Evidence and Metaphor in Evolutionary Archaeology

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas B. Bamforth

Evolutionary theory and terminology are widely used in recent archaeological work, and many evolutionary archaeologists have argued that the integration of such theory and terminology is essential to the future of our field. This paper considers evolutionary archaeology from two perspectives. First, it examines substantive claims that archaeology can study the operation of Darwinian evolution, either through a reliance on optimal-foraging theory or by linking the process of natural selection to archaeological data. It concludes that there are serious problems with both of these claims on Darwin: the relation between evolution and foraging theory has never been documented, and midrange arguments linking selection and archaeological data are unsustainable. Second, it argues that archaeologists rely metaphorically on evolutionary terminology to help make sense out of archaeological data. Although the use of evolutionary metaphor can be, and has been, problematic, it also offers a powerful conceptual framework for our research. However, this framework is only of one of a number of comparable frameworks that have been offered to our field, as a comparison of systems archaeology and evolutionary archaeology shows.

Nature ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 268 (5621) ◽  
pp. 583-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Krebs

2016 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 127-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dahlia Foo ◽  
Jayson M. Semmens ◽  
John P.Y. Arnould ◽  
Nicole Dorville ◽  
Andrew J. Hoskins ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Lena Jones ◽  
David A. Hurley

The use of optimal foraging theory in archaeology has been criticized for focusing heavily on “negative” human-environmental interactions, particularly anthropogenic resource depression, in which prey populations are reduced by foragers’ own foraging activities. In addition, some researchers have suggested the focus on resource depression is more common in the zooarchaeological literature than in the archaeobotanical literature, indicating fundamental differences in the ways zooarchaeologists and archaeobotanists approach the archaeological record. In this paper, we assess these critiques through a review of the literature between 1997 and 2017. We find that studies identifying resource depression occur at similar rates in the archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological literature. In addition, while earlier archaeological applications of optimal foraging theory did focus heavily on the identification of resource depression, the literature published between 2013 and 2017 shows a wider variety of approaches.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document