116 



BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 



[Bull. 197 



Table 25. — Reported Indian population, hy State, agency, reservation, and resi- 

 dence, for Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah — 1950 — Continued 



1 The original source for these data consists of a numlier of special tabulations prepared 

 by the Bureau of the Census fro'm the returns of the 1950 census and submitted to the 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1954 a, table 1). These figures do not 

 include a total of 21,201 Indians who were identified only as residents of the "rest of 

 State" in these three States. Of these, 11.293 were enumerated in Arizona, 8,050 in New 

 Mexico, and 1,858 in Utah. The figures shown above thus pertain only to Indians whose 

 usual residence, as recorded by the census enumerators in 1950, lies within the boundaries 

 of the specified reservations. Figures in parentheses are estimates. 



" These data were prepared by the Vital Statistics section of the Branch of Health, 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs (now a part of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- 

 fare), on the basis of the 1950 census returns and additional information obtained from 

 counts of persons listed on tribal rolls and other sources (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1954 a, 

 table 2). The figures shown comprise the enumerated resident Indian population of the 

 specified reservations in 1950 plus two additional groups of Indians : Those who were 

 temporarily absent from the reservation at the time of the census (migratory farm 

 workers, railroad laborers, etc.) and those who were residing in the vicinity of the specified 

 reservation, but outside its boundaries. In theory, the former group should have been 

 enumerated at their usual place of residence (i.e., their reservation), but in practice, the 

 usual residence of migratory laborers is diflicult to ascertain, so they are generally counted 

 as a part of the area where they are found at the time of the census. The resultant 

 "service area" population is, as its name implies, a useful figure for administrative pur- 

 poses, since it denotes the population of Indians who enjoy ready access to the services 

 and facilities of their respective Indian agencies. Figures in parentheses are estimates. 



3 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1954 a, table 2. These data were prepared from counts of 

 the population listed on the respective tribal rolls in 1950 or shortly thereafter. Since the 

 enrolled population of the Navajo Agency was not given by State, it is impossible to derive 

 totals bv State for the enrolled population. A further diflJculty arises from the fact that 

 the tota'l enrolled population given in table 2 is 397 less than the sum of the component 

 enrolled populations of the several Indian agencies. The total shown here was accordingly 

 increased by 397. Figures in parentheses are estimates. 



■'• These figures pertain to the total Indian population enumerated in the specified Indian 

 agency areas. In general, the boundaries of an Indian agency area are approximately the 

 same "as those of the corresponding service area. The Navajo Agency area population 

 shown for each State is not given in Bureau of the Census, 1953 a, table 16, from which 

 those data were taken. 



s The figures exclude 45 Chemehuevi Indians, who were included with the "rest of 

 State" population for Arizona. 



8 Not separately identified in the 1950 census. 



' Comprising Camp Verde, Cocopah, and Fort Mohave. The population of Cocopah was 

 not reported as a separate unit in the 1950 census. The resident population of Camp 

 Verde and Fort Mohave totaled 51 in 1950. The service area population of 722 includes 

 522 Indians in the Cocopah and Camp Verde service areas as estimated in 1952. Similarly, 

 the enrolled population of 735 includes 525 Indians in the Cocopah and Camp Verde agency 

 rolls, as determined in 1952. 



8 Young, 1957, p. 276. 



» Data are from estimates prepared in 1952. 



" Since the bulk of the Consolidated Ute Agency is located in Colorado, the service area 

 and enrolled populations of that agency were not included in the New Mexico or Utah 

 totals. The resident population of that agency, as shown for New Mexico and Utah, are 

 actual residents of these States. 



"The communities of Alamo (formerly Puertocito), Canoncito, and Ramah are Navaho 

 communities whose inhabitants are presumably enrolled on the Navajo Agency rolls. Thus, 

 they are included only in the resident and service area population totals for the United 

 Pueblos Agency. 



Similarly, the enumerated population total given for the United Pueblos Agency excludes 

 the Zuni Pueblo, which was reported separately. 



