Part 14

Chapter 143,569 wordsPublic domain

.041 -.027 -.001 .002 -.445 .579 .258 .198 -.514 -.483 .248 .264 .034 .393 .013 .001 .400 -.208 -.083 .160 .484 .905 .438 .234 ---- ---- ---- ---- Total. .873 .859 _________________________________________________________________

The results are the following equations, which are shown, together with the points from which they were calculated, on figure 2.

P = 1.02 (ln A) - 4.06

P = .75 (ln F) - 1.00

Thus, given either the area of a group or the fishing miles of a group habitat, we may estimate its population. From the diagram in figure 2 it appears that the estimates based on area have greater dispersion than those based on fishing miles and are therefore less reliable. This fact can best be made precise by using the above assumptions to obtain the confidence intervals for each of the estimates. The confidence intervals for the area estimates are given by the following formula (Bennett and Franklin, 1954, p. 229).

_______________________ {1 (X_o - [=X])^2 } 1.02 X_o - 4.06 ± t_[oc]S_a × [Sqrt]{- + -----------------} {6 =S=(X_i - [=X])^2}

where the symbols have the following values and meanings:

[10.6] X_o: the log of the area of the group for which the population is being estimated.

X_i: the log of the area of each of the groups for which the population is already known.

[=X]: the average of the X_i.

t_[oc]: the upper [oc]-point of the t-distribution (Bennett and Franklin, 1954, p. 696) where 1-[oc] is the confidence coefficient.

_________________________________ {1 } S_a = [Sqrt]{- × =S=(Y_i + 4.06 - 1.02X_i)^2} {4 }

where Y_i is the population of each of the groups for which population is known. This is the estimated standard deviation of population where the estimate is made from area.

The confidence intervals for the fishing-mile estimates may be obtained in similar fashion--simply substituting the words fishing mile for area and S_{f} for S_{a}.

For calculating the confidence intervals for area we have the following quantities:

[=X] = 5.56

t_{.2} = 1.533

=S=(X_i - [=X])^2 = .859

S_{a} = .3594

The calculations are shown in table 5.

The comparable quantities in calculating the confidence intervals for fishing-mile estimates are:

[=X] = 3.70

t_{.2} = 1.533

=S=(X_{i} - [=X])^2 = .932

S_{f} = .394

The calculations are shown in table 6.

TABLE 5

_Calculation of Confidence Intervals for Area_

Column headings:

A = X_{o}

B = (X_{o} - [=X])

(X_{o} - [=X])^2 C = --------------------- =S=((X_{i} - [=X])^2)

___________________________ {1 (X_{o} - [=X])^2 } D = [Sqrt]{- + ---------------------} {6 =S=((X_{i} - [=X])^2)}

___________________________ {1 (X_{o} - [=X])^2 } E = t_{.2}S_{a} × Sqrt{- + ---------------------} {6 =S=((X_{i} - [=X])^2)}

TABLE 6

Calculation of Fishing-Mile Estimates

Column headings:

A = X_{o}

B = (X_{o} - [=X])

C = --------------------- =S=((X_{i} - [=X])^2)

___________________________ {1 (X_{o} - [=X])^2 } D = [Sqrt]{- + ---------------------} {6 =S=((X_{i} - [=X])^2)}

___________________________ {1 (X_{o} - [=X])^2 } E = t_{.2}S_{f} × Sqrt{- + ---------------------} {6 =S=((X_{i} - [=X])^2)}

The results of the calculations are given in table 7. The figures are point estimates with 80 per cent confidence intervals. This means that under the assumptions given earlier we expect that the tabled intervals will contain the true population 8 times out of 10. I have accepted the estimates derived from fishing miles because their confidence intervals are a bit shorter on the average.

TABLE 7

_Population Estimates and Confidence Intervals_

Fishing-mile Area Tribe Estimate Estimate ---------------------|-------------------|------------- Kato |1,523 ± 267 | 1,470 ± 263 Bear River |1,276 ± 353 | 840 ± 556 Lassik |1,411 ± 300 | 2,020 ± 291 Nongatl |2,325 ± 462 | 2,830 ± 692 Shelter Cove Sinkyone|2,145 ± 374 | 1,920 ± 257 ---------------------|-------------------|-------------

The question of whether the fishing-mile estimates yield shorter confidence intervals than the area estimates brings up an entire range of problems pertaining to economy, settlement pattern, and the like. The obvious interpretation of the shorter confidence intervals would be that the economy of the people in question depended more on fish and fishing than on the general produce over the whole range of their territory. The question then becomes one of quantitative expression--we would like to have some index of the extent of dependence on various factors in the economy. This might best be approached from the standpoint of analysis of covariance, where we would obtain the "components of variance." This technique is a combination of the methods of regression used in this paper and those of the analysis of variance. It would evidently yield sound indices of economic components, but it involves, for myself at least, certain problems of calculation and interpretation which will have to be resolved in the future.

Another problem of this kind turns on the question of which factors are important in which area. Considering the State of California, for instance, we might want to know about such factors as deer population, water supply, the quantity of oak trees, etc. Any one of these factors or any combination of them might be important in a particular area; the problem of gathering the pertinent information then becomes crucial. Moreover, because the situation has changed since aboriginal times, we must combine modern information with available historic sources. S. F. Cook has shown that energetic and imaginative use of these sources yields very good results (e.g., Cook, 1955).

Finally, there is the problem of the assumptions we were required to make in order to obtain our population estimates. Although many of the assumptions in the present paper are difficult to assess, the two which I would like to discuss here were particularly unyielding--the assumptions of the number of persons per house and the assumptions of the number of houses per village.

The question of how many persons there were per house has been dealt with extensively by both Kroeber and Cook. There is also a great deal of random information in the ethnographic and historical literature. I believe there are enough data now at hand to provide realistic limits within which we could work, at least for the State of California. This information should be assembled and put into concise and systematic form so that it would be available for use in each area. It would also be of interest in itself from the standpoint of social anthropology.

For the number of houses per village we have also a considerable body of information, but here we are faced with a slightly different problem. It often happens that we know, from ethnographic information or from archaeological reconnaissance, how many house pits there are in a village site but do not know how many of the houses which these pits represent were occupied simultaneously. In the present paper it has been assumed that four-fifths of the house pits represents the number of houses in the village occupied at any one time. This, however, is simply a guess, and one has no way of knowing how accurate a guess. The solution to this problem is simple but laborious. From each area of the State a random sample of villages with recorded house counts should be taken. Each of these village sites should then be visited and the house pits counted. A comparison of the two sets of figures would give us a perfectly adequate estimate, which could then be used subsequently over the entire area.

TABLE 8

_Population Estimates_

Tribe |Area |Fishing| Pop. |Area |Fishing-|Kroeber[5]| Cook[6] | (sq | |Esti- |Den- | | mile | | mi) | Miles | mate |sity |Density | Estimate |Estimate -------------+-----+-------+------+-----+--------+----------+-------- Kato[4] | 225 | 29 | 1,523| 6.77| 52.5 | 500 | 1,100 Wailaki | 296 | 23 | 1,656| 5.59| 72.0 | 600 | 2,315 Pitch Wailaki| 182 | 15 | 1,104| 6.07| 73.6 | 400 | 1,032 Lassik[4] | 389 | 25 | 1,411| 3.63| 56.4 | 500 | 1,500 Shelter Cove | 350 | 67 | 2,145| 6.13| 32.0 | 375 | 1,450 Sinkyone[4]| | | | | | | Lolangkok | 294 | 63 | 2,076| 7.06| 33.0 | 375 | 1,450 Sinkyone | | | | | | | Mattole | 170 | 38.5 | 1,200| 7.06| 31.2 | 350 | 840 Bear River[4]| 121 | 21 | 1,276|10.55| 60.8 | 150 | 360 Nongatl[4] | 855 | 85 | 2,325| 2.72| 27.4 | 750 | 3,300 Whilkut | 461 | 70 | 2,588| 5.61| 37.0 | 1,000 | 2,100 Hupa | 424 | 39 | 1,475| 3.48| 37.8 | 1,000 | 2,000 |-----+-------+------+-----+--------+----------+-------- Total |3,767| 475.5 |18,779| 4.99| 39.5 | 6,000 | 17,447 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] The population figures for these groups are estimated in the gross by the method indicated in the text.

[5] Kroeber, 1925_a_, p. 883. The breakdown has been changed somewhat to accommodate boundary changes; the total remains the same. The population density, according to Kroeber's figures, is 1.6 persons per sq. mi.

[6] Cook, 1956. The breakdown has been changed somewhat to accommodate boundary changes; the total remains the same. The population density, according to Cook's figures, is 4.6 persons per sq. mi.

The corpus of information provided by the methods outlined above would be useful in two ways. First, it would clarify our definitions of the economic factors in the lives of hunter-gatherers. Functional hypotheses which postulate dependence of social factors on economy would be subject to objective, quantitative tests of their validity.

Second, the corpus of information would afford a suitable basis for inference from archaeological data. If we can determine what were the major economic factors in the lives of a prehistoric people, then we can make assertions about population, settlement pattern, and the like. Conversely, information about population and settlement pattern would imply certain facts about the economy. This technique has already been developed to some extent. For instance, Cook and Heizer, depending on assumptions derived from ethnographic data (Cook and Treganza, 1950; Heizer, 1953; Heizer and Baumhoff, 1956), have made inferences concerning village populations. These methods have such great possibilities for the conjunctive approach in archaeology that their use should be extended as much as possible.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I: THE TOLOWA

The Tolowa are an Athabascan group living on the coast from a short distance north of the mouth of the Klamath River to the Oregon-California boundary. Information on this group has not been included in the main body of the paper because the Tolowa are separated from the other California Athabascan groups and belong more properly with the Oregon Athabascans; It was thought, however, that Merriam's data on the Tolowa should be recorded and they have therefore been appended in this form. The following passages are taken verbatim from Merriam's notes.

HAH-WUN-KWUT NOTES

The following notes are from information given me by Sam Lopez and wife and Lopez' father at the Mouth of Smith River, Del Norte County, Sept. 16-17, 1923.

_Name._--The tribe as a whole had no distinctive name for themselves except Huss, the word for people. But they had definite names for village areas. Those living at the mouth of Smith River call themselves Hah´-wun-kwut; those at Burnt Ranch, about three miles south of the mouth of Smith River, Yahnk´-tah-kut; those at Crescent City Tah-ah´-ten--and so on.

_Location, boundaries, and neighbors._--The territory of the tribe as a whole extends from Winchuk River (Um-sahng´-ten) on the California-Oregon boundary south to Wilson Creek (Tah-ges^{hl}-ten) about eight miles north of the mouth of Klamath River.

The coast tribe immediately north (on the Oregon side of the line) is called Cheet or Che´-te. Their language differs materially from that of the Hah´-wun-kwut, though most of the words could be understood. Only a single woman survives.

The tribe on the south, from Wilson Creek to Klamath River, is called Tah-che-ten-ne and Tet-le-mus (Polikla).

The tribe immediately east of the Cheet on the Oregon side of the California-Oregon boundary is called Ka-Ka-sha. Another name, Choo-ne, also was given but I am in doubt as to whether or not the same tribe was meant. The Ka-ka-sha live near Waldo on the north side of the Siskiyou Mountains and speak a language widely different from that of the Hah´-wun-kwut. They are said to be lighter in color than the coast Indians.

_Dress and ornament._--The people used deer skin blankets called Nah-hi-ne tanned with the hair on, and also blankets of rabbit skin, called Wa-gah hahs-nis-te. Deer skins tanned with the hair on are called Nah-ki-le. The breech cloth formerly worn by the men was called Rut-soo and tat-es-tat. Moccasins, Kus-ki-a, of elk hide were worn by rich men.

