The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of CaliforniaCook, Sherburne Friend
History
The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California
Cook, Sherburne Friend
Indians of North America -- California; Indians of North America -- Statistics
For calculating population from village data it is necessary to know
the number of houses per village and the number of inhabitants per
house. Both these variables depend for their value upon numerous
demographic and cultural factors and hence must be determined
separately for nearly every tribe studied. Kroeber has paid special
attention to the second variable, the number of inhabitants per house,
and has concluded that the best value for the Yurok is 7.5 persons.
Since all the contemporary accounts agree with this conclusion it may
be accepted as established.
With regard to the number of houses per village it must be admitted
that this factor is subject to wide variation both in locality and
time. The number of house pits observed many years after the village
itself has disappeared is likely to be unreliable for many reasons,
although it may be used as a first approximation in default of better
data. A safer guide is the memory of reliable informants or actual
house counts made by explorers or original settlers. These are the
sources of the values given by Kroeber and Waterman.
For the Yurok there are five chief compilations of villages, with and
without house counts:
1. _Kroeber._ This author shows (1925, p. 18) a list of fifteen
villages (four of them compound) which he says are "recent counts
of houses or house pits recollected as inhabited." In addition he
shows on his map (p. 9) a number of other towns, some of which he
regards, and so designates, as being temporarily or intermittently
inhabited and hence not to be included in any computation of
permanent population. The house counts from his list are shown in
table 2 (p. 92, herein) in the column headed "Kroeber, _modern
memories_."
2. _Kroeber._ On page 18 as well as on page 16 is given a census
for the fifteen villages mentioned above. This was made in 1852 by
a "trader" named York who lived many years in the vicinity. The
census has all the appearance of veracity and may be accepted as
substantially accurate. It is shown in table 2 (p. 92, herein) in
the column headed "Kroeber, _1852 census_".
3. _Waterman._ This author presents his findings, all from
informants, in three ways. First are his textual descriptions,
which are careful and circumstantial. Second are his maps of a few
villages, on which the house locations are drawn with much detail.
Third there is the summarizing list (1920, p. 206), in which most
of the textual and other data are incorporated. With respect to
house counts there are numerous discrepancies between text, list,
and maps, some of which are difficult to reconcile. Since from the
context it may be inferred that the list represents Waterman's
final evaluation, it must be used as the basic source of
information.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account