Johnston] NAVAHO POPULATION 117 



plus the inhabitants of a zone immediately surrounding or contiguous 

 to the reservation. These persons, in general, are assumed to enjoy 

 ready access to the facilities and services provided on their respective 

 reservations. The enrolled population, finally, can be defined as the 

 total number of persons listed on the respective agency rolls.*^*^ In the 

 case of the Navajo Agency, however, it is important to note that the 

 figure given for the enrolled population was obtained by adding an 

 estimated 7,000 "off-reservation" Navahos to the figure given for the 

 poj)ulation of Navahos residing in the Navajo Agency service area. 

 The resultant total of 69,167 was apparently confirmed in an examina- 

 tion of the Navajo Agency census office rolls in 1952. It must be 

 stressed, however, that the 1950 figure is only an estimate which hinges 

 largely upon the accuracy of the rough estimate given for Navahos 

 who were presumed to be outside the Navaho service area at the time 

 of the 1950 census.*'" 



In comparing the figures shown in table 25 for the State of Arizona, 

 it should be noted that there remains no residual "rest of State" popu- 

 lation to be accounted for in the published figures of the enumerated 

 Indian population. Therefore, the figures must be accepted without 

 adjustment."* However, a comparison of the figures given for the 

 Hopi and Papago Agencies is instinictive in regard to the possible 

 errors in classification that occurred in the 1950 census. The enumer- 

 ated population of the Hopi Agency area is far below the other totals 

 shown for this agency. This suggests either that a considerable num- 

 ber of Hopis W'ere enumerated as Navahos, or that some confusion 

 attended the allocation of enumeration districts betw^een the Hopi 

 and Navajo Agencies. The figures for the Papago Agency, by con- 

 trast, suggest that a considerable number of non-Papago Indians, or 

 possible Mexicans, were enumerated or classified as Papago in the 1950 

 census. The corresponding count of Pima Indians in the Pima Indian 

 Agency area was too low, suggesting that some Pimas may have been 

 misclassified as Papagos at this time. This was due, in part, to the 

 poor boundary distinctions between the Pima and Papago Agency 

 areas. Thus, although any adjustment in the figures given would be 

 quite arbitrary, these comparisons indicate that the classification of 

 Indians by tribe at this time was far from satisfactory. 



In New Mexico, there remains an enumerated population of 2,428 

 Indians whose tribal affiliation was not determined. In examining 



80 It should be noted that the service area and enrolled populations were originally 

 totaled by agency and not by State. The totals are therefore the sums of the respective 

 agency figures. 



a^The statement of Robert W. Young (1958, p. 322), is pertinent in this regard : "The 

 figure provided with relation to the 1950 Census [69,167] relates to the number of Navajos 

 counted in the national census of 1950, plus an estimated additional number who were 

 absent from the Reservation at census time .... Since the Reservation population is 

 usually in flux and most Navajos go and come over the course of the year, the figure 

 reflecting the number 'off-Reservation' is largely a guess." 



•^ See table 25, footnote 3, for an explanation of this point. 



