CHAPTER 6

Aboriginal Tribal Territories

Being in a combined Sociology/Anthropology Department exposed me to ideas and information sources I might otherwise have missed. The separate studies reported in this chapter are due, in large part, to the influence of my then-colleagues in Anthropology, both faculty and students.

The "Old Oregon Country"

In the Spring of 1971 Ted Allen, an Assistant Professor in Anthropology, showed me a book[1] concerned with the Klamath Indians in south-central Oregon. It contained a map of the state showing aboriginal tribal territories at the time of Caucasian contact (the "ethnographic present"). What struck both of us was the similarity between that map and the present day one of county boundaries: smaller units near the coast, with larger ones inland.

FIG. 6-1. TRIBAL TERRITORIES IN
THE "OLD OREGON" COUNTRY
6-1.OldOregon.gif (3132bytes)

I might not have pursued the matter further except for an announcement by a graduate student, Steve Wright, that he was dropping out of the M.A. program. He said he was unable to complete a thesis. After questioning him about his efforts, I realized he had been advised to undertake projects too vast for completion in a doctoral program, let alone the masters. I suggested a simpler project: that he check with Ted about the map of tribal territories in Oregon and that he try to relate these to Indian population densities also from the "ethnographic present".

He reluctantly, and then enthusiastically, undertook the study. He found that the Oregon map was part of a larger one by Schaeffer[2] showing tribes and language groups in the "Old Oregon Country", covering the same area as the Oregon Territory shown in Fig. 2-2. The tribal boundaries are shown in Fig. 6-1.

K&E mechanical planimeter, set up (left) and in its box
Using a much-enlarged version of this map[3] Steve measured the area of each unit using a mechanical planimeter I had obtained with a $75 grant (!) from Western's Bureau for Faculty Research. (There's an excellent explanation and simulation of a planimeter and how it works, by Larry Leinweber, here. To compensate for measurement errors (Steve's eyesight, unlike mine, was excellent, but the machine still gave varying results) each unit was measured three times and the results were then averaged. The estimates are shown in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. TRIBAL TERRITORIES OF THE "OLD OREGON" COUNTRY

Density Category Density Category Tribe Area (km2) rank Tribe Area (km2) rank
0.75-5 persons 12-30 persons (cont.) Puyallup 4,009 28 Northern Paiute 61,564 3 Samish 419 *92 Shoshoni 137,125 1 Semiahoo 314 96 Colville 2,280 *47.5 Skagit 5,136 21 Coeur D'Alene 13,602 6 Skykomish 2,080 49 Kalipse 10,929 10 Snohomish 1,037 73 Kutenai 2,516 *38.5 Snuqualmi 2,322 45 Lakes 5,110 22 Southwestern Sound 982 75 Methow 3,700 29 Stillaquamish 2,437 41 Nespelim 2,489 40 Suiattle-Sauk 602 *85 Sanpoil 3,616 31 Suquamish 1,651 *54.5 So. Okanogan 6,997 15 Swallah 1,231 *67 Unnamed Area 12,668 9 Swinomish 471 *90 Thompson 2,358 43.5 5-12 persons Twana Skokomish 3,286 33 Cascades 681 *83.5 30-75 persons Cayuse 26,773 4 Chelan 2,909 *34.5 Alsea 1,493 *57.5 Columbia 13,523 7 Applegate Creek 550 *86.5 Entiat 1,336 *63.5 Chasta Costa 1,100 *71 Hood River 701 82 Chetco 1,179 *68.5 Kittitas 4,890 23 Clackamas 5,268 *19 Klamath 10,378 11 Clatsop 471 90 Klickitat 6,447 17 Copalis 393 93 Kalmiut 1,493 *57.5 Cowlitz 3,302 *32 Mary's River 1,258 66 Galice Creek 314 *96 Modoc 2,909 *34.5 Hanis Coos 1,415 61.5 Nez Perce 73,385 2 Hoh 828 *80 Northern Molla 5,268 *19 Humptulips 1,100 *71 Palus 7,836 13 Kathlamet 943 76.5 Santiam 7,312 14 Klallam 2,411 42 Southern Molala 5,268 *19 Klatakanie 2,673 *36 Spokane 13,209 8 Kwalhiokwa 1,651 54.5 Taidnapan 2,594 37 Lower Chelais 891 79 Tualitin 1,472 59 Lower Umpqua 2,319 46 Umatilla 18,005 5 Makah 283 *98 Unnamed Area II 1,466 60 Miluk Coos 550 86.5 Wanapam 3,695 30 Ozette 377 *94 Wasco 681 *83.5 Queets 1,415 *61.5 Wenatchi 4,245 25 Quileute 1,887 51.5 White Salmon 235 99 Quinault 1,320 65 Wishram 471 *90 Satsop 912 78 Yamhill 4,088 26 Shasta 1,022 *74 Yonkalla 6,840 16 Shoalwater Chinook1,887 *51.5 Siletz 1,100 71 12-30 persons Takelma 9,985 12 Tillamook 4,036 *27 Chemakum 943 *76.5 Tolowa 314 *96 Dduwamish 1,336 *63.5 Tututni 2,280 *47.5 Lower Skagit 1,179 *68.5 Upper Chehalis 2,516 *38.5 Lummi 157 100 Upper Coquile 2,358 43.5 Mickleshoot 1,525 56 Upper Umpqua 4,717 24 Nisqually 2,020 50 Wynooche 516 88 Nooksak 1,703 53 Yaquina 786 81
* tied with one or more other ranks

