Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-l8wb7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-28T04:51:23.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Areal Decrease, Density Increase, and Circumscription: A Mathematical Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert Bates Graber
Robert Bates Graber*
Affiliation:
Division of Social Science, Northeast Missouri State University, Kirksville, MO 63501
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Population density increases whenever a population grows more rapidly, or shrinks more slowly, than the area it inhabits; areal contraction therefore accelerates density increase. This consideration not only reinforces Dickson's (1987) suggestion that circumscription by anthropogenic environmental destruction contributed to the rise of some early states; it also implies that rate of density increase should be distinguished, as a motor of sociocultural evolution, from density itself. In light of this distinction the rise of the state in southwestern Iran, and occasional instances of high density among nonstate societies, are not necessarily inconsistent with population-pressure theories.

Résumé

Résumé

La densidad deuna población aumenta cuando la población crece más rápidamente o disminuye más lentamente que el área que ésta habita; por consiguiente, la contracción del área accelera el aumento de la densidad poblacional. Esta teoría no sólo respalda la sugerencia de Dickson (1987), quien sostiene que la circunscripción mediante la destrucción antropogénica del ambiente contribuyó al florecimiento de algunos estados de la antigüedad; la teoría también implica que conviene distinguir entre la tasa del aumento de la densidad poblacional, como motor de la evolución sociocultural, y la densidad como tal. A la luz de esta distinción, el florecimiento del estado en el suroeste de Irán, y los casos de alta densidad entre algunas sociedades pre-estatales, no están necesariamente en desacuerdo con las teorías que acentúan la importancia de la presión de la poblacion (population pressure theories).

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 546 - 549
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1990 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Callahan, E. 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithics Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(1): 1-180.Google Scholar
Collins, M. B. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology, Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Swanson, E., pp. 15-34. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
Gunn, J., and Mahula, R. 1977 Hop Hill: Cultural and Climatic Change in Central Texas. Special Report No. 5. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio.Google Scholar
Henry, D. O., Haynes, C. V., and Bradley, B. 1976 Quantitative Variations in Flaked Stone Debitage. Plains Anthropologist 21: 57-61.Google Scholar
Mauldin, R. P., and Amick, D. S. 1989 Investigating Patterning from Experimental Bifacial Core Reduction. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P., pp. 67-99, BAR International Series 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1978 The Staging Problem. Flintknappers’ Exchange 1(3): 25-27.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1981 A Chert Cobble Flaking Experiment. La Tierra 8(4): 29-34. Southern Texas Archaeological Association, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1982a Replication and Classification of Large Size Lithic Debitage. Lithic Technology 11(3): 50-58.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1982b The Importance of Flake Size Distribution. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archeology 3(1): 70-72.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W. 1984 Comments on Studies of Thermal Alteration of Central Pennsylvania Jasper. American Antiquity 49: 168-173.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W., Hudgins, J. D., Gregg, R. L., and McClure, W. L. 1987 Excavations at Site 41WH19, Wharton County, Texas. Report No. 4. Houston Archeological Society, Houston.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. W., Hudgins, J. D., Gregg, R. L., and McClure, W. L. 1978 Replication and Classification of Small Size Lithic Debitage. Plains Anthropologist 23: 103-112.Google Scholar
Patterson, P. E. 1977 A Lithic Reduction Sequence: A Test Case in the North Fork Reservoir Area, Williamson County, Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 48: 53-82.Google Scholar
Stahle, D. W., and Dunn, J. E. 1984 An Experimental Analysis of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from Biface Reduction. Technical Paper No. 2. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Tomka, S. A. 1989 Differentiating Lithic Reduction Techniques: An Experimental Approach. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P., pp. 137-161. BAR International Series 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar