Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:47:36.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nearest-Neighbor Statistic: Archaeological Application and New Developments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Pinder,
Izumi Shimada and
David Gregory
David Pinder
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton, England
Izumi Shimada
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
David Gregory
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human behavior has spatial corollaries of great importance to both geographers and archaeologists. Some of these corollaries can be expressed as point maps, and to describe them objectively it has become common-place to employ the nearest-neighbor analysis technique devised by ecologists. But recently it has been shown that "underestimation" is an inherent flaw of the technique. Initially, therefore, the attention of this paper focuses on elimination of this problem by modifying the traditional formulae. With the flaw corrected, the issues surrounding interpretation of the nearest-neighbor statistic are discussed, and a review is made of the special difficulties of applying the technique to archaeological data.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 1979, pp. 430 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1979

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

Adams, R. McC, and Nissen, H. J. 1972 The Uruk countryside. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Carrothers, Gerald A. P. 1956 An historical review of the gravity and potential concepts of human interaction. Journo J of the American Institute of Planners 22:94–102.Google Scholar
Clark, P. J. 1956 Grouping of spatial distributions. Science 123:373–374.Google Scholar
Clark, P. J., and Evans, F. C. 1954 Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35:445–453.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1968 Analytical archaeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Dacey, M. F. 1960 The spacing of river towns. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 50:59–61.Google Scholar
Dacey, M. F. 1963 Order neighbor statistics for a class of random patterns in multi-dimensional space. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53:505–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Nicholas 1971 The Fulani compound and the archaeologist. World Archaeology 3:111–131.Google Scholar
Dean, J. S. 1969 Chronological analysis of Tsegi phase sites in northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Laboratory of Treering Research, No. 3.Google Scholar
de Vos, S. 1973 - The use of nearest neighbor methods. Tijdschri/t voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 64:307–319.Google Scholar
Earle, T. K. 1976 A nearest neighbor analysis of two Formative settlement systems. In The early Mesoamericanvillage, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 196–223. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ebdon, D. 1976 On the underestimation inherent in the commonly used formulae. Area 8:165–169.Google Scholar
Getis, Arthur 1964 Temporal land-use pattern analysis with the use of nearest neighbor and quadrat methods. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54:391–399.Google Scholar
Graybill, D. A. 1976 New analytical strategies for spatial analysis. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Greig-Smith, P. 1964 Quantitative plant ecology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Haggett, Peter 1965 Locational analysis in human geography. E. Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Hansen, R. M., and Remmenga, E. E. 1961 Nearest neighbor concept applied to pocket gopher populations. Ecology 42:812–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haworth, J., and Vincent, P. 1976 Maximizing the nearest-neighbor statistic. Area 8:299–302.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian R. 1972 Locational models and the study of Romano-British settlement. In Models in archaeology, edited by Clarke, D. L., pp. 887–909. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian R., and Hassal, M. 1971 The non-random spacing in Romano-British walled towns. Man 6:391–407.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian R., and Orton, Clive 1976 Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hsu, S., and Tiedemann, C. E. 1968 A rational method of delimiting study areas for unevenly distributed point phenomena. Professional Geographer 20:376–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kariel, H. C. 1970 Analysis of the Alberta settlement pattern for 1961 and 1966 by nearest neighbor analysis. Geogra fiska Annaler B 52:124–131.Google Scholar
King, L. J. 1969 Statistical analysis in geography. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Olsson, Gunnar 1966 Central place systems, spatial interaction and stochastic processes. Papers of the Regional Science Association 18:13–45.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1961 Segregation and symmetry in two species populations as studied by nearest neighbor methods. Journal of Ecology 49:255–269.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1969 An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Pinder, D. A. 1971 The spatial development of the Luton hat industry in the early twentieth century. Southampton Research Series in Geography, No. 6. University of Southampton, England.Google Scholar
Pinder, D. A. 1978a The elimination of underestimation in nearest-neighbor analysis. University of Southampton, Department of Geography, Discussion Paper No. 1.Google Scholar
Pinder, D. A. 1978b Correcting underestimation in nearest-neighbor analysis. Area, in Press.Google Scholar
Pinder, D. A., and Witherick, M. E. 1972 The principles, practice and pitfalls of nearest-neighbor analysis. Geography 57:277–288.Google Scholar
Pinder, D. A., and Witherick, M. E. 1973 Nearest-neighbor analysis of linear point patterns. Tijdschrilt voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 64:160–163.Google Scholar
Pinder, D. A., and Witherick, M. E. 1975 A modification of nearest-neighbor analysis for use in linear situations. Geography 60:16–23.Google Scholar
Plog, F. 1974 Settlement patterns and social history. In Frontiers of anthropology, edited by Leaf, M. J., pp. 68–91. Van Nostrand, New York.Google Scholar
Porter, P. W. 1960 Earnest and the Orephagians—a fable for the instruction of young geographers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 50:297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, William J. 1931 The law of retail gravitation. Knickerbocker Press, New York.Google Scholar
Stickel, E. G. 1968 Status differentiation at the Rincon site. In University of California Archaeological Survey, Annual Report, 1968, pp. 209–261.Google Scholar
Struever, S. 1971 Comments on archaeological data requirements and research strategy. American Antiquity 36:9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, P. 1976 The general case: how not to measure spatial point patterns. Area 8:161–163.Google Scholar
Washburn, D. K. 1974 Nearest neighbor analysis of Pueblo I-III settlement patterns along the Rio Puerco of the East, New Mexico. American Antiquity 39:315–335.Google Scholar
Whallon, R. 1974 Spatial analysis of occupation floors II: the application of nearest neighbor analysis. American Antiquity 39:16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubrow, Ezra 1971 Carrying capacity and dynamic equilibrium in the prehistoric Southwest. American Antiquity 36:127–138.Google Scholar