The Aboriginal Population of the North Coast of California   By: Sherburne Friend Cook (1896-1974)

BY

S. F. COOK

ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS Vol. 16, No. 3

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS ANTHROPOLOGICAL RECORDS

Editors (Berkeley): R. L. Olson, R. F. Heizer, T. D. McCown, J. H. Rowe Volume 16. No. 3. pp. 81 130

Submitted by editors April 21, 1955 Issued October 18, 1956 Price, 75 cents

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles California

Cambridge University Press London, England

Manufactured in the United States of America

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 81

The Yurok 83

The Wiyot 93

The Karok 98

The Hupa 99

The Tolowa 101

The Athapascans 102 The Chilula 102 The Mattole. 102 The Whilkut 102 The Kato 102 The Nongatl, the Lassik, and the Sinkyone 103 The Wailaki 104

The Yuki 106 The Coast Yuki 106 The Yuki Proper 106 The Huchnom 108

The Athapascans and the Yuki 109

The Pomo 111 Clear Lake Pomo 111 Northern Pomo 112 Central Pomo 116 Southwestern Pomo 117 Southern Pomo 117 Northeastern Pomo 119 Summary 119

The Coast Miwok 120

The Wappo and the Lake Miwok 121

Summary of Estimates 127

Bibliography 128

THE ABORIGINAL POPULATION OF THE NORTH COAST OF CALIFORNIA

BY

S. F. COOK

INTRODUCTION

The present manuscript attempts a reassessment of the aboriginal population of Northwestern California, from the Oregon line to the Bay of San Francisco. There are no natural and fixed limits to the territory. Its outline serves merely the purposes of convenience. For this reason the individual units within the whole area are based, not upon natural ecological provinces such as mountain ranges, valleys, or river basins, but upon ethnic or "tribal" boundaries. Moreover, since there is no necessary interrelationship between the component parts, each is considered as a separate entity, and its population is computed separately. There is no final grand total to be added up, the significance of which transcends that of any of the constituents.

Since the objective here is the calculation of pure numbers, it is irrelevant that the natural habitat, the mode of life, the reactions to environment of the various tribes and linguistic stocks vary enormously. Such a disregard for the basic principles of ethnography and human ecology will be tolerated only because the limitations of space and time demand that the fundamental question "What was the population?" be answered before opening up the problem of why the population was no greater or no less. We must know how many people there were before we can study their equilibrium with the physical or cultural environment.