Part 12

There are two words for good: Chung-whoom for a good or kind person; and Noo-wh[=o]m for a good thing or object. A bad person is To choong-k[=o]m, "not good person"; while a thing that is not good is To noo^{ch}-k[=o]m, "not good thing."

Chin-tahs, "slow", is said to mean also "heavy"; but the word given me for heavy is Nit-tahs´.

The word Ho´-chit, meaning real or genuine, occurs frequently: Thus, deerskin tanned with the hair on is called Ho´-chit te, te being any blanket or toga. Similarly, the ordinary woman's apron made of pine nuts and braided grass is Ho´-che ke´-ah; the woman's hat, H[=o]-che k[=o]s´-tahn, or real hat; moccasins, Hoch y[=a]´-che-tahl; the bow, H[=o]-ch[)e] tsitch-ting; the stone arrow-point, H[=o]-ch[)e] tin-ti; Indian or wild tobacco, H[=o]-che Min´-t[=a]-itch´-wah; the elkhorn box or purse for valuables H[=o]´-che kin´-chah.

The Hoopah say that their people did not use the nose-bone or nose-stick, but had a name for it, which is Hun-choo whang-i. They say these were worn by the Indians farther north.

The women tattooed the chin, usually in three broad vertical bands similar to those of the Klamath River tribes. Tattoo marks are called Wil´-tahch´.

Place names: All place names along the rivers were at one time the sites of villages or rancherias. The village always takes the name of the place.

The name for house is H[=o]n´-tah or Hun´-tow; the ceremonial house, M[=a]´-min sin-til; the sweathouse, Tah´-'keo; the menstrual lodge, Mintch'; the brush wickiup, M[=a]´-nah-si; the brush blind or hut for concealing the hunter Kew´-wong wil´-min.

They say that they never burned the dead, but buried them in graves dug exactly knee-deep by measure. The grave was called Hot-yung ho-sin. The body was fastened to a slab of wood of the proper length, and when laid in the grave was covered with the belongings of the dead person and then with earth.

While they do not burn the bodies, they burn clothing and other belongings. But the Chemareko of Hyampom burn their dead.

They believed in an evil spirit or Devil called Kit-tung´ hwoi.

A peculiar custom was practised in extending a certain courtesy to an enemy who wanted to cross the river but had no boat. If a person having a canoe crossed the river, and his personal enemy found the canoe, he would go and sit down near it and await the return of the owner. When the owner came, he would back out into the stream and then push the bow ashore at the nearest point to his enemy, and the enemy would step in and sit down, neither speaking a word. The owner would then paddle across the stream to his own side, and the enemy would jump out and proceed without remark.

There were two kinds of doctors: the real doctor or shaman, sometimes known as "dance doctor," called Kit-ta tow, and the medicine doctor, who never danced, called Kim-mow-chil^{ch}-weh.

Gambling Game: the common gambling game, Ke-now-we, was played with a bunch of slender sticks 7 or 8 inches long, called Hol-che-king. One of these, Hung ("ace" or "lucky stick"), has a black band around the middle. The game consists in guessing in which hand the opponent holds the marked stick. There are eleven points or guesses. One stick is given up at each wrong guess.

Small hailstones are called Klew-hahn min-nah from Klew-hahn, "an eel," and min-nah, "eyes," from the resemblance of small hailstones to the white eyes of the eel. Big hailstones are Ke´-lo-ung-hot.

An earthquake is Nin mah-ah tin-n[)i]^{ch}-chwit, meaning "turns over on edge of world."

Money: The unit of value, which we call "money," consisted of the valuable kind of dentalium shells, long specimens of which reached from the base of the finger to the base of the terminal joint. This was called Ho´-che naht-te-ow or "real money." Small or broken dentalium shells, from half an inch to an inch in length, were called Mit-tatch, and were used for beads.

Scalps of the great pileated woodpecker or cock-of-the-woods (_Ceophlaeus pileatus_), called Kis^{l}-t[=a]-ke-'keo, also passed as money.

_Names of mammals and birds._--The Grizzly Bear had two names: M[)e]-ch[=a]-e-sahn and Me-kwo ah.

