Part 13

Cook has estimated that there is an average of 10 persons per house among the Hupa. This figure is arrived at by the following line of reasoning: according to a census taken in 1870 there was a total of 601 persons in 7 villages at that time, of which 232 were male and 359 were female. This count indicates a disproportionate number of males and Cook therefore calculates a population of twice the number of females, or 718, as a more normal population. Goddard's data give the number of houses for these villages as 92, a figure Cook takes as representing the situation in 1850. This combination yields an average of 7.8 persons per house. Since there had certainly been a decline in population between 1850 and 1870, Cook proposes that the figure for the density of population be raised to 10 persons per house.

But Goddard does not say what period his figures represent, so I propose to follow a line of reasoning similar to that of Cook but to use different figures. The number of houses for 6 villages in 1851 is reported by Gibbs (see map, pl. 9). We may compare these to the 1870 population estimates as given by Kroeber (1925_a_, p. 131). If we adjust for male attrition by calculating population as twice the female population, or 640 (see table 1), we get a density per house of 7.8, exactly the same figure that Cook gets.

TABLE 1

_Hupa Population, 1870[1]_

=============================================== | | | Village | Males | Females | Houses _______________|_________|___________|_________ | Honsading | 25 30 9 Miskut | 32 49 6 Takimitlding | 51 74 20 Tsewenalding | 14 31 10 Medilding | 75 100 28 Djishtangading | 14 36 9 |_______________________________ | Total | 211 320 82 _______________|_______________________________

[1] Kroeber, 1925_a_, p. 131.

That there was a decline in population between 1850 and 1870 is agreed by all authorities. This fact makes it very attractive to accept Cook's proposed density of 10 persons per house for the Hupa in aboriginal times. But there are two objections to this procedure. For one thing, the population figures for 1870 may be inaccurate. In the census of that year, there were reported 874 Indians of all tribes on the Hoopa Reservation (Kroeber, 1925a, p. 131). But in the same year another agent reported only 649 Indians on the reservation. This is a 25 per cent reduction, and if we reduce the population estimate of 640 by 25 per cent, we get 480 as the estimate for 1870 and a density per house of 5.9. If we raise the population of 480 to account for the 1850-1870 reduction, we are again close to the figure 7.5 persons per house. This calculation is presented merely to indicate that the figures are not reliable.

The other objection to accepting Cook's proposed figure for density is that the established figure for the Yurok is 7.5 persons per house. According to Cook, this figure was based on an underlying assumption that "the social family in the usual monogamous tribe included the father, mother, children, and occasional close relatives" (Cook, 1956, p. 99). As a matter of fact, Kroeber's estimate is not based on this assumption but is an empirical estimate based on population counts and house counts (Kroeber, 1925_a_, pp. 16-19), and the figure is accepted wholeheartedly by Cook for the Yurok (1956, p. 83). But what is certainly clear is that the social organization, house type, and environment of the Hupa was virtually the same as that of the Yurok and therefore the population density per house must have been the same. It is therefore clear that we must accept either 7.5 persons per house or 10 persons per house as the population density for both the Hupa and the Yurok, and the question becomes one of comparing the reliability of the figures given for the Yurok with those given for the Hupa. Yurok figures appear to be intrinsically more reliable and are also earlier and I have therefore taken 7.5 persons per house as the density.

The population for the Hupa then comes to 1,475 as compared to 2,000 estimated by Cook and to less than 1,000 estimated by Kroeber.

_Whilkut._--The number of permanent villages among the Whilkut has been estimated here at 69. This estimate excludes known summer camps and other villages away from the main salmon streams. For the Chilula Whilkut there are 23 villages. For the Kloki Whilkut there are 16 villages, including several which are not shown on the map but which are listed by Merriam as being on upper Redwood Creek. Ten villages have been taken from the North Fork Whilkut. Twenty villages are taken from the Mad River Whilkut even though only 16 are given in the village lists. Wherever both Merriam and Goddard worked the same area the latter has recorded substantially more villages than the former. I have therefore added 4 to the village count to make up for the presumptive lack, thus bringing the total up to 69.