There were two areas which showed no tribal name. What these were (oversights?) we were unable to find out (Schaeffer had died). We included them in the study as "unlabeled area I" and "unlabeled area II".

Another problem with the map was that some portions of tribal territories were arbitrarily lopped off by the outer boundary of the map itself. But since these territories lay in very arid country, no doubt lightly settled, such areas made arbitrarily small would do no damage to our test of the size-density hypothesis.

Our next problem was to obtain information about the distribution of native populations. The obvious solution would be to obtain estimates of tribal populations, then compute the appropriate densities from these and our area estimates. No good population data was available. As Herb Taylor, then Dean for Faculty Research as well as Professor of Anthropology, had pointed out,

... reliable estimates for most aboriginal North American groups are difficult to achieve because the first governmental censuses were normally performed after a radical though indeterminate population decline had occurred.[4]

Even where data were available there was a problem of definition. What one researcher recognized as a tribe, another might not. For example, in the area around Bellingham, WA, Schaeffer's map distinguished the Lummi, Nooksack and Samish tribes. Kroeber[5] aggregated the Lummi and Nooksack populations, and Mooney[6] aggregated all three.

What is a tribe? I had a number of discussions and arguments with colleagues about the meaning of the word[7] and whether the research question was even legitimate (some argued that natives here didn't view territorial boundaries the same way westerners did). Such arguments seem metaphysical to me, not resolvable by any empirical means. In any case, I was not an anthropologist while Schaeffer, Mooney, Kroeber and the others were.

Sociologists have debated for years the definition of a "social system". My view of such metaphysical disputes is more in harmony with the physicists'[8]:

On a physical system,by which is meant any object of interest to physics or chemistry, numerous observations or measurements can be made. The quantities so observed or measured, such as size, energy, position and momentum, are called observables. It is well to think of these observables without ascribing to them the intuitive qualities they possess in classical mechanics. Position, or energy, is not so much possessed by a system as it is characteristic of a certain measuring process which can be carried out upon it. The measurement of an observable upon a system yields a number.

I had no way of asking people who had been dead for a century and a half what those boundaries might have once meant to them. To me they were boundaries which, once measured, would yield numbers for analysis.

In place of (unavailable) computed density figures, we used a portion of a map published by Kroeber[9] showing average regional densities at the time of Caucasian contact. An adaptation of that map is shown in Fig. 6-2.