The Mountain Lion or Cougar is called Min´-ning m[)i]^{ch} 'hl[=a]-til-loo, meaning "kills with his face."

They speak of a spotted Panther of large size called Kit-sah´, which has not been seen for a number of years. It used to make a great noise.

They speak also of a Water Panther (mythical) called Ho-tsi´-tow, said to live in holes close to the water of lakes and pools, never in rivers or on land. Its head and shoulders were heavy and covered with long shaggy hair, but the hinder parts were nearly naked.

The Otter is called 'Kl[=o]k-e-te-til-le, meaning "he likes salmon."

The Weasel--and this is particularly interesting--is called Klew^{ch}-m[)u]-hung, meaning "snake's husband"--a term doubtless suggested by its snake-like form and actions.

The Mole is called Min-ni´ [)e]-ting, meaning "eyeless"; the Bat Haht-la nah-mut, "night flyer."

The Porcupine is 'K'yo. Its quills, usually dyed yellow, were used to ornament basket hats; and also to pierce the ears for earrings. When a quill was stuck lightly into the lobe of the ear, it would slowly work its way through.

The common gray Ground Squirrel (_Citellus beecheyi_) is called Ts[)e] 'ket-yahng-a, meaning "rock sitting on."

The Jack Rabbit, oddly enough, is called Nah^{ch}-ah-tah 'hits-'hlah-hahn, meaning "dry ground deer."

_A Hupa ceremonial gray fox skin._--The skin was _cased_ (opened along the hind legs, the belly not slit lengthwise). The front feet had been cut off but the skin of each leg was slit in six or seven strands or narrow ribbons about three inches long.

The skin had been turned inside out and decorated in places; then turned and left with fur outside. The skin of the hind legs was painted deep red. The tail also had been slit open on the underside and the skin painted with the same red paint, and a tuft of pure white feathers four inches long was sewed to its tip.

The most surprising marking was a double ring or belt band of red and blue painted around the inside of the skin about two inches above the base of the tail (and therefore hidden when the skin was fur-side out). The two bands, each about half an inch wide, were in actual contact all the way around--the anterior one deep red, the posterior deep blue.

The skin itself is of interest as being unmistakably the dark northwest form of the species _Urocyon cinereoargenteus_. The upper parts are very dark grizzled; the dorsal stripe from neck to tip of tail is almost pure black and the tail is about an inch broad. The flanks, inner-sides of legs, and undersides of tail are fulvous, palest on the belly. The specimen is an adult male.

_Sayings about birds._--Dove (_Zenaidura_). Called Mi-yo. Mi-yo, the Dove, was a great gambler. He always gambled all winter. Once when gambling someone told him that his grandmother was dead. He said there would be plenty of time to cry next summer. So he kept on playing. When summer came he cried for his grandmother. And every summer we hear him crying for his grandmother.

Hummingbird. Called Ko-sos. Ko-sos, the Hummingbird, was a war bird. His bill was like a long needle. With it he pierced his enemies. Once he told another bird to start from one end of the world and he would start from the other. They did this and met in the middle where they danced.

_Notes on adjacent tribes._--Yin´-nah´-chin ("South People," Chemar´eko). Extended from Hyampom northerly to Cedar Flat, easterly along main Trinity to Canyon Creek; and northerly between the high mountains that form the divide between French Creek and North Fork Trinity River on the west to Canyon Creek on the east, as far north as Rattlesnake Creek. (Previously learned from the Nor´-rel-muk of Hay Fork, a Wintoon Tribe, that the dividing line on the west between themselves and the Chemareko, called by them Hyembos, lay along Minor Creek.) Language wholly different from Hoopah. The Hoopah say that the presence of this tribe on Trinity River west of Cedar Bar, and on lower New River, is a comparatively recent intrusion.

Klo´-m[)e]-tah´-wha ... Salmon River Indians. Ranges south over summit to Grizzly Creek and headwaters New River. Language wholly different.

Ho-ning wil-tatch (meaning "tattooed faces") ... "Yuke" of Covelo region. Round Valley. Also called Devils, Kit-tung-whoi--a name applied to the First People, who finally turned into animals. Language wholly different.

