Johnston] 



NAVAHO POPULATION 181 



it is possible to trace at least the broad outlines of Navalio population 

 growth during- the past century. Furthermore, this study has pro- 

 vided a limited but suggestive demonstration of the usefulness of 

 certain analytical devices by means of which the demographer can 

 evaluate the available data and then utilize these data in the develop- 

 ment of typological constructs which reflect the probable character- 

 istics of the population in question. 



As was discussed in the introductory chapter, an important diffi- 

 culty which attends any attempt to develop precise measures of 

 demographic phenomena among the Navaho or indeed, among Amer- 

 ican Indians in general, is the problem of definition. A legal definition 

 of the category "American Indian" is essentially a composite of the 

 widely differentiated criteria of tribal membership or affiliation which 

 are enforced by the several Indian tribes who retain the right to 

 establish or modify these criteria. In the case of the Navaho tribe 

 no official criterion has yet been established, although the requirement 

 that applicants for enrollment on the census office rolls at Window 

 Rock, Ariz., should be able to establish that they are at least 

 "one-fourth" Indian has been in practice for some time. 



Meanwhile, the Bureau of the Census, confronted with the require- 

 ment that American Indians should be enumerated as a distinct racial 

 or ethnic group in its decennial censuses, has perforce utilized its own 

 definition of "American Indian," which is best reflected in the actual 

 field procedures whereby persons are classified as American Indians 

 in the course of the enumeration. By this "operational" definition, a 

 person was classified as an American Indian if he was identified as 

 such by the enumerator or, in 1960, if he identified himself as an 

 Indian. In cases of doubt, the enumerator could resort to the "pre- 

 vailing judgment of the local community" (which means, in most 

 instances, his own personal judgment) or he could ask the respondent 

 his racial affiliation. Although the observed disparity between the 

 size of the Indian population as enumerated by the Bureau and the 

 size of the Indian population as estimated from tribal rolls cannot be 

 attributed solely to these definitional differences, such differences un- 

 doubtedly contribute to this disparity.^^ 



Admittedly, this problem of definition has been of small import 

 among the Navaho population in the past, because of the relative 

 isolation and easy identifiability of most of its members, and the 



21 As mentioned on p. 13, the introduction of self-enumeration in the 1960 census has 

 brought about a major change in the census definition of Indians or members of other 

 ethnic groups by reversing, in effect, the order of priority between the judgment of the 

 enumerator and that of the respondent. Insofar as respondents received and filled out the 

 advance census forms prior to the enumerator's visit, they were able to classify themselves 

 as to race. In theory, this innovation would provide a census count of Indians which could 

 serve as a useful check on the totals derived from the several tribal rolls. However, such 

 .a check is hardly practicable in view of the failure to record tribal affiliation of the Indians 

 enumerated in the 1960 census. 



