134 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 197 



obtains some information on the Indian population, but does not 

 classify the respondents according to their tribal affiliation (see pp. 

 98-121). The annual report of 1872 (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

 1872, p. 52) is of particular interest in regard to the question of the 

 number of Navahos who managed to escape captivity at Fort Sumner. 

 This report gives the total number of Navahos as "9,114, an increase 

 of 880 over last year's enumeration, . . . due mainly to the return 

 of captives by the Mexicans." As previously mentioned, this report 

 suggests that in estimating the true Navaho population at this time, 

 it is necessary to consider three population groups: those at Fort 

 Sumner, those who escaped to the West, and those who were enslaved 

 by the Mexicans and others. 



In 1875, the Navaho population was reported as 11,768. In 1884, the 

 estimate had risen to 17,200. In 1885, the estimate jmnped to 21,003. 

 The 1884 estimate implies an average annual rate of mcrease of 

 5.44 percent between 1872 and 1884, while the 1885 estimate implies 

 a similar rate of 6.63 percent from 1872 to 1885.^® Either of these 

 rates is clearly implausible for any population not receiving substan- 

 tial accessions of immigrants from beyond its boundaries. The ques- 

 tion remains, however, of deciding whether the earlier estimates are 

 too low or the later ones too high. Unfortunately, neither the census 

 enumeration of 1890 nor the subsequent annual reports of the Navaho 

 agents shed much light on this question. In the special enumeration 

 of Indians at the 1890 census, a total of 17,204 Navahos was reported. 

 However, this enumeration was generally considered to have been 

 faulty and incomplete.^^ Meanwhile, the estimates of the Navaho 

 agents during this period varied between 15,000 and 20,000.^^ These 

 estimates suggest that the figure reported for 1885 was too high, but 

 their own precision can scarcely be relied upon. 



Following the 1890 census, the annual reports of the Navaho agents 

 contain little information on population. The reports for some years 

 merely repeat the figures given at the previous year. Thus, for ex- 

 ample, the report of 1896 gives the Navaho population as 20,500, and 

 the reports of 1896-98 quote the same figure. In such a case, repetition 

 scarcely increases credibility. 



The report of the second special enumeration of Indians, conducted 

 by the Bureau of the Census in 1910, gave the total Navaho population 



** The procedure for computing average annual rates of natural increase is described in 

 the Appendix. 



^ Bureau of the Census, 1894, table V, pp. 82 fp. A criticism of this first Navaho 

 enumeration is given in Hodge, 1910, p. 42. 



8» Patterson, 1886, gives the Navaho population as 17,358 ; Vandever, 1890, gives it as 

 about 14,000 or 15,000 ; Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1895, gives it as 20,500. The official 

 estimate for 1890 of 14,000 to 15,000 apparently explains why Washington Mattliews 

 regarded the 1890 census figures for the Navaho as too high. (See Krzywicki, 1934.) The 

 estimates cited for this period, however, suggest that the census figure for 1890 is as good 

 as any. 