The women wore a front apron called Sahng; and on dress occasions an ornamented cloak-like skirt (Chah) that extended all the way around and lapped over in front. They also wore basket hats, called Ki´-e-traht´ and necklaces, the general term for which is Ni-ta-kle-ah. On occasions they wore ear pendants, Bus-shra-mes-lah, of elk or deer bone. Nose bones or shells, Mish-mes-lah, were sometimes worn; those of rich persons consisted of one of the long _Dentalium_ shells. The chin is tattooed with three narrow vertical lines called Tah-ah rut^{hl}-tes.

_Houses._--The houses (Munt) were square and were built of planks or slabs hewn from redwood trees and stood up vertically, as in the case of those of the Klamath River Indians. The ceremonial houses are called N[=a]´-stahs-m[=a]´-ne. They are square and have a ridge roof. During important dances the front side is removed. The sweat house is called Shes´-kl[)e] and is large enough to hold twenty people. It is square or rectangular, and the ground floor is excavated to a depth of about four feet. The roof is of hewn planks covered with earth.

_Money._--The ordinary medium of exchange or "money" (Trut) consisted of shells of _Dentalium_, of which the valuable long ones are called T[=a]´-tos, the commoner short ones Kle´-ah. Clam shell disks or buttons are called Nah´-set.

_Treatment of dead._--The dead are buried in a grave (Ch[)e]´-slo). The people assert that they never burned their dead. They say that a spirit or ghost, called Nah-who´-tlan, goes out of the body after death and becomes a ghost.

_Ceremonial dances._--Dances are called N[=a]´-stahs or Nesh-stahsh. A puberty dance, Chahs´-stah w[=a]´-nish tahs, was held for the girls. Other important dances are held. Some last 5 days; others last 10 days.

The ceremonial drums Hah´-et-sah differ radically from those of any other California Indians known to me. They are large cooking baskets about two feet in diameter. Only new baskets are used in order that they may stand the drumming.

Rattles called Chah-p[=a]t´-chah are made of the small hoofs of deer. Cocoon rattles were not used.

Whistles, called Tut´-tle-nik are made of large quill feathers of birds, not of bone.

_The stick game._--The stick game is a feature of the people, as in most California tribes. It consists of a number of slender sticks called Not-tr[=a]´-le, of which one, called Chah-when´, is marked. The counters are called Chun´; the man who keeps count, Chun-ting. A dressed buckskin is stretched tightly on the ground between the players, and when the game is called, the sticks are thrown down upon it.

_Baskets._--The basketry is of twined weave called Chet-too. The big storehouse baskets, called Hawsh-tan, are closely woven and have a shallow saucer-shape lid. The large open work burden basket is called Tus, the large cooking basket, Met-too´-sil^{ch}, the small mush bowl Hah´-tsah, the large shallow meal tray Mes-chet´-te-gah´, the large open work shallow bowl Tre-kwahs´-tuk, the small open work plate or platter Kah´-se, the subglobular choke-mouth trinket basket Net´-tah, the milling basket Ki´-e-sut, the baby basket Kah´-yu, its shade Ne´-whats-tah, the women's basket hat Ki´-e-traht´. There is also a subglobular openwork basket called I´-[)a]-loo´ with an arched handle for carrying on the arm.

The cooking bowls, mush baskets, and other small baskets are made of spruce roots, 'Hre´, more or less covered with an overlay of bear grass (_Xerophyllum_, called Too-t[)e]^{chl}) and maiden hair fern (_Adiantum_) called Ke´-tsi-shah´-te, meaning Blue-jay knees, because of the slender form and black color. The roots used in the carrying baskets, baby baskets, and other coarse baskets are of hazel, called 'Kun. The common black design in ordinary baskets consists of Spruce roots that have been buried in dark mud and are called Tah´-che-gut-kle-ah. They are ordinarily used in connection with the bear grass (_Xerophyllum_).

_Fragments of Hahwunkwut myths._--Skum, Coyote man, made the world.

When the sun dropped down the Coon caught it up and it was hot, and blackened the insides of his hands.

When the world first floated there was just one big white Redwood tree called Kus-choo´-ke. A big Eagle was sitting on the tree and was king of the world.

