118 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 197 



the figures given for the respective agencies, the first point to note is 

 the apparent deficiency in the enumerated popuhition of the United 

 Pueblos Agency. Secondly, the enumerated populations of the Ute 

 Mountain, Jicarilla Apache, and Mescalero Apache reservations were 

 not shown separately in the published totals. It also should be re- 

 marked that the off-reservation Navaho population in New Mexico is, 

 for the most part, located in well-defined communities or areas, such 

 as Alamo, Canoncito, and Ramah, so that it is unlikely that large 

 numbers of unidentified Navahos would be found among the State's 

 residual Indian population whose tribal affiliation was not specified. 



Thus, it can be tentatively concluded that the Indian population of 

 New Mexico whose tribal affiliations were not indicated was composed 

 mainly of Apaches and Pueblos. 



Finally, the salient feature of the figures shown for the State of 

 Utah is the absence of separate statistics on the enumerated popu- 

 lations of the Ute, Uintah and Ouray, and a number of smaller Indian 

 agencies. The figures shown for the resident and/or enrolled popu- 

 lations of these agencies suggest a total population of approximately 

 2,100. This would imply a residual "rest of State" enumerated 

 population of about 300 Indians of unspecified tribe. Although it 

 is possible that this residual group was Navaho, it should be noted that 

 the enumerated Navaho population of Utah is considerably larger 

 than either the resident or the service area population of the Utah 

 portion of the Navajo Agency. It can therefore be tentatively con- 

 cluded that this residual population is not likely to be Navaho. 



The general conclusion that can be drawn is that the 4,819 Indians 

 who were evidently enumerated outside of any of the specified Indian 

 agency areas in New Mexico and Utah did not include a very large 

 proportion of Navahos. Furthermore, the figures shown for the 

 Hopi Agency suggest that any undercount of Navahos residing out- 

 side the Navajo Agency area was more than compensated for by the 

 strong possibility of an overcount of Navahos in the Hopi Agency. 



A final comment should be made in regard to the discrepancy be- 

 tAveen the Navajo Agency estimate of 69,167 enrolled Navahos and 

 the enumerated total of 64,274. The point to note here is that nearly 

 one-sixth of the enumerated Indian population that was classified as 

 Navaho in the 1950 census was classified solely on the basis of its 

 residence in enumeration districts which were considered to be pri- 

 marily or exclusively Navaho. Only 54,997 Navahos were actually 

 enumerated as residents within the boundaries of the reservation. 

 Since the regular census schedule used outside the reservation bound- 

 aries did not include a question on tribal affiliation, a total of 9,277 

 Indians were enumerated on regular census schedules and classified as 

 Navaho on the basis of their residence in enumeration districts known 

 to be occupied by Navahos. 



