Methodology of Comparison in Evolutionary Archaeology

World Archaeology, 2002

It has often been observed that archaeologists are adept at borrowing theory but not very good about building it. Analyses of the uptake by archaeologists of perspectives from a diversity of sources indicate that such borrowings rarely (if ever) lead to the building of archaeological theory. The return of explicit discussion of evolutionary theory within archaeology affords us the chance to explore whether the traditional pattern of borrowing is being repeated once again, and, if it is, to suggest some strategies which might help us to do better. The core of the paper comprises two case studies to support an argument that evolutionary archaeologists need to integrate the development of evaluation strategies into the process of theory building. These studies focus our attention on the need to reconcile interpretation and inference with the temporality of archaeological records, and provide good examples of how a serious consideration of problems that are revealed by this reconciliation can be a positive force in theory building.

[paper available through link (above) or by request from author] Archaeology has much to contribute to the study of cultural evolution. Empirical data at archaeological timescales are uniquely well suited to tracking rates of cultural change, detecting phylogenetic signals among groups of artefacts, and recognizing long-run effects of distinct cultural transmission mechanisms. Nonetheless, these are still relatively infrequent subjects of archaeological analysis and archaeology’s potential to help advance our understanding of cultural evolution has thus far been largely unrealized. Cultural evolutionary models developed in other fields have been used to interpret patterns identified in archaeological records, which in turn provides independent tests of these models’ predictions, as demonstrated here through a study of late Prehistoric stone projectile points from the US Southwest. These tests may not be straightforward, though, because archaeological data are complex, often representing events aggregated over many years (or centuries or millennia), while processes thought to drive cultural evolution (e.g. biased learning) operate on much shorter timescales. To fulfil archaeology’s potential, we should continue to develop models specifically tailored to archaeological circumstances, and explore ways to incorporate the rich contextual data produced by archaeological research.

Annual Review of Anthropology, 2008

This review begins with a brief outline of the key concepts of Darwinian archaeology. Its history is then summarized, beginning with its emergence as a significant theoretical focus within the discipline in the early 1980s; its main present-day currents are then presented, citing examples of recent work. The developments in archaeology are part of broader trends in anthropology and psychology and are characterized by the same theoretical disagreements. There are two distinct research traditions: one centered on cultural transmission and dual inheritance theory and the other on human behavioral ecology. The development of specifically archaeological methodologies within these two traditions for testing evolutionary hypotheses relating to diachronic questions using archaeological data is discussed. Finally, this review suggests that the greatest challenge for the future lies in finding ways of using archaeological data to address current major debates in evolutionary social science as a whole concerning, for example, the emergence of largescale cooperation.

Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, 1997

Current …, 1998

versity of Washington Press, in press).

2009

Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs.

This paper is a review of evolutionary thought in archaeology. It explains why and how the application of Darwinian evolutionary theory to archaeology is possible and, moreover, useful. It expounds what this scientific field gains from considering the study of material culture and, by extension, of cultural change from this perspective. After explaining the main theoretical principles, it develops a his- tory of the application of this epistemology in archaeology, focusing particularly on the tasks of classification and sequencing of data and thus entering into the current field of cultural phylogenetics.

Archaeopress eBooks, 2009

Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs.