Indian Census Rolls, 1885-1940 |
Updated 9 October 2014
The Indian Census Rolls, 1885-1940 ( M595, 692 rolls) contains census rolls that were usually submitted each year by agents or superintendents in charge of Indian reservations, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, as required by an act of July 4, 1884 (23 Stat. 98). The data on the rolls vary, but usually given are the English and/or Indian name of the person, roll number, age or date of birth, sex, and relationship to head of family.
Beginning in 1930, the rolls also include the degree of Indian blood, marital status, ward status, place of residence, and sometimes other information. For certain years--1935, 1936, 1938, and 1939--only supplemental rolls of additions and deletions were compiled. Most of the 1940 rolls have been retained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and are not included in this publication.
There is not a census for every reservation or group of American Indians for every year. Only persons who maintained a formal affiliation with a tribe under federal supervision are listed on these census rolls.
Legal and Administrative Background
The Act of July 4, 1884, (23 Stat. 76, 98) was vague, saying, "That hereafter each Indian agent be required, in his annual report, to submit a census of the Indians at his agency or upon the reservation under his charge." The Act itself did not specify the collection of names and personal information. However, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs sent a directive in 1885 (Circular 148) that reiterated the statement and added further instructions: "Superintendents in charge of Indian reservations should submit annually, a census of all Indians under their charge." He told the agents to use the plan he had prepared for gathering the information. The sample showed columns for Number (consecutive), Indian Name, English Name, Relationship, Sex, and Age. Other information on the number of males, females, schools, school children, and teachers was to be compiled statistically and included separately in the annual report.
The first form drawn up by the Commissioner asked only for name, age, sex, and family relationship. Since these early Indian Census Rolls contain so little information that they were never considered to be "private" in the same sense as the Federal Decennial Census; there was never any restriction against the release of the information. Gradual changes in the form of the data required and special instructions for the census are documented in National Archives Microfilm Publication M1121, Procedural Issuances of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Orders and Circulars, 1854-1955. This is not currently available online; use the online Microfilm Catalog to learn which NARA archival facilities have copies of this microfilm publication.
The 1885 and later censuses were compiled by the agents using forms sent by the BIA. There was supposed to be only one census for each reservation, except in a few cases where part of the reservation was in another state. The original was sent to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs; multiple copies were not created. The earliest censuses were written in by hand, but typing appeared quite early. Eventually the Commissioner issued instructions on exactly how to type some entries in, and requested that the family names be placed in alphabetical sections on the roll. For a while, a new census was taken each year and the entire roll redone. By 1921 agents were told to list all the people under their charge, and if a name was listed for the first time, or was not listed from the last year, an explanation was required. It was considered helpful to indicate the number for the person on the previous year's census. Persons also could be designated by a number peculiar to that reservation, if it was explained somewhere, or they could be listed as "N.E.", or "Not Enrolled." In the 1930s, sometimes only supplemental rolls showing the additions and deletions from the previous year were submitted. The regular process of taking the Indian censuses was discontinued in 1940, although a few later rolls exist. A new Indian Census was taken by the Census Bureau in 1950, but it will not be open to public use until 2022.
Names
There were no instructions with the earliest census forms, except to include 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.
Definition of the Agent's Jurisdiction: Whom to Include?
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 to which they actually belonged. The Commissioner pointed out that both parents might not be members of the same tribe, for example, one might be Pima and one might be 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 still the decision of the Superintendent or Agent as to whether someone should be included in the census.
Changes in the Census, 1928-1930
Between 1928 to 1930 the Indian Census was significantly changed. The format was changed to "landscape" orientation instead of "portrait." In addition, new information was required, there were more columns, and instructions were printed on the back. The forms used for 1930 and thereafter showed the following columns: (1) Census number - Present; (2) Census number - Last [previous]; (3) Indian Name; (4) Engligh Surname; (5) English Given Name; (6) Allotment, Annuity Identification Numbers; (7) Sex; (8) Date of Birth - Month; (9) Date of Birth - Day; (10) Date of Birth - Year; (11) Degree of Blood; (12) Marital Condition (married, single, etc.); (13) Relation to Head of Family (Head, Wife, Daughter, Son, etc.).
