This article presents a model of cultural evolution simulating the accumulation of tools in specialized and non-specialized populations under different demographic and environmental scenarios. The model predicts that the relationship between population size and repertoire size is nonlinear and can differ between non-specialized and specialized populations. For small population sizes, the non-specialized populations maintain knowledge better and therefore reach higher average repertoire sizes. In large populations, specialized populations can reach higher average repertoire sizes. This is because non-specialized population's total repertoire size is limited by the capacity of individuals to accumulate knowledge of different skills, while in specialized populations, each individual needs to know only a fraction of the population's repertoire. However, the model also predicts that specialized populations are more susceptible to information loss due to their subdivision of knowledge, and this can be amplified by demographic and environmental factors. The authors also use ethnographic data to analyze the relationship between population size and degree of craft specialization of societies, and how this may be influenced by ecological factors.

The authors use a comparative ethnoarchaeological model that seeks to test the applicability of Dynamical Systems Theory to modeling subsistence variation (namely the foraging-farming transition). The authors utilize the concepts of "attractors," which tend to stabilize a system, and "repellors," which tend to be destabilizing forces. Authors hope that this multidimensional approach, which assumes that several "controlling" variables disproportionately affect change within subsistence systems, will adequately model the nonlinearity and heterogeneity seen in the emergences of (and variations within) human subsistence systems throughout human history. Their model and premises regarding disproportionally-controlling variables appear to be supported.

This article examines the quality of forager habitats to determine whether agriculturalists occupy the most productive areas while modern forager groups are relegated to poor habitats. Findings indicate that there are slight but insignificant differences in the net primary productivity of foragers’ land and agriculturalists’ land. Further analysis of types of agriculturalists suggest that horticulturalists live in the most productive habitats, followed by intensive agriculturalists and finally pastoralists.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

In this paper, the authors argue against the findings presented in Hay & Bauer (2007) which suggest a positive correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size in languages. In order to do so, they highlight some methodological issues in the previous study, as well as other studies addressing similar questions. To address these issues, the authors conducted their own study using a larger and more representative sample of phoneme inventories drawn from the PHOIBLE knowledge base, and applied a more rigorous statistical analysis using a hierarchical mixed model. The results indicate that correlations between population size and phoneme inventory size are quite small when compared to differences among language family groups, and that the phoneme-population relationship fluctuates around zero between families, suggesting that any relationship between population and phoneme inventory size does not generalize to language as a whole. The author concludes that the correlations seen between population and phoneme inventories are likely to be artifacts, and do not find compelling reason to consider population size as a potential causal factor in the development of phonological systems.

This article examines the quality of forager habitats to determine whether agriculturalists occupy the most productive areas while modern forager groups are relegated to poor habitats. Findings indicate that there are slight but insignificant differences in the net primary productivity of foragers’ land and agriculturalists’ land. Further analysis of types of agriculturalists suggest that horticulturalists live in the most productive habitats, followed by intensive agriculturalists and finally pastoralists.