The Experts below are selected from a list of 2577 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Eric Alden Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Human Behavioral Ecology
    Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 2006
    Co-Authors: Eric Alden Smith, Bruce Winterhalder
    Abstract:

    Human Behavioral Ecology applies theory and method developed in evolutionary biology, anthropology and economics to elucidate adaptive variation in Human behavior, particularly social behavior. Hypotheses about resource use, mating and parenting strategies, cooperation and competition, and life history are derived from models using a selectionist logic, and empirically tested to increase our understanding of how Humans adapt to their natural and social environments. Keywords: adaptation; foraging; life history; parental investment; reproductive strategies

  • Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science - Human Behavioral Ecology
    Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 2006
    Co-Authors: Eric Alden Smith, Bruce Winterhalder
    Abstract:

    Human Behavioral Ecology applies theory and method developed in evolutionary biology, anthropology and economics to elucidate adaptive variation in Human behavior, particularly social behavior. Hypotheses about resource use, mating and parenting strategies, cooperation and competition, and life history are derived from models using a selectionist logic, and empirically tested to increase our understanding of how Humans adapt to their natural and social environments. Keywords: adaptation; foraging; life history; parental investment; reproductive strategies

  • Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science - Human Behavioral Ecology: I
    Evolutionary Anthropology, 2005
    Co-Authors: Eric Alden Smith
    Abstract:

    New fields of inquiry rarely spring fully grown from the forehead of a single genius, and in addition, it is often difficult to decide when a related set of inquiries has coalesced sufficiently to define a field. As measured by the solicitation and publication of review articles, Human Behavioral Ecology has recently become a self-conscious field, for this is the third essay to review it1,2 and a book-length survey will appear later this year.3 In this two-part article, I will try to give readers a sense of the field by outlining its theoretical and methodological principles and key issues and by summarizing representative studies and unresolved questions in three main topical areas: subsistence strategies (Part I) and reproductive strategies and social interactions (Part II).

  • Human Behavioral Ecology i
    Evolutionary Anthropology, 2005
    Co-Authors: Eric Alden Smith
    Abstract:

    New fields of inquiry rarely spring fully grown from the forehead of a single genius, and in addition, it is often difficult to decide when a related set of inquiries has coalesced sufficiently to define a field. As measured by the solicitation and publication of review articles, Human Behavioral Ecology has recently become a self-conscious field, for this is the third essay to review it1,2 and a book-length survey will appear later this year.3 In this two-part article, I will try to give readers a sense of the field by outlining its theoretical and methodological principles and key issues and by summarizing representative studies and unresolved questions in three main topical areas: subsistence strategies (Part I) and reproductive strategies and social interactions (Part II).

Brian F Codding - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource - The Sexual Division of Labor
    Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015
    Co-Authors: Rebecca Bliege Bird, Brian F Codding
    Abstract:

    Many evolutionary arguments fossilize a Human division of labor as one of man the hunter, and woman the gatherer, with differences in labor arising out of the effectiveness of efficiency. We suggest here that arguments based solely on the efficiency of labor specialization among heterosexual married pairs over-generalize divisions of labor that are, in reality, much more diverse. Divisions of labor can be based on age, as well as on gender, and are not limited solely to monogamous marital pairs. Divisions of gender take the form more generally not of meat and vegetables, but of the acquisition of high and low variance foods. Some differences in labor may be the result of conflicting interests, others emerging from common goals, and still others from the power of patriarchy. Differences in labor patterns may not be designed solely, or even primarily, to provision children, but may also be shaped by the social goals of both sexes. Keywords: sex/gender division of labor; foraging economies; Human Behavioral Ecology

  • Behavioral Ecology and the future of archaeological science
    Journal of Archaeological Science, 2015
    Co-Authors: Brian F Codding, Douglas W. Bird
    Abstract:

    The future of archaeological science relies as much (if not more) on theoretical as on methodological developments. As with anything in biology, explaining past Human behavior will require the application of evolutionary theory. As with anything in archaeology, theory is useless without clear ties to a material record. Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) has become one of the central theoretical frameworks in archaeological science by providing a broad conceptual toolkit for linking principles of natural selection to operational hypotheses about variability in behavior and its material consequences. Here we review the general approach and outline cases where applying HBE models can contribute to key research issues in archaeology. These examples illustrate how foundational applications of HBE are being built upon to explain complex and diverse phenomena ranging from the origins of agriculture to the emergence of institutionalized inequality. With each case, we outline avenues where this research strategy can advance archaeological science into the future.

