The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California Part 5

_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 G.o.ddard (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 G.o.ddard 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 G.o.ddard. Village no. 8, Totltsasding, is stated by Kroeber to have been "unoccupied in 1850." G.o.ddard 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 a.s.sured. 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 G.o.ddard, 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 G.o.ddard's map. The former give a total count for these towns of 82 houses, whereas G.o.ddard shows 78. The Yurok census and Gibbs's map were formulated in 1851 and 1852 immediately after the advent of the whites.

G.o.ddard presumably derived his data from informants in or about the year 1900. From the two sets of figures it is clear that G.o.ddard's cannot be too high and therefore those he gives for villages not covered by the earlier sources must be reasonably reliable. G.o.ddard'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.

Pa.s.sing 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 a.s.signs 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 G.o.ddard'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. G.o.ddard 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 kins.h.i.+p, but the _immediately controlling factor is the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sumption 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. G.o.ddard'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 s.e.xes: 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 s.e.x 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), G.o.ddard (Go), Gibbs (Gi), and Merriam (M).

The numbering is purely arbitrary and is based on Kroeber's list. The house counts are from G.o.ddard'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 G.o.ddard's Gibb's by No. and Name census map map estimate

1. Honsading: K, M, Go, Gi 9 11 9 2. Dakis-hankut: K, Go 7 3. Kinchuwikut: K, M, Go 8 4. Cheindekotding: K, M, Go 12 5. Miskut: K, M, Go, Gi 6 11 6 6. Takimitlding: K, M, Go, Gi 20 14 20 7. Tsewenalding: K, M, Go, Gi 10 6 10 8. Totltsasding: K, M, Go 8 9. Medilding: K, M, Go, Gi 28 23 28 10. Djishtangading: K, M, Go, Gi 13 9 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, M } 3 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. Klok.u.mne: 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. .h.i.therto 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 a.s.sume 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 G.o.ddard (1910), who lists 18 but gives no house counts.[1] Merriam, who re-examined G.o.ddard's report likewise finds 18 sure villages plus 21 summer camps and 2 places of indeterminate character.

[1] Since completion of this ma.n.u.script, Mr. Martin R. Baumhoff of the Department of Anthropology has discovered village lists filed many years ago by Pliny E. G.o.ddard, which cover Athapascan territory in addition to that held by the Wailaki. Mr. Baumhoff is now a.n.a.lyzing the new data and his results will probably necessitate an upward revision of the population figures given here.

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 ma.n.u.script ent.i.tled "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_