Questions of Jurisdiction: Reservation and Nonreservation
One important change for 1930 concerned people who did not live on the reservation. The understanding was that the agent was to include all his enrollees, whether there on the reservation or elsewhere, and no residents who were enrolled on another reservation. They should be recorded on another agent's list.
Circular 2653 (1930) said, "A special survey of absentees is to be made at each jurisdiction and their addresses determined." The Commissioner further stated: "names of Indians whose whereabouts have been unknown for a considerable number of years are to be dropped from the rolls with the approval of the Department. The same pertains to bands of Indians of whom no census has been made for an extended time and who have no contact with the Service, viz., the Stockbridges and Munsees, the Rice Lake Chippewas and the Miamis and Peorias. These will be enumerated in the 1930 Federal census."
Indian agents were requested to cooperate with Bureau of the Census officials who were conducting the 1930 population census, but it is clear there were two different censuses taken in the same year, by two different government bureaus, with different instructions. However, some 1930 BIA censuses have penciled information that may correlate to the federal 1930 census data found in National Archives Microfilm Publication T626, Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930 (2,667 rolls--these records are indexed and available online at many genealogy websites, including Ancestry.com and Familysearch.org). Use the online Microfilm Catalog to learn which NARA archival facilities have copies of this microfilm publication. For example, the 1930 census for Flandreau has handwritten numbers in the columns for county. The instructions shed no light on this. But, since the same number appears sometimes with several names having the same surname, it looks like it could be the family number from the federal census for that county, or perhaps a postal code or other correlating number. Although the agents were cooperating with the Federal census takers, they were taking their own census. If the Federal census takers figured the number of Indians counted on a reservation as a member of a tribe, they did not want to recount the same people living off reservation. Sometimes there might be notes done on the form to check off and make sure that people were not being counted twice.
The Commissioner directed the superintendents in Circular 2676 that the "census must show only Indians at your jurisdiction living on June 30, 1930. Names of Indians removed from the rolls since the last census, because of death or otherwise, must be entirely omitted." A later amendment altered this to state, "The census must show only Indians enrolled at your jurisdiction living on April 1, 1930. This will include Indians enrolled at your jurisdiction and actually living on the reservation, and Indians enrolled at your jurisdiction and living elsewhere." The commissioner was still hammering on this theme in Circular 2897, when he said, "Dead Indians reported on Census Roll as was done by some agencies last year will not be tolerated." He also took care to define the meaning of the Superintendent's area of jurisdiction to include "Government rancherias and public domain allotments as well as reservations." The agents were urged to be careful to remove names of those deceased, and to include names of those who were still "under their jurisdiction" but perhaps on a rancheria or public domain allotment. The implication is that the information for previous years could be erroneous. Also it is clear that the jurisdiction did include some people living on allotments in the public domain, whose lands were no longer considered as a part of a reservation. However, spouses of Indians who were themselves not Indian, are not listed. Charles Eastman's wife, a non-Indian, does not appear on the Flandreau census with her husband.
By 1930 many Indians had gone through the allotment process and received patents for their lands, now considered as part of the public domain, as opposed to lands reserved for a reservation. Agents were told to consider Indians living on allotted lands on the public domain as part of their jurisdiction. Some censuses made that distinction between reservation and nonreservation Indians. For example, the Grande Ronde-Siletz present day membership criteria mentions the "public domain" rolls of 1940 prepared by the Grand Ronde-Siletz Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
A revised census form was used in 1931, prompting the Commissioner to give further instructions in Circular 2739. The 1931 census had the following columns: (1) Number; (2) Surname; (3) Given Name; (4) Sex; (5) Age at Last Birthday; (6) Tribe; (7) Degree of Blood; (8) Marital Status; (9) Relationship to Head of Family; (10) At Jurisdiction where Enrolled (Yes or No); (11) At Another Jurisdiction (name); (12) [Living] Elsewhere: Post Office; (13) [Living Elsewhere:] County; (14) [Living Elsewhere:] State; (15) Ward (Yes or No); (16) Allotment, Annuity, and Identification Numbers.
