120 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 197 



and are unable to fill out questionnaires without considerable assist- 

 ance. This situation was of course clearly recognized during the 

 1960 census, in which the entire enumeration was conducted without 

 any mailed questionnaires, except for the few communities where 

 such a procedure could be employed. 



A further limitation of the 1960 census was the exclusive reliance 

 upon standard census schedules. Since so many of the standard 

 census questions are practically inapplicable in the context of reserva- 

 tion life, or require careful explanation and qualification in order to 

 be understood by the respondent or properly interpreted by the data 

 user, the use of a regular census schedule lends an air of unreality to 

 much of the enumeration.^^ 



Finally, the failure to obtain information on the tribal affiliation of 

 all Indians severely limits the practical value of the census data. Since 

 the members of the different tribes are increasingly mobile, it is no 

 longer realistic to assume that all Indians living in an area tradition- 

 ally associated with a given tribe are members of that tribe. In 1960, 

 for example, many Hopi Indians, attracted to the area by the employ- 

 ment opportimities afforded by the construction of a gas pipeline, the 

 Glen Canyon Dam, and other projects, were residing in the vicinity of 

 Tuba City, well within the boundaries of the Navajo Reservation. 

 Since no information on their tribal affiliation could be obtained, these 

 Hopis would necessarily have been classified as Navahos. 



Even in the few areas where tribal admixtures are not important, 

 the identification of Indian areas in terms of county boundaries in 

 1960 imposed a further limitation on the usefulness of the data. Since 

 many reservations cut across county lines, and many counties contain 

 two or more reservations, the resultant tabulations frequently combine 

 the population characteristics of two or more heterogeneous tribal 

 groups. 



In short, the important technical advances that were made in the 

 1960 census procedures did not significantly improve either the quality 

 or the usefulness of the data for such special populations as the Navaho 

 Indians. Only the inclusion of a question on tribal affiliation would 

 permit the preparation of separate tabulations showing the social and 

 economic characteristics of the more important tribal groups. Fur- 

 thermore, the use of a special census schedule in the major reservation 

 areas is essential in order to provide meaningful data on social and 

 economic characteristics, acculturation, and the like. 



«» For example, housing questions pertaining to number of rooms and plumbing facilities 

 elicited much humor and some embarrassment ; those relating to the "size of this place" 

 and the "value of this house" created much confusion. A brief analysis of Navaho popu- 

 lation characteristics, as derived from the results of the 1960 census, is presented in Hil- 

 lary and Essene, 1963. 