_Geography._--There used to be a great fall in Trinity River at a huge rock which stood in the middle of the river at Burnt Ranch. Below the fall was a big pool and eddy, which at the proper season was full of salmon. Everybody came here to catch salmon.

Indians from several tribes met here and feasted and had a "big time." Finally a terrible earth slide came down the side of the canyon and moved the rock away. This destroyed the falls.

This occurred during the boyhood of my informant. He tells me that besides the Hoopah the Indians who used to visit the pool below the falls for salmon were Poliklah from Wetchpek on Klamath River, 'Hwilkut from Redwood Creek, and Chemareko from Hyampom. They used to camp a little below the falls.

_Hoopa Geographic Names_

Hoopa V. Nah-tin-noo Main Trinity R. Hahn Trinity R. "up and down" Hahn-nuk-ki Bull Cr. Mis-tes-se ah-tung ("sliding place") Mill Cr. Mis-kut e-ta-e-tuk ne-lin-na-kah (correct name) and Tsol-tsah muk-kah (nickname from rock with female mark) Socktish Cr. Chan-ta-kot ne-lin-na-kah Hostler Cr. Tsa-mit-tah ("between two rocks") Site of present settlement Toos-kahts-tung-kah in Hoopa V. Campbell Cr. Tish-tah-ah-tung mu-mahn-chung ne-lin-nuk-kah Tish Tang A Tang Cr. Tish-tahn-ah-tung ne-lin-nuk-kah Horse Linto Cr. Hahs-lin-nak-kak Raccoon Cr. Se^{ch}-ki-uk-kah ("white rock") Willow Cr. Ho-whah-chal-tung South Fork Trinity 'Hlal-tung (at junction with main Trinity) South Fork Trinity Ye-sin-ching-ki (whole river) Madden Cr. Tilch-wetch uk-kah New R. Ye-tok ne-lin-nuk-kah Forks of New R. Tsa-nah-ning-ah-tung Ironside Mt. (east of New Tsen-nen-kut R. mouth) High Rocky Ridge (northwest Ta-se-tahn-ne-kut of New R. mouth) Trinity Summit Ridge Mung-kin-ne-kow-a-kut Berry Summit Ho-e^{ch}-kut mit-ta-kahn Redwood Cr. Ho-e^{ch}-kut ne-lin-nu-kah

POPULATION

SOURCES

The earliest serious effort to estimate the aboriginal population of California was made by Powers (1877, pp. 415-416), who arrived at a figure of 750,000 persons for the entire state. This effort was followed in 1905 by a more sophisticated attempt on the part of C. Hart Merriam, whose figure for the state was 260,000 persons. Merriam's figures were based on an estimate of the population of the mission strip, from Spanish data, and a gross extrapolation from that to the remainder of the state.

The first attempt at population estimates in detail and with the use of a variety of data was made by Kroeber (1925). The figure he got for the whole state was 133,000 persons, and he still used that figure, although with some reservations, as late as 1939 (see Kroeber, 1939, pp. 178-179).

The problem has recently been reopened by S. F. Cook. In 1943 he published an evaluation of Kroeber's estimates, based on essentially the same data, and the result was to increase the estimate by about 10 per cent. In the last two years Cook has begun a more intensive investigation, the results thus far being new estimates for the San Joaquin Valley (1955) and for the Northern California coast (1956). The upshot of these last papers has been to double Kroeber's estimates in the areas under consideration. The basis of the new estimate suggested by Cook is a more intensive use of historical sources and readier acceptance of the observations found there. He says, "Evidence of misstatement should be looked for and, if found, should be discounted or discredited. Otherwise it should be admitted at face value."

Kroeber has recognized the discrepancy between his estimates and those based on historical statements. He agrees that, if the extrapolations from the latter are accepted, the Merriam figure of 260,000 persons would probably be more accurate. The difficulty there is that "if we accept 260,000, one-quarter of all United States Indians were in California; and this seems unlikely enough. Shall we then assume that Mooney and practically all American anthropologists computed far too low?" (1939, p. 179). Kroeber leaves the question unanswered but Cook's recent work carries the implication that the answer is decidedly affirmative.