The members of a family were defined as (1) Head, father; (2) wife; (3) children, including stepchildren and adopted children; (4) relatives; and (5) "other persons living with the family who do not constitute other family groups." A grandparent, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandchild, or any other relative living with the family should be listed and the relationship shown. A column was included to list roomers or friends living with the family, if they were not listed as heads of households on another census sheet. A single person living at home could only be a "Head" if the father was dead and the oldest child was serving in that capacity. The agent was also told to report all tribes making up the jurisdiction, not just the predominant one.
Further instructions on residence said that if a person resided at the reservation, column 10 should say "Yes" and columns 11 through 14 should be left blank. If an Indian resided at another jurisdiction, column 10 should be "No" and column 11 should indicate the correct jurisdiction and state, and 12 through 14 left blank. Finally, "When Indian resides elsewhere, column 10 should be NO, column 11 blank, and columns 12, 13, and 14, answered. County (column 13) must be filled in. This can be obtained from the Postal Code." Children at school but technically still part of their families were to be included. They were not to be reported at another jurisdiction or elsewhere.
There is evidence that the census takers were unclear themselves on whether to list someone who was not present. The Commissioner kept after them about mistakes. "Please see that columns 10 to 14 are filled in as directed, as two people spent over two months correcting the errors in these columns last year."
What did the "Roll Number" Signify?
The number in the earliest censuses was a consecutive number that could change from one year to the next for the same person. Although agents had been asked as early as 1914 to tell the roll number on the previous roll especially in the case of alterations, they were specifically asked in 1929 to indicate what number the person was on the previous roll. It seemed that 1929 became the benchmark number in some cases, and the person continued to be defined by that number on future rolls. Instructions for the 1931 census said: "List alphabetically, and number names on roll consecutively, with no duplicate numbers...." That set of numbers was followed by the column indicating the number on the previous roll. In most cases, the "ID number" was that: the consecutive number on the 1929 roll. So there was a new Consecutive Number each year, and an Identifying Number from a base roll, and an Allotment Number, if the allotting had been done. Using Flandreau as an example, in year 1929 the "allot-and-id numbers" (in unnumbered column 6) given are identification numbers starting from 1 to 317 end, and these ID numbers correspond exactly to the column for the present order on the list. So, the ID number was derived from the order on the list in 1929, and was carried over to subsequent years. In 1930, the ID number was that 1929 consecutive order number.
The Concept of Enrollment
It is clear that by 1930, there was an accepted concept of "enrollment" being employed, even though there were no official membership enrollment lists existing for many tribes. A few tribes had been involved in government supervised enrollment lists, usually relating to legal questions in which the federal government owed the tribe moneys as determined by the courts. In that case, the federal government had a vested interest in determining who was a legitimate member, to whom money was owed, and who was not. Apart from those special cases, the Superintendents and Agents had been occupied for years with the allotment process, identifying those who were eligible to receive an allotment, and they had been involved yearly in the distribution of goods and money and checking the eligible names off an annuity roll. Many tribes had accepted Annuity Roll numbers, and Allotment Roll numbers. At the discretion of the Superintendent, those that did not could have an assigned Identifying Number. So, the concept of eligibility for services was apparently equated to a status of enrollment even if there were no actual enrollment list. The questions of eligibility were tied to allotment lists, annuity rolls, and prior census rolls.
The landscape changed again in 1934 upon passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 984), also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act. Under this Act, tribes were encouraged to specifically set up a constitution that gave recognized criteria for determining membership and enrollment. A quick survey of Indian Tribal Constitutions on the Internet shows that a number actually did adopt the BIA census as the base roll for membership. For example:
SECTION 1. The membership of the Oglala Sioux Tribe shall consist as follows:
(a) All persons whose names appear on the official census roll of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation as of April 1, 1935, provided, that correction may be made in the said rolls within five years from the adoption and approval of this constitution by the tribal council subject to the approval of the Secretary of Interior.
(b) All children born to any member of the tribe who is a resident of the reservation at the time of the birth of said children.
Instructions on the Degree of Blood
Degree of blood was not required on the early rolls. When it was included, for a short period, blood quantities were artificially compressed into only three categories that may have led to confusion in later years when more specific categories were required. The 1930 Indian census did not allow more than three distinctions to be made in amount of blood because the census was to be tabulated using mechanical reading device. Circular 2676 (1930) said the new census form, Form 5-128,"must be filled out in absolute conformity to instructions on reverse. This ruling is necessary because a mechanical device has been installed in the Office for tabulating the data.... Thus for degree of blood then symbols "F" for full blood; "¼+" for one-fourth or more Indian blood; and "-¼" for less than one-fourth. No substitution of more detailed information is permissible in any column." Later, in 1933, the agents were told to use the categories "F", "3/4", "½", "1/4", and "1/8." Still later, they were urged to be exact if possible. Thus, if someone used the 1930 blood quantum information in retrospect it could lead to mistakes, since it is not possible to start from an artificially compressed category and then accurately return with greater detail.
Accuracy
What can be said in retrospect about the accuracy of the Indian Censuses? Even with the instructions, agents were sometimes confused as to whether they should list the names of people who were away. If the agent had the prerson's address, and knew the person was still maintaining ties with the family, he would probably consider the person as still under his jurisdiction, and count him in the census. But if a person had been away for several years, the agent was supposed to remove him from the roll. He was supposed to tell the reason the person was removed and get approval from the Commissioner. The Commissioner instructed the agents to remove those names from the roll of people who had died, or who had been away for years. He was very annoyed at the agents for failing to be accurate. His constant harping suggests there were continuing inaccuracies. In the end, the Indian Census Rolls may or may not be considered a list of all those people who were officially considered "enrolled." Some tribes did adopt them as a base roll. But, it is also clear that the numbers had varying meaning. Very likely one could, at least by the mid 1930s, equate the presence of a name on a roll as indicating sustained presence in the tribal jurisdiction of that Agent with a status of membership understood. As early as 1914, the Commissioner started asking that the numbers on the roll should indicate the number of the person on the roll the year before. That indicates that although the roll was freshly numbered each year, with minor variations gradually occurring due to births and deaths, it was nevertheless reflective of a continuous group of people. This is the way most rolls look, until the 1930 changes.
Conclusions and Interpretations
To conclude this discussion, consider the following scenario: How could a person who was on the Flandreau Indian Census rolls in the 1920s and 1930s also have had children listed in a Massachusetts "city directory" at the same time?
There are several possibilities. Theoretically, if the children were living with him in his household on the reservation, they should have been counted as members of his family on the BIA Indian census. This is also true if the children were away attending school, but otherwise lived with him. If he was separated from his wife and the mother took the children to Massachusetts, they would be part of the mother's household and would not be counted on the reservation census with the father. If the mother was not an enrolled member of that tribe or reservation and lived away with her children, she would not be counted, nor the children, in the agent's count for the census of that reservation for that year. If the mother was a member of a different tribe or reservation, the children might have been counted on that other reservation's census. Agents were instructed to list people who lived on the reservation but were not members of that tribe. But they were not counted in the total census count. The point was that a person should not be counted twice, and the agent had to include some information that would help resolve the issue. The agent was supposed to indicate person's tribe and which jurisdiction. The agent would usually give the general address of people who were away. When the census was submitted, it would be easier to figure out if someone had been left off of a census or erroneously included on another one. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs was less concerned about factual names as he was concerned that the total number be accurate. That is not to say that the exact identity of persons was not important; it was. The Commissioner noted that the censuses would be useful in making annuity rolls, and in determining issues of inheritance, so he wanted them to be correct.