible total of one thousand. The outcome then is that the Indian
population of Napa Valley as a whole in 1843 was about 3,000, or identical
with Yount's minimum estimate.

What was, now, the population aboriginally? The mission baptisms are of
no use to us since the Indians in 1843 included most of the ex-neophytes in
the area. That there had already been a profound reduction at that time is
unquestioned. The north shore of the Bay had been subject to military,
clerical, and civilian incursion since the beginning of the century. Lethal
epidemics had swept over the country repeatedly. Massacre and slaughter
had been the rule rather than the exception. Indeed, the open valley through
Sonoma and Napa up to Calistoga had suffered more seriously than any
other area except perhaps the delta of the Sacramento River. A population

reduction from the aboriginal level by one-third prior to 1843 would not be
out of line with the apparent facts.

The estimates for the period 1840-1845 derived from Yount, Hittell, and
Menefee included the Central Wappo with the more southern groups. For
the Central Wappo the ethnographic sources and the mission records
indicated an aboriginal population of 450 or 500. However, it is probably
advisable to disregard this small division as a separate entity and include it
with the remaining Wappo and the Suscol Wintun. If we then take Yount's
minimum estimate of 3,000 for the Napa Valley south of Mt. St. Helena and
if we assume a one-third decrease in numbers from aboriginal times to
1843, the final estimate for the area becomes 4,500.

The figure just derived is of course considerably greater than would be
indicated by either the ethnographic village lists or the mission baptism
records, but it must be conceded that the two last methods of approach are
inadequate for the situation existing in the Napa Valley. On the other hand
for a population of 4,500 and an area of 600 square miles, the density would
be 7.5 persons per square mile, or very close to the value arrived at for the
near-by Pomo.

We have found by ethnographic derivation 1,680 persons for the Western
Wappo and 1,800 for the Northern Wappo and Lake Miwok together. Thus
the total for the Lake Miwok, the Wappo, and the Suscol Wintun as a whole
becomes approximately 8,000.

WAPPO, LAKE MIWOK, AND NAPA VALLEY WINTUN ... 8,000

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES

For convenience of reference the population estimates presented in the
foregoing text are tabulated as follows:

Yurok 3,100
Wiyot 3,300
Karok 2,700
Hupa 2,000
Tolowa 2,400
Athapascans
Chilula 800
Mattole 1,200
Whilkut 1,300
Kato 1,100
Lassik 1,500
Nongatl 3,300
Sinkyone 2,900
Wailaki 3,350
Total 15,450
Yuki
Coast Yuki 750
Yuki proper 6,880
Huchnom 2,100
Total 9,730
Pomo
Clear Lake Pomo 3,150
Northern Pomo 5,040

Central and Southwestern Pomo 6,220
Southern Pomo 6,000
Northeastern Pomo 350
Total 20,760
Coast Miwok 3,000
Wappo, Lake Miwok, Napa Valley Wintun 8,000
GRAND TOTAL 70,440

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations

AA American Anthropologist, Menasha, Wis.
Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution,
BAE-B
Bulletin
UC University of California Publications, Berkeley and Los Angeles
–AR Anthropological Records
–IA Ibero-Americana
–
American Archaeology and Ethnology
PAAE

Barrett, S. A.

1908. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians.
UC-PAAE, Vol. 6.

Bledsoe, A. J.

1885. Indian Wars of the Northwest. San Francisco.

California, State of

1860. Majority and Minority Reports of the Special Joint Committee on
the Mendocino War. Appendix to Journals of the Assembly of the
Eleventh Session of the California Legislature, 1860.

Camp, C. L.

1923. The Chronicles of George C. Yount. In Calif. Hist. Soc. Quarterly,
2: 3-66.

Cook, S. F.

1943. The Conflict Between the California Indian and White
Civilization: I. UC-IA No. 21.

Driver, H. E.

1936. Wappo Ethnography. UC-PAAE 36: 179-220.

Drucker, Philip.

1937. The Tolowa and Their Southwest Oregon Kin. UC-PAAE 36:
221-300.

Foster, G. M.

1944. A Summary of Yuki Culture. UC-AR 5: 155-244.

Gibbs, George.