House-pit counts from the Chilula Whilkut are listed for six villages by Kroeber (1925_a_, p. 138) as 17, 7, 4, 2, 4, 8, or an average of 7 per village. Kroeber reduces this average by a third, on the basis of his estimates for the Yurok and Hupa, to arrive at a figure of 5 houses per village. Cook (1956, p. 84) says the reduction should be only about 10 per cent, calculated on the basis of Waterman's study of the Yurok (Waterman, 1920), and he compromises, making a reduction of a seventh to use 6 as an average number of houses per village.

The sample used by Kroeber and Cook is so small that an estimate based on it of the average number of house pits per village is liable to considerable error. If we look at the figures for some of the surrounding groups, we find an estimate of 11 houses per village for the Hupa in Hoopa Valley, 4.5 for the Hupa outside the valley, 4 for the Wailaki, 4.5 for the Wiyot (Cook, 1956, p. 102), and 5.4 for the Lolangkok Sinkyone. The Whilkut terrain and culture is certainly more nearly like the region outside Hoopa Valley than inside it, so we are scarcely justified in estimating more than 5 houses per village.

On this basis we get a total of 345 houses for the Whilkut. Both Kroeber and Cook use the Yurok figure of 7.5 persons per house in calculating the population of this group. This figure may well be too high, and perhaps it should be more nearly the same as the estimate for the southern groups, but since I have no concrete evidence to support such a contention, I have also used the Kroeber and Cook figure. This gives a total population of 2,588 for the Whilkut.

Cook's figures for the groups which were formerly listed under the Chilula and Whilkut were 800 and 1,300 making a total of 2,100. Kroeber's figures were 600 and 400 for a total of 1,000. The difference between Cook's figures and those given here is partly due to the fact that Cook took the group on the North Fork of the Mad to be Wiyot, whereas I have them as Whilkut. Also Cook made a reduction of a ninth in his Mad River estimates because of the poor environment there. I have not done this because the Mad River region does not seem to me noticeably poorer than that along Redwood Creek.

ESTIMATES BASED ON FISH RESOURCES

For the six tribes just discussed, the ethnographic notes at our disposal offer a means of estimating the population, but we have also another basis for our calculations. Fishery was the most important single factor in the California Athabascan economy, hence the fish resources of the region undoubtedly exerted a marked influence on population size. Therefore, before attempting to estimate the population of the remaining groups, for which we have scanty ethnographic information, I would like to present some data on the fish resources of the region.

I have attempted to calculate the number of stream miles of fishing available and thereby to form some estimate of the economic basis of each of the groups. Most of my information comes from Mr. Almo J. Cordone, Junior Aquatic Biologist of the California Department of Fish and Game, who was kind enough to gather the relevant data from the records of that organization. I have not included material on the freshwater trout, which was apparently too scarce to be important, or on the lamprey eel, on which we do not have sufficient information, although it was of some importance, especially in the Eel River and its tributaries.

The available stream miles of fishing may seem insufficient material on which to base estimates of fish resources and unquestionably it would be desirable to have some idea of the fish population per mile of stream in order to estimate the food value of the resources available to the people. On the other hand, this point may not be as crucial as it seems, for apparently the fish population was not a governing factor in the number of fish taken by the Indians. According to Rostlund (1952, p. 17), the aboriginal fishermen of California did not even approach overfishing. If this is so, then there must have been fish left uncaught even in the smaller salmon streams and it would therefore seem that one stream was nearly as good as another, if it carried salmon at all. An exception would be the Trinity River and its tributaries, the only streams in the Athabascan area with both spring and fall runs of salmon. In other streams there is only a fall run.

The lists that follow include data, not only for the six tribes previously discussed (Wailaki, Pitch Wailaki, Mattole, Lolangkok Sinkyone, Hupa, and Whilkut), but also for the Nongatl, Kato, Shelter Cove Sinkyone, Lassik, and Bear River groups. The fish species is recorded, when it is known; when our source gives no identification of species, however, the generic term is used.

