The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California Part 4

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 ma.s.sacre 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 a.s.signed 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_ _Serial_ _of house_ _Final_ _No._ _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 ident.i.ty 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 a.s.sign 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, a.s.sign 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.