1860. Journal of the Expedition of Colonel Redick M'Kee ... in 1851. In
Henry R. Schoolcraft, Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge, 3: 99-
177.

Gifford, E. W.

1923. Pomo Lands on Clear Lake. UC-PAAE 20: 77-92.
1926. Clear Lake Pomo Society. UC-PAAE 18: 287-390.
1939. The Coast Yuki. Anthropos, 34: 292-375.

Gifford, E. W., and A. L. Kroeber

1937. Culture Element Distributions: Pomo. UC-PAAE 37: 117-254.

Goddard, P. E.

1903. The Life and Culture of the Hupa. UC-PAAE 1: 1-88.

1914. Notes on the Chilula Indians of Northwestern California. UC-
PAAE 10: 265-288.
1923. The Habitat of the Wailaki. UC-PAAE 20: 95-112.
1924. The Habitat of the Pitch Indians, a Wailaki Division. UC-PAAE
17: 217-225.

Heintzelman, H. P.

1855. Report dated San Francisco, Nov. 17, 1855. Original in U.S.
National Archive, Office of Indian Affairs, Record Group no. 75,
Letters Received, California, 1855. Enclosure to Doc. no. H 1100.

Hittell, J. S.

1860. Notes on Napa Valley. In the Hesperian Magazine. 4: 53-61.

Kniffen, F. B.

1939. Pomo Geography. UC-PAAE 36: 353-400.

Kroeber, Alfred L.

1925. Handbook of the Indians of California, BAE-B 78, Washington,
D.C.
1932. The Patwin and Their Neighbors. UC-PAAE 29: 253-423.
1936. Karok Towns. UC-PAAE 35: 29-38.

Loud, L. L.

1918. Ethnogeography and Archaeology of the Wiyot Territory. UC-
PAAE 14: 221-436.

Menefee, C. A.

1873. Historical and Descriptive Sketch Book of Napa, Sonoma, Lake
and Mendocino ... Reporter Publishing House, Napa City, Calif.

Merriam, C. Hart.

Dates uncertain. Village Lists. Manuscripts in the possession of
the Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley.
After the decease of the late C. Hart Merriam his heirs generously
made available to the Department of Anthropology of the
University of California, Berkeley, a large and valuable collection
of Dr. Merriam's notes on California Indians. Among these papers
are to be found complete and very carefully recorded lists of
villages for most of the California tribes, drawn not only from
published sources but also from original information secured
from informants on the scene. Much material, otherwise
unavailable, has thus been secured. These documents are referred
to in this text simply as the Village Lists of C. Hart Merriam or
are cited by Merriam's own manuscript title. They are undated
and a formal bibliographical reference in most cases cannot be
given.
1905. The Indian Population of California. AA 7: 594-606.

M'Kee, John.

1853. Minutes Kept by John M'Kee, Secretary on the Expedition from
Sonoma, through Northern California. 33rd Cong. spec. sess. Sen.
Ex. Doc. no. 4, pp. 134-180.

Nomland, G. A.

1935. Sinkyone Notes. UC-PAAE 36: 149-178.
1938. Bear River Ethnography. UC-AR 2: 91-126.

Nomland, G. A., and A. L. Kroeber

1936. Wiyot Towns. UC-PAAE 35: 39-48.

Palmer, L. L.

1881. History of Napa and Lake Counties. Slocum, Bowen and Co., San
Francisco.

Powers, S.

1877. Tribes of California. Contributions to North American Ethnology,
Vol. 3.

Stewart, O. C.

1943. Notes on Pomo Ethnogeography. UC-PAAE 40: 29-62.

Taylor, A. S.

1860- The Indianology of California.
1863.
Published as a series of articles by the California Farmer. The
entire series has been clipped and pasted in a bound volume
available at the Bancroft Library, Berkeley.

Waterman, T. T.

1920. Yurok Geography. UC-PAAE 16: 177-314.
1925. Village Sites in Tolowa and Neighboring Areas of Northwestern
California. AA 27: 528-543.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF
CALIFORNIA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with
this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in
the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country
where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project

Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to

you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the

efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment

including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a

copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.