The estimate in this paper of the population of the California Athabascans agrees with Cook's results, raising Kroeber's estimates; in fact, it goes even further than Cook in that direction. But the estimates here, with one exception, have been based on village counts by ethnographers rather than on historical data. The fact that the estimates run so high tends to bear out Cook's contention that the Kroeber estimates should be raised.

In basing population estimates on village counts there are several sources of error. Among these are assumptions regarding the number of persons per house and the number of houses per village. I believe that all the assumptions I have made in this regard have been conservative and therefore would not result in overestimates. The number of houses per village can sometimes be calculated rather closely from the number of house pits seen in the sites. That is, the houses can be calculated closely if the assumption is correct that four-fifths of the number of house pits in a site represents the number of simultaneously occupied houses. Admittedly, this figure is rather speculative, but the best opinions I have been able to get grant that it is probably conservative.

A more serious possible source of error concerns the question of which and how many sites were simultaneously occupied. When there is a complete village count, I have excluded from consideration known summer villages, villages not on main salmon streams, and other villages of doubtful status. Even so, the villages run about one per mile along the salmon streams and the possibility presents itself of movement from site to site, perhaps in response to varying fishing conditions. If this was the practice, then the population estimates might have to be reduced by half or even more. But there is no concrete evidence to support such a theory and it is a fact that the Goddard material gives quite complete information of this kind. Therefore, if the present calculation is an overestimate, it is not a very great one.

ESTIMATES BASED ON VILLAGE COUNTS

_Wailaki (Eel and North Fork)._--The present list gives a total of 67 villages among the Eel River and North Fork Wailaki. For purposes of calculating population I have excluded 13 of them (nos. 6, 9, 16, 31, 38, 40, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, 66, 67) because they are summer camps in the hills, rock shelters used only briefly, or specialized fish-drying camps. These places do not seem to have been used simultaneously with the main villages. This list appears to be a substantially complete count from Horseshoe Bend south, but it is clear that neither Merriam nor Goddard visited the area north of this, and the village count suffers as a result. There are about 16 river-miles south of Horseshoe Bend, including both the main Eel and North Fork, and there are 49 main villages on this stretch, yielding an average of 3.1 per river-mile. If we apply this figure to the 7 river-miles above Horseshoe Bend, we get 21.7 villages for that stretch rather than 5, as given by ethnographers. We may reduce this figure to 15, because this stretch of the river appears to offer a less desirable location (Goddard, 1923_a_, p. 107).

This calculation gives a total of 69 villages for the entire group, considerably less than Cook's total of 87 (Cook, 1956, p. 104). The reason for the difference is that Cook bases his estimate on Goddard's data, with the territory of the Wailaki extending above Kekawaka Creek, whereas I have taken Kekawaka Creek as the boundary.

The house count per site for this group must be extrapolated from Goddard's house-pit counts (1923_a_, pp. 103, 105) on the sites of two of the tribelets. This figure has been calculated by Cook, who takes Goddard's house-pit count for 20 sites as "92 pits." For two localities, however, Goddard 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" (Cook, 1956, p. 104). Cook then reduces the figure by 20 per cent to allow for the probability that not all the house pits represent simultaneously occupied houses. His average number of houses per site is 4, which would not appear to be an overestimate. If we take this figure, we have a total of 276 houses for the Wailaki as against Cook's figure of 348, which was based on a greater area.

Cook takes 6 persons per house as the average density for the Wailaki. This figure is arrived at in several ways. The figure of 7.5 per house is well established for the Yurok and sets an upper limit for the Wailaki area. Goddard appears to have based his population estimate on a mean of 4.5 persons per house, almost certainly too low, and Cook compromised at 6 per house. This figure is supported by independent observation by Foster on the Round Valley Yuki (Cook, 1956, p. 107). The social organization and the habitat of the Yuki and Wailaki are nearly identical, so the population per house should be the same for both groups.