FIG. 6-2. ABORIGINAL DENSITIES IN THE OLD OREGON COUNTRY
6-1.OldOregon.gif (3132bytes) 6-2.OregonDensity.gif (2777bytes)

We projected Schaeffer's tribal map over Kroeber's density map and located each tribal territory in whatever density group characterized most of its area. This grouping in shown in Table 6-1. Kroeber's lowest density category (0.75-2 people per sq. km.) contained only the Northern Paiute and Shoshoni tribes. We combined this category with the next one for purposes of statistical analysis.

We couldn't use regression analysis because the values of our independent variable were ranges rather than numbers. We couldn't use analysis of variance because the variances were not equal across our categories.[10] We used the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis[?] test for analysis of variance by ranks, obtaining H = 30.6 with 4 degrees of freedom. As a result we, using the accepted ritual academic phrase, rejected the null hypothesis (p < .001). Let's face it: we showed support for the size-density one.

We wrote up the results for publication, submitting the paper first, in April of 1972, to the American Journal of Sociology. They sat on it without response for over a year, finally rejecting the paper as "too anthropological" (whatever that means). We published it that June through a journal edited in our local Geography Department.[11]

Africa

During Christmas break 1971/2 an undergraduate, Lucky Tedrow, expressed interest in doing some research with me. It happened that Garland Grabert, an archaeologist in our Department, had just shown me a map (much too large to be reproduced here) showing tribal territories in Africa,[12] so I suggested a study of Africa to Lucky.

He numbered the 838 tribal territories shown on the map and, using a table of random numbers, selected 100 of them for analysis. He measured each territory three times with the planimeter and averaged the results. He identified density categories for each tribe from their location on a regional density map.[13] His area estimates, within density categories, are shown in Table 6-2. The average areas within each density category are shown in Table 6-3.

Table 6-2. TRIBAL TERRITORIES IN AFRICA

Density Category Density Category Density Category Tribe Area (km2) Tribe Area (km2) Tribe Area (km2)
<2.5 persons Kababish 203,245 Shashi 14,960 Lambya 5,343 Sena 23,081 Akposo 2,565 Lese 12,396 Swazi 29,707 Azjer 399,010 Mahafaly 16,029 Tigon 4,702 Bajun 7,908 Mittu 22,868 Yanqi 14,746 Bararetta 211,366 Nefuse 15,174 Zigula 9,617 Berabish 287,663 Ngombe 11,968 Bonog 22,654 Sakata 32,912 40-160 persons Duaish 63,047 Yaka 51,078 Fertit 15,815 Afo 1,282 Gadames 9,190 10-40 persons Ana 3,847 Gimma 19,235 Auyokawa 9,617 Heikum 58,986 Arusa 106,431 Bauchi 15,174 Huykwe 20,089 Balante 5,984 Darasa 9,617 Jalo 16,029 Builsa 2,565 Gisiga 4,702 Kapere 8,335 Chewa 74,801 Gurage 11,327 Kharga 68,176 Dakakari 9,190 Gusii 7,053 Lunda 36,973 Dogon 24,150 Katab 4,916 Mimi 5,985 Fipa 11,541 Kurama 2,565 Namib 46,849 Gafsa 3,847 Mbula 1,282 Nkoya 14,319 Gimira 7,480 Podokwo 641 Padang 28,211 Guang 31,203 Shawia 42,530 Riyah 26,692 Hemama 54,949 Sokoto 24,791 Rolong 72,236 Jibu 3,847 Sukuma 36,973 Somrai 12,823 Kam 1,496 Tripolitan 45,308 Songomeno 13,678 Kamant 5,343 Tulama 45,094 Sumbwa 7,266 Kisi 3,205 Wakura 1,710 Totela 17,739 Koalib 15,601 Wallaga 28,638 Yao 91,471 Konjo 18,593 Koro 3,206 >160 persons 2.5-10 persons Limba 4,274 Lugura 15,601 Egba 26,074 Beanzin 10,472 Maji 3,633 Ekiti 19,786 Bemba 47,569 Makonde 31,416 Ijebu 7,053 Dagu 10,472 Mayogo 3,633 Iyala 2,778 Dekakiri 7,480 Pende 171,097 Kipsigi 6,625 Fajulu 13,892 Pia 5,984 Maguzawa 11,754 Ishaak 100,447 Pondo 13,250 Soga 13,678

