. This means only 1.21 children per
family, far below the minimum number (2.0) necessary for replacement.
Clearly the population was declining rapidly at that time. If there
were 1.21 children and the family number was 5.0, the average number of
adults was 3.79. For simple equilibrium or stability, such as we must
assume existed in pre-white times, at least 3 children must be found in
every family. Thus with 3.79 adults there would have to have been a
family number of 6.79 or say, 6.80 merely to maintain the population.
Considering the relative richness of the environment and the quite
elaborate culture of the Pomo an average of 7.0 is by no means
excessive for the aboriginal Pomo.

That the Clear Lake Pomo were in a deplorable state at the time
described by Gifford is attested by the statements of his informants
concerning the subsequent fate of the 57 children mentioned in the
text. Of these, 29, or 50.9 per cent, "died young." Such a tremendous
child mortality is quite consistent with our entire picture of the
postcontact decline in Indian population but is wholly at variance with
any reasonable concept of aboriginal conditions.

At Cigom Gifford found 20 houses, mostly of the multiple type so common
among the Pomo. Three of the houses held 4 families, three held 3,
twelve held 2, and two held 1. The average is 2.35 families per house
or, in terms of persons, 11.75 per house. This is of course based on
the 1850 value of 5.0 persons per family. If we admit an aboriginal
number of 7.0 persons per family, then the number per house becomes
16.45 instead of 11.75.

In his study of Redwood Valley Kniffen (1939, pp. 373-380) puts the
population at 125 and the number of houses at 12. This would mean 10.4
persons per house, quite close to Gifford's value for Cigom in or near
1850.

In his chapter on the Pomo Stephen Powers (1877) described the village
of Senel (Sanel, Shanel) in the Russian River valley (p. 168 and map).
He shows on his map 104 houses and 5 assembly houses. The houses were
large and contained according to his estimate 20-30 persons each. This
estimate seems much too high. However, on other grounds he puts the
former population at 1,500 inhabitants, a figure which is arrived at
entirely independently by an informant of Stewart (1943, p. 45). Indeed
Stewart comments with reference to Powers that "my population estimate
and description closely approximate his." This means for 104 houses a
mean of 14.42 occu