Comments on Bettinger and Baumhoff's Explanation of the “Numic Spread” in the Great Basin

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Simms
Keyword(s):  
Great Basin ◽  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Archaeological Evidence ◽  
Language Groups ◽  
Foraging Models ◽  
General Perspective

Bettinger and Baumhoff proposed an explanation for the spread of Numic language groups in the prehistoric Great Basin by appeal to models of optimal foraging and the processes of adaptive competition. In an effort to continue their discussion, I offer comments on their selection and use of Great Basin archaeological evidence, and their use of optimal foraging models. Finally, I identify other problems amenable to their general perspective.

Decisions of cattle herdsmen in Burkina Faso and optimal foraging models

Human Ecology ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. F. De Boer ◽  
H. H. T. Prins
Keyword(s):  
Burkina Faso ◽  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Foraging Models

Optimal Foraging

Ecology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Stephens
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Ecology ◽  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
Resource Acquisition ◽  
Living Things ◽  
Foraging Models ◽  
Split Personality ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Evolutionary Fitness ◽  
Predator Behavior

All organisms face problems of resource acquisition, and in the broadest sense foraging theory is an attempt to make generalizations about the processes associated with resource acquisition. In theory, resource acquisition is a very general problem, but in practice foraging theory is closely linked to the study of animals and their behavior, since feeding—acquiring the tissue of living things to consume—is, after all, a defining property of animals. Optimal foraging models take an adaptationist perspective in the sense that they ask which strategy among a given “feasible” set will lead to the highest evolutionary fitness, and in making these calculations, students of foraging often use the mathematical tools of optimization. The first optimal foraging models appeared in the late 1960s and 1970s. Most of those that we now see as the “classic foraging models” date to this time. The subfield of foraging has a split personality. The early pioneers in the field (Charnov, Orians, MacArthur, Pianka, Parker) clearly saw themselves as ecologists, and they were motivated by the idea that an understanding of predator behavior would lead to a broader understanding of ecological phenomena such as the distribution and abundance of both prey and predators. Yet, modern foraging theory is more closely allied to behavioral ecology, which seeks to predict behavior in ecological contexts. Foraging theory has influenced disciplines far afield from ecology or even biology, including anthropology, economics, computer science, robotics, neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, and marketing.

Showing off, Foraging Models, and the Ascendance of Large-Game Hunting in the California Middle Archaic

2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-789 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack M. Broughton ◽  
Frank E. Bayham
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Population Expansion ◽  
Foraging Theory ◽  
American Antiquity ◽  
Middle Holocene ◽  
Prey Model ◽  
Middle Archaic ◽  
Foraging Models ◽  
Game Hunting

In a recent paper in American Antiquity (2002:231-256), Hildebrandt and McGuire argue that archaeofaunal patterns in California document an ascendance of artiodactyl hunting during the Middle Archaic. They also suggest that such a trend is inconsistent with predictions derived from optimal-foraging models. Given the apparent failure of foraging theory, they advance a “showing off” model of large-game hunting. While their presentation is intriguing, we do not see a theoretical warrant for predicting that show-off hunting would have increased during the Middle Archaic. We present here an alternative hypothesis for the increase in artiodactyl abundances and the hunting-related patterns they identify. That hypothesis follows directly from the prey model itself under what appears to have been a dramatic artiodactyl population expansion after the drought-dominated middle Holocene period.

scholarly journals 2000 Year-old Bogong moth (Agrotis infusa) Aboriginal food remains, Australia

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgitta Stephenson ◽  
◽  
Bruno David ◽  
Joanna Fresløv ◽  
Lee J. Arnold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time History ◽  
Mountain Range ◽  
Dietary Practices ◽  
Archaeological Evidence ◽  
Deep Time ◽  
Language Groups ◽  
Australian Alps ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Aboriginal Groups

AbstractInsects form an important source of food for many people around the world, but little is known of the deep-time history of insect harvesting from the archaeological record. In Australia, early settler writings from the 1830s to mid-1800s reported congregations of Aboriginal groups from multiple clans and language groups taking advantage of the annual migration of Bogong moths (Agrotis infusa) in and near the Australian Alps, the continent’s highest mountain range. The moths were targeted as a food item for their large numbers and high fat contents. Within 30 years of initial colonial contact, however, the Bogong moth festivals had ceased until their recent revival. No reliable archaeological evidence of Bogong moth exploitation or processing has ever been discovered, signalling a major gap in the archaeological history of Aboriginal groups. Here we report on microscopic remains of ground and cooked Bogong moths on a recently excavated grindstone from Cloggs Cave, in the southern foothills of the Australian Alps. These findings represent the first conclusive archaeological evidence of insect foods in Australia, and, as far as we know, of their remains on stone artefacts in the world. They provide insights into the antiquity of important Aboriginal dietary practices that have until now remained archaeologically invisible.

Testing optimal foraging models for air-breathing divers

2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis Halsey ◽  
Anthony Woakes ◽  
Patrick Butler
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Air Breathing ◽  
Foraging Models

Prehistoric Dogs as Hunting Tools

Dogs ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 7-44
Author(s):  
Angela R. Perri
Keyword(s):  
Optimal Foraging ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Archaeological Record ◽  
Animal Biotechnology ◽  
The Past ◽  
Hunting Dogs ◽  
Foraging Models

This chapter explores the role of hunting dogs in forager groups and as the advent of animal biotechnology. It outlines the ways in which dogs can be used as hunting biotechnology, how dogs can be incorporated into existing subsistence models, and how we can identify hunting dogs in the archaeological record. The analysis of cross-cultural utilization of dogs as a hunting tool in the ethnographic and ethnohistoric record is used to suggest insights into the ways dogs may have been utilized as a hunting adaptation by people in the past. Similarly, cost-benefit analyses employed for non-living tools, such as lithics, are employed to contextualize dogs as a quantifiable technology within optimal foraging models.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document