_Available Stream Miles for Fishing in Tribal Territory_

KATO 29 mi.

South Fork Eel R.--19 mi. Quantities of steelhead and silver salmon go up at least to Branscomb and King salmon go at least to Ten Mile Cr. (Dept. of Fish and Game).

Hollow Tree Cr.--5 mi. There was fishing on this stream (Gifford, 1939, p. 304). Fish not specified, probably steelhead and salmon.

Ten Mile Cr.--5 mi. This stream appears to be large enough for salmon and there were villages on it. Also the Fish and Game information for South Fork implies fish in the stream.

WAILAKI (Eel R. and North Fork Wailaki) 23 mi.

Eel R.--16 mi. There are good runs of salmon as far up as Lake Pillsbury (Dept. of Fish and Game).

North Fork Eel--7 mi. Salmon go up North Fork farther than 7 mi. (see Pitch Wailaki).

PITCH WAILAKI 15 mi.

North Fork Eel--12 mi. See below.

Casoose and Hulls creeks--3 mi. The Dept of Fish and Game states that salmon do not ascend North Fork above Asbill Cr. but Goddard's informant (see Pitch Wailaki Village no. 21) said that fish got up into Hulls and Casoose creeks, the mouths of which are above Asbill Cr. The Dept. of Fish and Game information may refer to a more recent situation.

LASSIK 25 mi.

Eel R.--17 mi. (See Wailaki.)

Dobbyn Cr.--8 mi. There would seem to have been fish in Dobbyn Cr., since it is a fair-sized stream and there were many villages on it.

SHELTER COVE SINKYONE 67 mi.

South Fork Eel--39 mi. There were a good many fish in South Fork as far up as Branscomb (Dept. of Fish and Game).

Redwood Cr.--5 mi. According to Merriam the region around Redwood Cr. was a center for the Shelter Cove Sinkyone; therefore there must have been fish in the creek.

Mattole R.--11 mi. There is a partial barrier to salmon at the community of Thorn but some fish get up even beyond this (Dept. of Fish and Game).

East Branch, South Fork Eel--4 mi. King salmon and silver salmon go up at least to Squaw Cr. (3 mi.) and steelhead go up at least to Rancheria Cr. (4.5 mi., according to the Dept. of Fish and Game).

Sea Coast--8 mi. The Shelter Cove Sinkyone have 16 mi. of sea coast. The only reliable data on the density of sea coast population in relation to the riverine population are given by Kroeber (1925a, p. 116). According to his figures, the seashore is about half as productive as the rivers and I have therefore halved the sea coast mileage in the calculation of available fishing miles.

LOLANGKOK SINKYONE 63 mi.

Eel R.--27 mi. (See Wailaki.)

South Fork Eel R.--16 mi. (See Kato.)

Bull Cr.--6 mi. According to Merriam, there was a large settlement on Bull Cr. It could not have been supported without fish.

Salmon Cr.--5 mi. Goddard mentions fishing on at least part of this stream.

Mattole R.--10 mi. The fish go beyond this stretch at least as far as Thorn (Dept. of Fish and Game).

MATTOLE 38.5 mi.

Mattole R.--25 mi. The fish go considerably beyond here in the Mattole.

North Fork Mattole--5 mi. North Fork is a sizable stream and there were several villages along it, so it probably had fish in it.

Sea Coast--8.5 mi. The Mattole have 17 mi. of sea coast. This has been halved in accordance with the principle stated above.

BEAR RIVER 21 mi.

Bear R.--18 mi. This figure is rather arbitrary since the information is poor for this stream. It is known that silver salmon and steelhead are caught there and that there is a fall run of King salmon (Dept. of Fish and Game).

Sea Coast--3 mi. The Bear River group has 6 mi. of sea coast, halved for present purposes.

NONGATL 85 mi.