Table 6-3. AVERAGE AREAS BY DENSITY

Density Area (km2) N
<2.5 61,221 26 2.5-10 37,423 15 10-40 17,973 32 40-160 14,982 20 >160 12,548 7

Average size declines monotonically with increasing density. Since there are five categories, and five things can be arranged in five- factorial ways, the number of possible outcomes would be 5! = 5*4*3*2*1 = 120 ways. The probability that our results arose through chance is one out of 120, p = 1/120 or.008. [14]

A paper reporting these results was submitted to the Pacific Sociological Review and published in July of 1974.[15]

California

In Fall, 1972 I began working on a third cross-cultural study with another undergraduate student, Dave Myers. This was a direct replication of the study I had earlier done with Steve Wright. Our boundary map in this case showed tribal boundaries for California prior to 1770.[16] We excluded from this study any territories which bordered on the present state line (this is indicated by the shaded portion of Fig. 6-3). Planimeter measurements, transformed to square kilometers, are shown in Table 6-4. Density categories were again determined from Kroeber's map.

FIGS. 6-3,4. CALIFORNIA BOUNDARIES AND DENSITIES
6-3.California.gif (2959bytes) 6-4.CaliforniaDensity.gif (3312bytes)

Table 6-4. TRIBAL TERRITORIES IN CALIFORNIA

Density Category Density Category Tribe Area (km2) Rank Tribe Area (km2) Rank
0-25 45-70 (cont.) San Juan Bautista 14,508 34 Atsugewi 25,560 18 Santa Cruz 10,247 42 Achomawai 58,046 8 Santa Clara 20,412 27 Pass Cahuilla 11,115 40 San Francisco 5,056 68 Cepeno 1,698 85 San Pablo 5,457 67 Serrano 70,743 4 Hupa 4,235 76 Mohiueyam 69,087 5 Whilkut 6,929 60 Alliklik 20,197 28 Luiseno 57,723 9 Kitanemuk 22,960 23 Juaneno 5,580 65 Kawaiisy 99,305 3 Gabrielino 24,498 19 Tabatulabal 48,326 11 Fernandeno 7,645 57 Monache 42,286 12 Mattole 1,781 83 Northern Yana 1,701 84 Southern Miwok 20,486 26 Central Miwok 25,570 17 25-45 Norther Miwok 28,466 16 Plains Miwok 2,505 79 Okwanchu 8,426 51 Coast Miwok 16,893 31 Knomihu 1,360 88 River Penutian 34,585 14 New River Shasta 4,756 70 Hill Penutian 35,211 15 Desert Cahuilla 65,570 6 Esselen 8,741 48 Mount Cahuilla 12,266 36 Northeastern Pomo 1,566 86 Southern Maidu 60,838 7 Northwestern Pomo 1,870 82 Northwstrn Maudi 35,828 13 Nongatl 12,083 38 Bay Miwok 7,012 59 Lassik 4,687 72 Central Penutian 52,228 10 Shelter Dove 5,964 63 Northern Penutian 4,934 69 Lolangkok 4,425 75 Playano 8,438 50 Eal River 3,098 78 Migueleno 22,577 24 Pitch Wailaki 5,463 66 Antonano 16,964 30 Kato 2,482 80 Chimakiko 5,734 64 Karok 21,772 25 Yahi 8,650 49 Yuki 14,991 32 Southern Yanan 10,282 41 Huchnom 3,187 77 Central Yana 9,643 45 Coast Yuki 1,999 81 Buena Vista 23,281 22 Wappo 8,195 54 Southern Yokuts 104,482 2 Northern Yokuts 113,710 1 70+ 45-70 Wiyot 4,518 74 Coast Yurok 1,535 87 Bear River 17,721 29 Yurok 9,065 46 Cuyama 24,466 20 Southwestern Pomo 4,666 73 Emig Diano 6,468 62 Southern Pomo 10,242 43 Ventureno 24,169 21 Eastern Pomo 4,720 71 Barbareno 6,814 61 Central Pomo 7,751 56 Ynexeno 8,249 53 Northern Pomo 14,880 33 Purisimeno 11,668 39 Poso Creek 12,415 35 Obispeno 8,306 52 Tule-Kawesh 9,996 44 Soledad 8,916 47 Kings River 7,221 58 Rumsen 12,143 37 Northern Hill 8,150 55

