124 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 197 



Table 26. — Reported total population ty land management district — 1936 and 1940 



1 Soil Conservation Service, 1938, table 1. 



2 Bureau of Indian Affairs , 1941 b, table 1. 



' All estimated totals pertain to the Navaho only. Tlie estimated number of Hopi in district No. 3, 

 and those reported in district No. 6, were therefore excluded from these estimated totals. 



* Percent increases were not calculated for the total Navaho, the ofl-roservation Navaho, or for the 

 populations of district Nos. 11, 15, and 16, because of boundary shifts which vitiate comparability of these 

 data. The major boundary changes were as follows: District No. 11 was about 10 percent larger in 1940 

 than in 1936; district No. 15 (on-reservation) was about 13 percent larger in 1940; districts No. 15 (off- 

 reservation) and 19 were not reported in 1936; and district No. 16 was about 72 percent greater in 1940. 

 Percent increases for the Navaho and Hopi in district No. 3 are estimates, based upon the estimated popu- 

 lations in these categories, as obtained through the procedure outlined in footnote 5. 



5 The 1936 population figures given for district No. 3 were distributed between Hopi and Navaho accord- 

 ing to their proportionate distribution in the same district in 1940. The resultant figures for both population 

 and consumption groups are therefore estimates. The number of consumption groups reported for district 

 No. 3 in 1936 was distributed between the estimated Hopi and Navaho populations of that district on the 

 assumption that the average size of Hopi consumption groups in district No. 3 was the same as in district 

 No. 6, which is exchisively Hopi. The remaining consumption groups were then assumed to be Navaho. 



The number of consumption groups in 1940 was calculated on the assumption that their average size was 

 the same as in 1936, wlien it was originally determined from the data provided. The number of consumption 

 groups in district No. 3 was distributed between the Hopi and the Navaho on this basis. 



6 Data not available. 



or 17 percent above the total on-reservation population reported in the 

 Human Dependency SurveyJ^ 



Comparisons between most of the figures given by land management 

 district are unwarranted in view of the numerous changes in district 

 boimdaries that occurred during the interval between the survey and 

 the census of 1940. Furthermore, some of the differences in the popu- 

 lation totals of the several districts undoubtedly reflect actual changes 

 that occurred in the interim through migration and natural increase. 

 It should be noted, however, that the largest population increases are 

 indicated in the land management districts located in the northern and 



"' This estim.ited deficiency is, of course, only suggestive, and is probably minimal. To 

 the extent that the 1940 census was itself deficient in coverage, and/or the assumed rate 

 of natural Increase too high, the deficiency in the 1936 survey total would be even greater. 