The Falcon (Tah´-tes) won the battle for the people.

_Hahwunkwut foods._--A large variety of foods are eaten: meat (Ch[=a]´-sun) of elk and deer, both fresh and dried, salmon and other fish, fresh and dried, marrow, tallow, salmon eggs (usually smoke-dried), clams of several kinds, mussels, fish milt both dried and fresh, acorn mush and bread, and a number of roots, berries, and other parts of plants. Among the food berries are strawberries, blackberries, salmon-berries, huckleberries, salal berries, elder berries and manzanita berries.

Elder berries are mixed with blackberries and steamed in the ground oven; manzanita berries are mashed and mixed with smoke-dried salmon eggs.

Two kinds of kelp are eaten.

Root masses of the brake fern (_Pteris aquilina_, called Tah´-sohn-ki) are cooked in the ground oven. They are said to be like milk and have a fine flavor.

Salt is not used.

Wild tobacco is called Yahn-s[)e]^{ch} yah-we and S[)e]^{ch}-yu. The pipe is straight and is called A-chah.

_Hahwunkwut plant notes._--The Tree Maple (_Acer macrophyllum_) is called Ch[=a]´-she. Its inner bark is used for the ordinary everyday dress for women.

The Tanbark Oak is the dominant species in the northwest coast region and its acorns (Sohng´-cheng) are largely eaten by the people. Acorn meal before leaching is called Rut-ta-gaht. If it is allowed to become mouldy, the bitter taste disappears so that it does not have to be leached. Acorn bread cooked on hot ashes is called Ses^{hl}-te. The ordinary mush is called Ma-guts-kush.

_Hahwunkwut animal notes._--The Bobcat (_Lynx rufus_) is called Ne´-ti-us ah´-n[=a]. Its name is never mentioned in the presence of a baby. If the mother sees one before the baby is born, the baby will have fits and die.

The falcon or Duck Hawk (Tah´-tes) was a high personage among the First People. He won the first battle for the Indians, standing on the first Redwood Tree.

The California Condor (T[=a]-long-yi´-chah) is so big and powerful that he can lift a whale. His name shows this as it is from the name of the whale (T[=a]´-lah) and means "whale lifter."

The Dove (Sroo´-e-gun´-sah) cries for his grandmother, especially in the spring of the year.

The Purple Finch is called Klah´-nis-me´-tit-le, meaning "many brothers," because the birds go together in small flocks.

The Night Heron (Nah-gah´ che yahs´-se) is known as the "sickness bird."

_Hahwunkwut pits for catching elk and deer._--The Smith River Hah-wun-kwut used to catch elk and deer in pits, called Song´-kit, dug in the ground along the runways. These pits differ materially from those of the Pit River Indians, being much shallower. No effort was made to make them deep enough to prevent the captured animals from jumping out, but an ingenious device was used to prevent them from jumping. The pits were only a little deeper than the length of the legs of the elk, but poles were placed across the top so that when the animal fell through, the body would rest on the poles so his feet could not touch the ground. This of course prevented him from jumping out.

When "set," the pits were lightly covered with slender sticks and branches and leaves, to resemble the surrounding ground, but the cover was so frail that an animal the size of a deer would at once break through.

_Smelt fishery._--At Ocean Shore, Smith River, Calif., July 21, 1934. Vast numbers of smelt, a small surf fish, are caught in nets by the Hawungkwut Indians. During a "run" at high tide flocks of sea gulls hover over the incoming fish, thus making their approach known. The Indians catch them with nets. After a preliminary drying on a circular mat of brush called the nest, the smelt are transferred to the fish bed, a long flat rectangular and slightly elevated area built up of sand and capped with a layer of small smooth stones. On this they are left till thoroughly dry.

_Massacres of Huss Indians by the whites._--There were three notable killings by the whites.

The first killing took place at Burnt Ranch, three miles south of the mouth of Smith River, at the rancheria called Yahnk-tah´-kut, a name perpetuated by the district school house name. Here a large number of Indians were caught during a ceremonial dance and ruthlessly slaughtered. The Indians say this was the first killing.