We used the Kruskal-Wallis test[?] and computed a value of H = 11.89. With 3 degrees of freedom, p{H=0} < .01. Had we used the same reasoning as in the Africa test, we would have found, for the four density categories, average areas of 39,252, 28,849, 12,596, and 7,930: four numbers with 4! or 24 permutations, only one of which fit the hypothesis. 1/24 = .04, so we could still reject the null hypothesis at p < .05.

We submitted a report of this research to the Pacific Sociological Review; in May of 1973 it was rejected as "too anthropological" (that again). It ultimately appeared in Anthropology UCLA in Fall, 1974.[17]

The Siwai of Bougainville

Jay Callen was an undergraduate in our department when he and I were introduced by another of our Anthropologists, Professor Angelo Anastasio, in Spring, 1975. I worked on a number of projects with Jay, including this one concerning the Siwai, Bougainville Island. The Siwai are a Papuan-language group inhabiting the inland rain forest of southwestern Bougainville Island (155° E, 6° S) in the Solomon Islands. The ethnography on which we relied[18] covered the pre-war years 1938-9, when the Siwai were estimated to have a population of 4,700 people distributed over an eighty square mile area.

FIG. 6-5. SIWAI VILLAGES ON BOUGAINVILLE ISLAND
6-5.Bougainville.gif (3610bytes)

Oliver provided population figures for villages[19], but did not indicate the areas served by them. On the assumption that a point would be served by the village nearest it, we constructed Thiessen polygons[20] around each village as shown in Fig. 6- 5.

FIG. 6-6. THIESSEN POLYGONS
SURROUNDING SIWAI VILLAGES
6-6.Polygons.gif (5k)

As can be seen, some of the polygons are bounded by the boundary of the study area itself; we excluded these from our study, numbering the remaining 33 villages for identification. We were unable to obtain a population figure for village #16, so it also was dropped from study. The area figures were estimated with a planimeter.

Table TABLE 6-5. DATA FOR SIWAI VILLAGE POLYGONS

id# Village Population Area id# Village Population Area
1 Noronai 48 0.24 18 O'sakori 32 1.18 2 Maisua 81 0.48 19 Tonu 138 1.18 3 Ukuntu 39 1.57 20 Siroi 111 1.17 4 Kontai 147 1.99 21 Amiu 89 1.17 5 Rapauro 107 1.23 22 Kaparo 98 1.75 6 Panakei 116 1.75 23 Toitoi 62 1.64 7 Kinirui 72 1.34 24 Kunitua 66 3.69 8 Turungom 94 0.69 25 Kereiso 67 0.47 9 Rennu 64 0.50 26 Hurai 48 0.29 10 Novei 45 0.48 27 Hirei 63 0.84 11 Ku'hinna 50 0.38 28 Koropo 85 0.86 12 Raku 44 1.41 29 Unanai 139 1.56 13 Mataras 72 1.33 30 Karikaku 45 0.66 14 Jeku 55 1.18 31 Rakempa 51 0.32 15 Kapana 91 2.94 32 Sihuruhinna 84 0.71 17* Nukui 44 1.16 33 Kirinoru 29 0.48
* village 16 not included due to missing data

FIG. 6-7. SIWAI VILLAGE POLYGONS
6-7.SiwaiPlot.gif (2871bytes)

As Fig. 6-6 shows, there is a negative size-density slope for these polygons (r2 = .62; t0 =  -6.923; p{β0} < .0005). The slope was not significantly different from the "world regession line" slope of -2/3 (t-2/3 = -1.410; p{β-2/3} = n.s.).

