114 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 197 



First, the period during which the decennial census occurred (mostly 

 during the first 2 weeks in April) is unfortunate from the viewpoint 

 of achieving maximum coverage of the population. At this time, 

 many Navaho families and individual members of families regularly 

 leave their relatively permanent winter residence for temporary 

 summer encampments and/or seasonal off-reservation employment. 

 Thus, many of the winter residences are likely to be vacant at the time 

 of the enumerator's call. It need hardly be added that repeated "call- 

 backs" are not likely to prove feasible when each visit may involve 

 several hours' travel over poor roads. 



Secondly, it should be noted that the tribal affiliation of the Indian 

 population residing outside of the selected Indian agency areas was 

 not specified in the 1950 census. As noted previously, the number of 

 such persons was relatively small in the Southwestern States, but there 

 remained the possibility that numbers of Navahos who were residing 

 (permanently or temporarily) away from their agency area were iden- 

 tified only as Indians and not as Navahos. Although the temporary 

 absentees would presumably have been listed with their family mem- 

 bers within the reservation area, there is no guarantee that a consid- 

 erable proportion of them were not omitted from the enumeration 

 conducted m the agency area. 



It is difficult to estimate the total number of off-reservation Navahos 

 who were not identified as such by the 1950 census enumerators, even 

 though they may have been classified as Indians. In this regard, how- 

 ever, a comparison of the total number of Indians enumerated in 

 Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah with the number reported as residents 

 of the specified reservations or Indian agency areas is instructive (table 

 25). 



The total Indian population enumerated in these three States in 

 1950 was 112,285.*^5 Of this total 64,274 or 57.2 percent were identified 

 as Navahos, wliile a further 43,192 or 38.5 percent were identified with 

 other specified Indian agency areas. This leaves a remainder of 4,819 

 or 4.3 percent whose tribal affiliation was not specified. It is possible 

 to draw certain inferences regarding the probable tribal affiliation of 

 this residual group by examining the figures given for the resident, 

 service area, and enrolled populations shown in columns 1, 2, and 3, 

 of table 25. The figures for the resident service area populations were 

 obtained from unpublished tabulations of 1950 census data which 

 were submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Those for the en- 

 rolled populations are derived from the rolls of the respective tribes 

 as maintained in the several agencies. The resident population can 

 be defuied as that actually residing within the specified Indian reser- 

 vation. The service area population comprises the resident population 



6= The published totals come to 111,SS8 rather than 112,285. The discrepancy is 

 explained in table 25, footnote 3. 



