110 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 197 



It is at once apparent that tlie 1930 census figure is much closer to 

 that of the Navajo Agency than was the case in 1910. In 1930, the 

 agency figure was only 4.6 percent higher than the census figure, as 

 compared to tlie excess of 18.6 percent in 1910. However, closer 

 examination of these 1930 data reveals a number of perplexing dis- 

 crepancies. In Arizona, the agency figure of 25,058 included Navahos 

 residing in Utah, since the Utah portion of the reservation was in- 

 cluded with the Western Navajo Agency at this time, and thus was 

 reported under the totals for Arizona. Adding the census figures for 

 Arizona, we find that the agency figure is 14.9 percent higher than 

 the census figure. In New Mexico, by contrast, the agency figure 

 is 6.9 percent below the census figure. Furthermore, the census re- 

 ported a total of 277 Navahos residing in States other than Arizona, 

 New Mexico, or Utah, whereas the agency reports make no reference 

 to such persons. 



A further question can be raised with regard to the number of In- 

 dians in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah whose tribal 

 affiliation was not specified in the 1930 enumeration. If these persons 

 are distributed among the several tribes in proportion to their own 

 relative numbers, we obtain 637 additional Navahos in Arizona, 743 in 

 New Mexico, and 62 in Utah, for a total of 1,442 "Navajos by alloca- 

 tion." Adding these to the census total of 39,064 produces a total 

 Navaho population of 40,506, which figure is within 1 percent of the 

 Navajo Agency figure. "^^ 



It should be stressed, however, that this close correspondence is 

 largely fortuitous. A better indication of the possible errors in these 

 statistics can be seen in the number of Navahos reported in Utah. The 

 census reported 1,109 Navahos in Utah in 1930. The Navajo Agency, 

 on the other hand, did not report the Utah Navahos separately until 

 1935, when it estimated their number as 801. Similar fio;ures were 

 reported by the Navajo Agency in 1940 (304) and again in 1945 (354) . 

 By contrast, the 1950 census report indicates 1,445 Navahos in Utah 

 (Bureau of the Census, 1953). "^ Thus, both the 1930 and the 1950 

 census figures for the Navaho population of Utah are greatly in excess 

 of the Navajo Agency estimates made during the intervening years. 

 Since both sets of figures purport to refer to residents, the difference 

 between them can hardly be attributed to seasonal migration. Fur- 

 thermore, the possibility that numbers of Utes or Paiutes were mis- 

 takenly classified as Navahos by the census enumerators in Utah 



«i Bureau of the Census, 1937, p. 78. This allocation assumes that the proportion of 

 Navahos among Indians of unspecified tribes is the same as the proportion of reported 

 Navahos among Indians of specified tribes in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. 



63 Similar comparisons cannot readily be made from the returns of the 1960 census, since 

 the total of 2,654 "Utah Navahos" reported in 1960 is actually the total number of Indians 

 residing in San Juan County, Utah. Although most of the Indians in that county are 

 probably Navahos, the Navajo Reservation covers only a small portion of that county. 

 The 1960 data are from the Bureau of the Census, 1963 c, table 51. 



