Naming - English or Indian Names
There were no instructions with the earliest census forms, other than to include a census of all Indians under the agent’s charge, but the Commissioner did occasionally issue a statement about the census. Primarily he urged the agents to get the information and send it in on time, without much comment. The early instructions just said to include family groups with all the people living in each household. The agent was instructed to list the Indian and English names of the head of the household and the names, ages, and relationship of the other family members. The column for Indian Name continued, but in fact, Indian names were falling out of usage and were seldom included after about 1904.A directive in 1902 gave suggestions for how to translate Indian names to English in what would now be termed “politically correct” fashion. The usefulness of having all the family members share the same surname was pointed out, especially for the purposes of property or land ownership, so that children and wives would be known by the names of their fathers and husbands in questions of inheritance. The agents were told not to simply substitute English for the native language. It was suggested that a native name be retained as much as possible, but not if it were too difficult to pronounce and remember. If it were easily pronounced and mellifluous, it should be retained. Names of animals could be translated to the English version, such as Wolf, but only if the Indian word was too long and too difficult. “Foolish, cumbersome or uncouth translations which would handicap a self-respecting person should not be tolerated.” Complex names such as Dog Turning Round might be better rendered, for example, as Turningdog, or Whirlingdog. Derogatory nicknames were to be dropped.
The Agent’s Jurisdiction - Who Was Included?
For years little guidance was given to help the agent determine whom to include. In 1909, he was asked to show how many resided on the reservation and how many allotted Indians were living on their allotments. That information was not included on the census roll itself, but as part of the annual report. He was urged to take pains to make the numbers accurate.It wasn’t until 1919 that any clarifying instructions about whom to include were added. The Commissioner directed superintendents and agents in Circular 1538, "In enumerating Indians who are not attached to your jurisdiction, they should be classified by tribal affiliations, in which case they should be designated by approximate blood relationship." He was referring to people living in the jurisdiction, but not from that reservation or tribe, rather than people not present and living off reservation. If they were listed with a family, the agent should tell what family relationship they bore to an enrolled person, and what tribe or jurisdiction they actually belonged to. The Commissioner pointed out that both parents might not be members of the same tribe, for example, one Pima and one, Hopi. The parents had the right to determine with which tribe the children should be identified, and agents were instructed to show the parents’ selection as the first one, with a hyphen and the second tribe, as in Pima-Hopi.
Very likely the only thing new by 1919 was to be sure to indicate the formal tribal affiliation of all. Formerly it might simply have been assumed from the census that the grandmother living with the family was actually a member of that tribe and reservation. Or she might not have been listed, because she really did belong with another tribe. Or if more than one tribe resided within a jurisdiction, the distinction might not have been made. In urging accuracy, the Commissioner said in 1921, “It does not seem to be generally appreciated that the census rolls are often the basis of the property rights of the Indian enrolled. An allotting agent looks to the census roll to determine who are entitled to allotments. An examiner of inheritances secures much of his information …from the census rolls.” (Circular 1671). But in many ways it was the decision of the Superintendent or Agent as to whether someone should be included in the census.