  • Living outside the box: An updated perspective on diet breadth and sexual division of labor in the Prearchaic Great Basin
    Quaternary International, 2014
    Co-Authors: Robert G. Elston, David Zeanah, Brian F Codding
    Abstract:

    A tremendous amount has been learned about the Prearchaic (before 9000 BP) Great Basin since we advocated a perspective of sexual division of labor based on Human Behavioral Ecology a decade ago. Many investigators have taken our advice and a few have challenged our assumptions and inferences. One of the most substantive critiques has been that we misunderstood the paleoenvironmental parameters of ungulate populations during the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition (PHT). Simultaneously, Behavioral ecologists have advanced our understanding of sexual division of labor among modern foragers, but these studies appear to have gone unnoticed by Great Basin prehistorians. We review findings of the last ten years and suggest that the key to understanding patterning in the PHT still relies on understanding (a) variability in men's and women's foraging goals, (b) the abundance and distribution of large prey, (c) how changing environmental parameters effect both the division of labor and the distribution of resources, and (d) the relative influence of search and handling costs on residence time in PHT wetlands. We suggest that consideration of how paleoenvironmental variability structured sexual division of labor remains key to fully understanding Prearchaic lifeways in the Great Basin.

  • Explaining Prehistoric Variation in the Abundance of Large Prey: A Zooarchaeological Analysis of Deer and Rabbit Hunting Along the Pecho Coast of Central California
    Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2010
    Co-Authors: Brian F Codding, Judith F. Porcasi, Terry L. Jones
    Abstract:

    Three main hypotheses are commonly employed to explain diachronic variation in the relative abundance of remains of large terrestrial herbivores: (1) large prey populations decline as a function of anthropogenic overexploitation; (2) large prey tends to increase as a result of increasing social payoffs; and (3) proportions of large terrestrial prey are dependent on stochastic fluctuations in climate. This paper tests predictions derived from these three hypotheses through a zooarchaeological analysis of eleven temporal components from three sites on central California’s Pecho Coast. Specifically, we examine the trade-offs between hunting rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) and deer (Odocoileus hemionus) using models derived from Human Behavioral Ecology. The results show that foragers exploited a robust population of deer throughout most of the Holocene, only doing otherwise during periods associated with climatic trends unfavorable to larger herbivores. The most recent component (Late Prehistoric/Contact era) shows modest evidence of localized resource depression and perhaps greater social benefits from hunting larger prey; we suggest that these final changes resulted from the introduction of bow and arrow technology. Overall, results suggest that along central California’s Pecho Coast, density independent factors described as climatically-mediated prey choice best predict changes in the relative abundance of large terrestrial herbivores through the Holocene.

Melinda A Zeder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • reply to mohlenhoff et al Human Behavioral Ecology needs a rethink that niche construction theory can provide
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015
    Co-Authors: Melinda A Zeder
    Abstract:

    In their response to my recent PNAS article (1), Mohlenhoff et al. (2) embrace a view of optimal foraging theory (OFT) and its umbrella discipline, Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) grounded in standard evolutionary theory (SET). According to this view, anthropogenic environmental enhancements are no different from other environmental perturbations that alter selective pressures and induce adaptive Behavioral responses. This perspective may explain why, as Mohlenhoff et al. (2) note, researchers working within this framework invariably ignore niche-constructing behaviors in explanations of initial domestication. Following SET, the source of environmental change is of less import than the resultant adaptive Behavioral responses. These responses are framed, moreover, within a general theory of Human behavior that dismisses Human agency as “one of an array of historical processes or proximal mechanisms” (3) that fail to rise to the level of ultimate causes of evolution. Identifying ultimate causes of evolutionary change, following this logic, is restricted to demonstrating how “natural selection … shapes the way people make decisions” (4).

  • Reply to Mohlenhoff et al.: Human Behavioral Ecology needs a rethink that niche-construction theory can provide.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015
    Co-Authors: Melinda A Zeder
    Abstract:

    In their response to my recent PNAS article (1), Mohlenhoff et al. (2) embrace a view of optimal foraging theory (OFT) and its umbrella discipline, Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) grounded in standard evolutionary theory (SET). According to this view, anthropogenic environmental enhancements are no different from other environmental perturbations that alter selective pressures and induce adaptive Behavioral responses. This perspective may explain why, as Mohlenhoff et al. (2) note, researchers working within this framework invariably ignore niche-constructing behaviors in explanations of initial domestication. Following SET, the source of environmental change is of less import than the resultant adaptive Behavioral responses. These responses are framed, moreover, within a general theory of Human behavior that dismisses Human agency as “one of an array of historical processes or proximal mechanisms” (3) that fail to rise to the level of ultimate causes of evolution. Identifying ultimate causes of evolutionary change, following this logic, is restricted to demonstrating how “natural selection … shapes the way people make decisions” (4).