We published our results through the Chicago Field Museum[21].

Next Chapter


NOTES:

[1] Theodore Stern, The Klamath Tribe: A People and Their Reservation, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966.

[2] Claude Schaeffer "Indian Tribes and Languages of the Old Oregon Country: A New Map", Oregon Historical Quarterly, 60:129-133, 1959

[3] A large colored sheet of Schaeffer's map, produced by the Oregon Historical Society (Portland, no date).

[4] Herbert C. Taylor, Jr., "The Utilization of Archeological and Ethnohistorical Data in Estimating Aboriginal Population," Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society, 32:121- 39. 1961.

[5] A. L. Kroeber, Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939.

[6] James Mooney, The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico, Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 8, No. 7., 1928.

[7] June Helm (editor), Essays on the Problem of Tribe (Proceedings of the 1967 Annual Meeting of the American Ethnological Society), Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968.

[8] Henry Morgenau and George Moseley Murphy, The Mathematics of Physics and Chemistry, (2nd edition), 335, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1956.

[9] A. L. Kroeber, Op. cit., 154.

[10] by Bartlett's test, in A. Hald, Statistical Theory with Engineering Applications, 190-1, New York: Wiley, 1952.

[11] G. Edward Stephan and Stephen M. Wright, "Indian Tribal Territories in the Pacific Northwest: A Cross-cultural Test of the Size-Density Hypothesis," Annals of Regional Science, 7:113- 23, 1973.

[12] George P. Murdock, Africa: Its Peoples and Their Cultural History, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

[13] Else Schmidt and Paul Mattingly, Population Density in Africa about 1960. Berlin: Georg Westermann Verlag, 1966. The original map showed 9 density categories, from "uninhabited" to "> 160 per sq. mi." These were so fine that he had difficulty locating tribes, so we collapsed several categories into those shown in Table 6-2.

[14] This tidy little "test of significance" was suggested by Professor Charles Gossman, a sociologist in our Department.

[15] G. Edward Stephan and Lucky M. Tedrow, "Tribal Territories in Africa: A Cross-cultural Test of the Size-Density Hypothesis," Pacific Sociological Review, 17:65-9, 1974.

[16] R. F. Heizer and M. A. Whipple, "Map of Native Tribes, Groups, Dialects and Families of California Prior to 1770", The California Indians, :frontispiece, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.

[17] David E. Myers and G. Edward Stephan, "Tribal Territories of the California Indians," Anthropology UCLA , 6:59:65, 1974.

[18] Douglas L. Oliver, A Solomon Island Society, Boston: Beacon Press, 1967.

[19] ibid, p. 16.

[20] Thiessen polygons: These are a set of polygons (aka the Dirichlet Tessellation or the Voronoi Diagram) which enclose the area geographically closest to a defined central place (among a set of such central places); conversely, any point is included in the polygon surrounding the central place nearest it. We obtained the straight lines comprising the polygons by connecting intersections of circular arcs drawn with equal radii from adjacent villages. Peter Haggett, Locational Analysis in Human Geography, 247, London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 1965 cites examples of the use of Thiessen polygons by the U.S. Weather Bureau to regionalize the rainfall reports of local weather stations, and by Donald Bogue to determine the boundaries of metropolitan regions in the United States.

[21] Jay S. Callen and G. Edward Stephan, "Siwai Line Villages: Thiessen Polygons and the Size-Density Hypothesis", Solomon Island Studies in Human Biogeography, Number 4, Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History, 1975.