Van Duzen R.--40 mi. Steelhead go up as far as Eaton Roughs (40 mi.). Silver salmon go up as far as Grizzly Cr. (21 mi.) and probably as far as Eaton Roughs. There are no data on King salmon but it is known that there is a fall run of them here. Information from Dept. of Fish and Game.

Eel R.--5 mi. All 5 mi. of the Eel in Nongatl territory should provide excellent fishing.

Larabee Cr.--20 mi. There is no direct information on this stream, but it is of considerable size and there were many villages at least 20 mi. up.

Yager Cr.--20 mi. Again we have no direct information but there are many villages far up on this stream. Twenty miles of available fishing is probably a conservative estimate.

Mad R.--0 mi. There is a long stretch of Mad R. in Nongatl territory but, according to the Dept. of Fish and Game, no fish go up so far.

WHILKUT 70 mi.

Mad R.--27 mi. There is a 12-ft. falls at Bug Cr. which represents a nearly complete barrier to salmon. This means that there are salmon in nearly all the territory of the Mad R. Whilkut.

North Fork Mad R.--8 mi. According to Merriam, there were fishing camps nearly this far up on North Fork.

Redwood Cr.--35 mi. There is no direct information on this stream. I have attributed salmon to nearly its whole length because of the size of the stream and the large number of villages along its upper course.

HUPA 39 mi.

Trinity R.--27 mi. There are fish in this whole stretch (Dept. of Fish and Game).

South Fork Trinity--12 mi. There are known to be salmon in South Fork, and presumably they go up as far as the border of Hupa territory.

TABLE 2

_Area, Fishing Miles, and Population Estimates_

===================================================================== | | | | | Tribe[2] | Pop. | Area | Ln Area | Fishing | Ln Fishing | Estimate | | | Miles | Miles ___________________|__________|______|_________|_________|___________ | | | | | Wailaki | 1,656 | 296 | 5.69 | 23 | 3.14 Pitch Wailaki | 1,104 | 182 | 5.20 | 15 | 2.71 Mattole | 1,200 | 170 | 5.14 | 38.5 | 3.65 Lolangkok Sinkyone | 2,076 | 294 | 5.68 | 63 | 4.14 Hupa | 1,475 | 424 | 6.05 | 39 | 3.66 Whilkut | 2,588 | 461 | 6.13 | 70 | 4.25 |__________|______|_________|_________|___________ Average | 1,683 | | 5.65 | | 3.59 ___________________|__________|______|_________|_________|___________

[2] Relatively complete village counts.

TABLE 3

_Area and Fishing Miles_

============================================================= | | | | Tribe[3] | Area | Ln Area | Fishing | Ln Fishing | | | Miles | Miles ______________________|______|_________|_________|___________ | | | | Kato | 225 | 5.42 | 29 | 3.37 Bear River | 121 | 4.80 | 21 | 3.04 Lassik | 389 | 5.96 | 25 | 3.22 Nongatl | 855 | 6.75 | 85 | 4.44 Shelter Cove Sinkyone | 350 | 5.86 | 67 | 4.20 ______________________|______|_________|_________|___________

[3] Incomplete village counts.

GROSS ESTIMATE

From the preceding data we have obtained population estimates for certain of the California Athabascan groups. If these estimates are judged reliable, it would be desirable to use them as a basis for estimating the population of the remaining groups. When a detailed analysis of the ecological or demographical factors involved is lacking, it is sometimes necessary to fall back on rather simplistic assumptions to attain the desired end. Cook goes rather far in this direction, using simply the average population density per square mile of the known groups to estimate the population of the unknown groups.

It appears to this writer that a somewhat more satisfactory method of estimation would be based on simple linear regression theory. It is a fact that pertinent relationships in population studies can often be expressed in terms of simple exponential functions or in linear combinations of logarithms. Thus we might propose a relationship such as the following:

population = a + b (ln area)

or

population = a + b (ln fishing miles)

where a and b are constants to be determined and ln is the logarithm to the base e.