Accepting the figure of 6 persons per house, we get a total population of 1,656 for the Eel Wailaki and the North Fork Wailaki, as compared with Cook's figure of 2,315 and Goddard's figure of between one and two thousand.

_Pitch Wailaki._--Goddard (1924) records 33 villages for the Pitch Wailaki. For two of the four tribelets, the count is virtually complete. For a third tribelet, the T'odannañkiyahañ, Goddard lists 6 villages and indicates that there were probably more (1924, p. 225). If, to allow for these possible villages, we add 5 to the total above, we get a total of 38 villages for three tribelets, or an average of 12.7 per tribelet. Although the fourth tribelet, the Tchokotkiyahañ, had a poorer habitat than the other three (Goddard, 1924, p. 222), we may assume that it had at least 8 villages, an estimate which is probably conservative in view of its extensive territory. We then get a total of 46 villages for the Pitch Wailaki.

Goddard counted house pits in 22 village sites and got an average of 5 per site. If we reduce this to 4 to account for unoccupied pits, we have an estimate of 184 houses for the Pitch Wailaki, as against 172 estimated by Cook. On the basis of 6 persons per house this gives a population of 1,104 as against 1,032 by Cook and between 650 and 800 by Goddard.

For all Wailaki combined we get a total of 2,760. Cook's figure is 3,350, Kroeber's is 1,000, and Goddard's is between 1,650 and 2,800--average of 2,225. The difference between the figure presented here and Cook's figure is mostly due to the adjustment I have made in the Wailaki boundary from the one used by Goddard.

_Mattole._--The village lists of Merriam and Goddard give a total of 42 villages for the Mattole. I have excluded 5 of these from calculation of population estimates, one because it is a summer camp and four others because the frequency appears too great, in places along the coast, to make simultaneous occupation likely. This leaves a total of 37, very likely a conservative estimate since Goddard gives a number of names of villages not located and therefore not included in our calculations.

Cook estimates 6 houses per village for the Mattole on the basis of comparison with the Wiyot, Yurok, Tolowa, and Chilula. Goddard counted house pits for a few sites of the Mattole and they appear to average less than that. Not much reliance can be placed on this average, because the sample was very small. However, the number of houses per site is probably not as high as among the Yurok. I have compromised with a figure of 5.4, the same as the estimate for the Sinkyone, the eastern neighbors of the Mattole.

Cook takes Kroeber's Yurok figure of 7.5 persons per house in calculating Mattole population. The social organization here is more nearly like that of the southern Athabascans, so I have used 6 per house. This figure gives a total population of 1,200 as against 840 figured by Cook for the Mattole exclusive of Bear River. The difference here is due to the fact that Goddard's village lists were not available to Cook. If they had been, he would have obtained a figure of 1,665, or nearly double his actual estimate.

_Lolangkok Sinkyone._--For the Sinkyone on the northern part of the South Fork of the Eel we have a nearly complete village count. South of Larabee Creek Goddard and Merriam give a total of 46 villages. North of Larabee Creek on the main Eel the village count is incomplete, but Merriam gives 8 place names. That these place names represent village names is clear from the Merriam place names farther south which can be checked against Goddard's data. Together, these give a total of 54 villages but leave out the areas of Bull Creek and the upper Mattole River. We may assume 5 villages in each of these, surely a conservative estimate in view of the density of sites on Salmon Creek and South Fork. We thus have an estimate of 64 villages for the Northern Sinkyone.

Goddard counted house pits in 24 of the sites he recorded. They come to a total of 162 or 6.7 per village. If we reduce this by 20 per cent to account for unoccupied pits, we get an average of 5.4 houses per site or a total estimate of 346 houses among the Lolangkok Sinkyone. At 6 persons per house this estimate yields a total population of 2,076.

_Hupa._--In the present village list there are 11 villages in Hoopa Valley and 16 above the valley on the main Trinity and on South Fork. Of these sixteen, three have been rejected as being in Chimariko territory (nos. 25, 26, 27). Cook has argued, reasonably, it appears, that the villages in Hoopa Valley average 11 houses, whereas the villages above the valley average 4.5 houses each. This average gives a total of 193 houses for the Hupa.