Athapascan Indians; Indians of North America -- California
_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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account