Of course we would not expect these relationships to be precise. The lack of exactness might be due to the crudeness of the various measurements involved or perhaps to the fact that population depends on more than one such factor. To account in some way for the uncertainty, we might make a further assumption and propose the following relationships:

population = a + b (ln area) + X

population = a + b (ln fishing miles) + X

where X has a normal probability distribution with mean = 0 and some unknown variance = =s=^{2}. X is then, roughly speaking, the error involved in each observation. That the error would be distributed normally is quite reasonable under the circumstances. In situations where the uncertainty of the observation is due to measurement error or to a multiplicity of factors, the distribution obtained often assumes a normal form or a form sufficiently normal so that the normal distribution can be used as an approximation.

One additional assumption is necessary. We must assume that the sample used is taken in a random fashion from the population to be studied. In the present investigation, the sample is definitely not taken at random, since we are using all groups for which we have population estimates based on ethnographic information. The question is, then, whether this selection of groups would result in some bias. For instance, the groups for which we have ethnographic data might be the most numerous in the first place and might thus cause us overestimate the population of the remaining groups. On the whole, it would seem to me that there is no such bias and that the assumption of a random sample is therefore not misleading, at least in the direction of overestimation. If we now consider each group for which we have no ethnographic data, we can see whether the lack of such data is due to an initially small population or to mere luck.

Kato: The reason Kato population is being estimated in gross rather than from ethnographic data is that Goddard (1909, p. 67) obtained a list of more than 50 villages which are not available for calculation.

Bear River: Here the lack of information is due simply to the fact that it was not collected. There have been several informants living until recently (see Nomland, 1938).

Lassik: There was at least one good informant living until recently (Essene, 1942), but Merriam worked with her only briefly. Goddard evidently recorded a number of villages from this group, but his notes are lost.

Nongatl: Goddard seems to have worked with at least two informants from this group, but he spent a very brief time in the area and some of his notes may have been lost.

Shelter Cove Sinkyone: Several informants from this group have been alive until recently (see Nomland, 1935). No one saw fit to collect the appropriate data.

It is obvious from this summary that the main reason for our lack of information on these groups is the loss of Goddard's notes. If those were at hand, we would probably have complete information on the Kato, the Lassik, and probably the Nongatl. The absence of data on the Bear River and Shelter Cove Sinkyone is due to the ethnographers' oversight. None of these groups, therefore, seem to have been selected because of their small aboriginal population. If the following estimates are in error because the sample is not a random one, then the error is probably one of underestimate rather than overestimate.

Given the foregoing assumptions, the least squares estimate of the normal regression line may be obtained with the following formula.

P: population. A: area. F: fishing miles.

The equations of the lines are:

P = a + b (ln A)

P = a' + b' (ln F)

the estimate of b is (Bennett and Franklin, 1954, p. 224)

=S=(X_{i} - [=X])(Y_{i} - [=Y]) [^b] = ------------------------------- =S=(X_{i} - X)^{2}

and of a is

â = [=Y] - [^b][=X]

where X_{i} = ln A for each group with known population and Y_{i} = P for each known group.

Similarly the estimate of b' is

=S=(X_{i} - [=X])(Y_{i} - [=Y]) [^b]' = ------------------------------- =S=(X_{i} - [=X])^{2}

and of a' is

â' = [=Y] - [^b]'[=X]

where X_i = ln F for each known group and Y_i = P for each known group. These calculations are shown in table 4.

TABLE 4

_Calculation of Regression Lines Shown in Figure 2_

=================================================================

Fishing Miles _________________________________________________________________

(X_i - [=X]) (Y_i - [=Y]) (X_i - [=X])(Y_i - [=Y]) (X_i - [=X])^2

-.452 -.027 .012 .204 -.882 -.579 .511 .778 .058 -.483 -.028 .003 .548 .393 .215 .300 .068 -.208 -.014 .005 .658 .905 .595 .433 ---- ---- ----- ----- Total. 1.291 1.723 _________________________________________________________________

Area _________________________________________________________________

(X_i - [=X]) (Y_i - [=Y]) (X_i - [=X])(Y_i - [=Y]) (X_i - [=X])^2