  • Alternative to faith-based science.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014
    Co-Authors: Melinda A Zeder
    Abstract:

    Finding myself in the company of a large group of researchers labeled as particularistic, atheoretical, and nonscientific by Gremillion et al. (1), I take issue with many of the assertions in their recent defense of the application of optimal foraging theory (OFT) to origins of agriculture (OA) research. First is the premise that regional-scale analyses can only identify more general evolutionary processes if they are explicitly situated with an “overarching framework for explaining the diversity of life,” which, according to Gremillion et al., is provided by OFT, held to be virtually synonymous with the larger disciplinary categories of Human Behavioral Ecology (HBE) and evolutionary Ecology (EE). In …

  • Evolutionary Biology and the Emergence of Agriculture: The Value of Co-opted Models of Evolution in the Study of Culture Change
    Macroevolution in Human Prehistory, 2009
    Co-Authors: Melinda A Zeder
    Abstract:

    Archaeologists have long looked to evolutionary biology for theoretical frameworks that can be applied directly to cultural evolution. The origins of agriculture, one of a handful of major transitional events in Human cultural evolution, are often used as a case study opportunity for demonstrating the utility of these models in explaining the course of culture change. This chapter looks at three different co-opted evolutionary models that have been applied to cultural evolution: neo-Darwinian or selectionist archaeology, macroevolutionary archaeology, and Human Behavioral Ecology, comparing and contrasting the basic tenets of these different models and reviewing previous attempts to apply them to the emergence of agricultural economies in different world areas. The record of agricultural emergence in the Near East, where the empirical record of this development is most robust, is then reviewed and the utility of the three co-opted evolutionary models in accounting for these developments is assessed. Issues of scale, tempo, directionality, and the role of Human intent in these developments are examined.

Lee Cronk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Is there a role for culture in Human Behavioral Ecology
    Ethology and Sociobiology, 1995
    Co-Authors: Lee Cronk
    Abstract:

    Abstract Most research in Human Behavioral Ecology has been acultural, which raises the question of how best to incorporate the concept of culture into this approach. A necessary step in this direction is to pare the culture concept down to its ideational elements, excluding behavior and its material products (Durham 1991; Geertz 1973; Keesing 1974). The cultural and reproductive success hypothesis, though empirically successful (Irons 1993), is not a model for all of culture because of widespread discrepancies between behavior and culture to which it does not call attention. Cultural transmission models are also weakened by such discrepancies, but, more importantly, such models are most relevant to phenomena different from those central to Human Behavioral Ecology. A better way to incorporate culture into Human Behavioral Ecology is to see it as the context of Human action and as a tool people use in social manipulation. The study of signal systems is a key to an understanding of social manipulation and to the incorporation of culture into Human Behavioral Ecology. Examples of the manipulation of culture for reproductive benefit include Yanomamo kin term manipulation (Chagnon 1988), incest rules (Thornhill 1990, 1991), and the derogation of sexual competitors (Buss and Dedden 1990). The Human Behavioral ecological study of social manipulation in cultural contexts needs to be expanded. Two phenomena that might shed light on such manipulation are the Rashomon effect and the audience effect.

  • Human Behavioral Ecology
    Annual Review of Anthropology, 1991
    Co-Authors: Lee Cronk
    Abstract:

    Human Behavioral Ecology may be defined as the study of the evolutionary Ecology of Human behavior. Its central problem is to discover the ways in which the behavior of modern Humans reflects our species' history of natural selection. During the last two decades this approach has grown rapidly, involving researchers from all the major branches of anthropology, as well as from other Behavioral and social sciences and from the Humanities. This article focuses on the growing body of empirical Behavioral ecological re­ search on behavior in non-Western, primarily nonindustrial societies. Studies that have brought new insights to areas of traditional concern among an­ thropologists, such as population regulation, foraging, reciprocity, redistribu­ tion, kinship, marriage, descent, child care, and sociocultural change are emphasized . The evolutionary biological study of Human behavior has been given many other names besides Human Behavioral Ecology, including evolutionary ecolo­ gy, biosociology, biocultural science, biosocial science, Human ethology, sociobiology, socioEcology, evolutionary biological anthropology, and evolu­ tion and Human behavior studies. Many researchers now avoid the con­ troversial term "sociobiology" because it is often wrongly equated with kin selection theory (93), which is actually just one aspect of the approach, and because they wish to distance themselves from popular and speculative works that use the label.

Ruth Mace - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Human Behavioral Ecology and its evil twin
    Behavioral Ecology, 2014
    Co-Authors: Ruth Mace
    Abstract:

    Human Behavioral evolutionary studies tend to interpret Behavioral diversity in terms of either "culture" or Ecology. Although Human Behavioral Ecology and cultural evolution seem to be different fields, their protagonists often taking different approaches and generating different conclusions, they are in fact 2 kinds of explanation that are hard to tell apart in the real world. Many studies of the evolution of Human behavior situate behavior in the context of ecological, cultural, and social environments. The task now is to test explicit evolutionary models against real-world data, preferably on different scales. Cultural phylogenetics and social network analysis have been employed to help in this task, used within the framework of Behavioral Ecology.