Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:35:59.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Wider View of the Relationship between Settlement Size and Population in the Peruvian Andes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kenneth L. Kvamme
Kenneth L. Kvamme*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Center for Remote Sensing, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the relationship between settled area and population size has been well studied in archaeology, anthropology, and geography, with numerous empirical data sets, an established methodological approach, and a body of theory, Schreiber and Kintigh's (1996) analysis of archaeological and historical data from the Peruvian Andes found “only a weak correlation” between these variables. By employing double logarithmic data, the relationship is shown to be much better than the “surprisingly poor” one the raw data suggests. Regression analysis of these Peruvian data in logarithmic form yields power functions that conform closely with expectations derived from a body of settlement size theory based on the allometric principle.

La relación entre área habitacional y tamaño poblacional ha sido bien estudiada en arqueología, antropologia, y geografía, con numerosas muestras empíricas, un acercamiento metodológico establecido, y amplia literatura teórica. Sin embargo Schreiber y Kintigh (1996) han encontrado en su análisis de datos arqueológicos e históricos de los Andes peruanos “sólo una débil correlación” entre estas variables. Empleando datos logarítmicos dobles la relación resulta mucho mayor que la “sorpresivamente menor” sugerida por los datos. El análisis de regresión de estos datos peruanos en forma logarítmica proporciona funciones de potencia que se conforman muy bien con las predicciones derivadas de la literatura de teoría de patrones de asentamiento basada en el precepto alométrico.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , October 1997 , pp. 719 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Cook, S. E, and Heizer, R. F. 1968 Relationships Among Houses, Settlement Areas, and Population in Aboriginal California. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by Chang, K. C., pp. 79–116. National Press Books, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., and Orton, C. 1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mosteller, R, and Tukey, J. W. 1977 Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Mosteller, R, and Tukey, J. W. 1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27: 587–589.Google Scholar
Nordbeck, S. 1971 Urban Allometric Growth. Geografiska Annaler 53B- 1: 54–67.Google Scholar
Ogrosky, C. E. 1975 Population Estimates from Satellite Imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 41: 707–712.Google Scholar
Schreiber, K. J., and Kintigh, K. W. 1996 A Test of the Relationship between Site Size and Population. American Antiquity 61: 573–579.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. Q., and Warntz, W. 1968 Physics of Population Distribution. In Spatial Analysis, edited by Berry, B. J. and Marble, D.F. pp. 130–146. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1986 Refiguring Anthropology: First Principles of Probability and Statistics. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
Tobler, W. R. 1969 Satellite Confirmation of Settlement Size Coefficients. Area 3: 30–34.Google Scholar
Wiessner, P. 1974 A Functional Estimator of Population from Floor Area. American Antiquity 39: 343–350.Google Scholar