Area, Fishing Miles, and Population Estimates
| Tribe[2] | Pop. Estimate | Area | Ln Area | Fishing Miles | Ln Fishing Miles |
| Wailaki | 1,656 | 296 | 5.69 | 23 | 3.14 |
| Pitch Wailaki | 1,104 | 182 | 5.20 | 15 | 2.71 |
| Mattole | 1,200 | 170 | 5.14 | 38.5 | 3.65 |
| Lolangkok Sinkyone | 2,076 | 294 | 5.68 | 63 | 4.14 |
| Hupa | 1,475 | 424 | 6.05 | 39 | 3.66 |
| Whilkut | 2,588 | 461 | 6.13 | 70 | 4.25 |
| Average | 1,683 | 5.65 | 3.59 |
[2] Relatively complete village counts.
TABLE 3
Area and Fishing Miles
| Tribe[3] | Area | Ln Area | Fishing Miles | Ln Fishing Miles |
| Kato | 225 | 5.42 | 29 | 3.37 |
| Bear River | 121 | 4.80 | 21 | 3.04 |
| Lassik | 389 | 5.96 | 25 | 3.22 |
| Nongatl | 855 | 6.75 | 85 | 4.44 |
| Shelter Cove Sinkyone | 350 | 5.86 | 67 | 4.20 |
[3] Incomplete village counts.
GROSS ESTIMATE
From the preceding data we have obtained population estimates for certain of the California Athabascan groups. If these estimates are judged reliable, it would be desirable to use them as a basis for estimating the population of the remaining groups. When a detailed analysis of the ecological or demographical factors involved is lacking, it is sometimes necessary to fall back on rather simplistic assumptions to attain the desired end. Cook goes rather far in this direction, using simply the average population density per square mile of the known groups to estimate the population of the unknown groups.
It appears to this writer that a somewhat more satisfactory method of estimation would be based on simple linear regression theory. It is a fact that pertinent relationships in population studies can often be expressed in terms of simple exponential functions or in linear combinations of logarithms. Thus we might propose a relationship such as the following: