letter "M" that the data were
secured from Merriam's village lists. The letter "R" indicates that the
town appeared on Randall's map of 1866 but was not adequately discussed
by Waterman or Kroeber. The letter "p" indicates that the house number
is my own estimate. The third column shows the house number itself. In
addition are shown the corresponding house numbers as taken from
Kroeber's informants ("modern memories") or from the census of 1852 as
cited by Kroeber.

The total number of houses is 412, which, at 7.5 persons per house,
gives a population of 3,090.

Some insight into the validity of the value thus obtained may be
secured by cross checking the various sources for house number. As a
basis for comparison the list in table 1 (pp. 85-91, herein) may be
used, since it is constructed for the great majority of villages from
Waterman's final estimate. There are 16 towns for which a number is
given in Waterman's list (1920, p. 206) and for which a statement of
house numbers derived directly from informants is to be found in his
detailed descriptions. For these towns the list shows 88 houses and the
text 101. Now, if the same ratio of house numbers (_i.e._, 88 to 101)
is applied to the total population as derived from table 2 (p. 92,
herein) the result is a population of 3,562 persons.

On his detailed maps Waterman shows the location of the houses in 19
villages. Presumably he checked these houses carefully with informants,
for in many instances he appends the house names, although as a rule
only the pits remained when he saw the sites. There are in all 210
houses, whereas in his list on page 206 for the same towns he gives 192
houses. The total population projected from the maps would then be
3,380.

In a similar manner Waterman's list may be compared with Kroeber's list
from informants and from the 1852 census. For the pertinent towns the
numbers are: Waterman, 163 houses; Kroeber's informants, 154; the 1852
census 141. Projecting to the full list in table 2 (p. 91, herein) the
population values are respectively 2,918 and 2,671. Of all the
extrapolations the most significant is that from the 1852 census for it
demonstrates that _at that date_ the Yurok population could not have
fallen far short of 2,500, a figure set by Kroeber as the absolute
maximum for _aboriginal times_. In 1852 the tribe had already suffered
materially from the disturbance caused by white settlement and hence
must not have represented the