Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:24:49.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Adaptation in Archaeological Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. O'Brien  and
Thomas D. Holland
Michael J. O'Brien
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211
Thomas D. Holland
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adaptation, a venerable icon in archaeology, often is afforded the vacuous role of being an ex-post-facto argument used to "explain" the appearance and persistence of traits among prehistoric groups—a position that has seriously impeded development of a selectionist perspective in archaeology. Biological and philosophical definitions of adaptation—and by extension, definitions of adaptedness—vary considerably, but all are far removed from those usually employed in archaeology. The prevailing view in biology is that adaptations are features that were shaped by natural selection and that increase the adaptedness of an organism. Thus adaptations are separated from other features that may contribute to adaptedness but are products of other evolutionary processes. Analysis of adaptation comprises two stages: showing that a feature was under selection and how the feature functioned relative to the potential adaptedness of its bearers. The archaeological record contains a wealth of information pertinent to examining the adaptedness of prehistoric groups, but attempts to use it will prove successful only if a clear understanding exists of what adaptation is and is not.

Resumen

Resumen

La adaptatión, un venerable ícono en arqueología, desempeña a menudo el papel huero de argumento ex post facto utilizado para "explicar" la aparición y persistencia de rasgos en grupos prehistóricos—una positión que ha obstaculizado seriamente el desarrollo de una perspectiva seleccionista en arqueología. Las definiciones biológicas y filosóficas de adaptación—y por extensión, las definiciones de lo adaptado—varían considerablemente, pero todas ellas difierenpor completo de las habitualmente empleadas en arqueología. La conceptión predominante en biología sostiene que las adaptaciones son características que fueron moldeadas por selección natural y que incrementan la adaptatión de un organismo. De este modo las adaptaciones se distinguen de otras características que pueden contribuir a la adaptatión pero son el resultado de diferentes procesos evolutivos. El análisis de la adaptación procede en dos etapas: la primera, demostrar que una característica se encontraba bajo selectión; la segunda, demostrar cómo funcionaba la característica en relatión con los estados adaptativos potenciales de sus portadores. El registro arqueológico contiene abundante informatión pertinente para examinar la adaptación de grupos prehistóricos, pero los intentos de utilizarla solo tendrán éxito si se comprende claramente qué es y qué no es adaptación.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 36 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Alland, A., Jr. 1975 Adaptation. Annual Review of Anthropology 4 : 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, D. L. 1976 The Middle Woodland Population of the Lower Illinois Valley : A Study in Paleodemographic Models. Scientific Papers No. 1. Northwestern University Archeological Program. Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Asch, D. L., and Asch, N. B. 1985 Prehistoric Plant Cultivation in West-Central Illinois. In The Nature and Status ofEthnobotany, edited by Ford, R. I., pp. 149–203. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Bethell, T. 1976 Darwin's Mistake. Harper's February : 70–75.Google Scholar
Bock, W. J. 1980 The Definition and Recognition of Biological Adaptation. American Zoologist 20 : 217–227.Google Scholar
Braidwood, R. 1967 Prehistoric Men. 7th ed. Scott, Foresman, Glenview, Illinois.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. 1978 Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9 : 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N. 1990 Adaptation and Environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1977 Middle Woodland-Early Late Woodland Social Change in the Prehistoric Central Midwestern U. S. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by Moore, J. and Keene, A., pp. 107–134. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1985a Ceramic Decorative Diversity and Illinois Woodland Regional Integration. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, B. A., pp. 128–153. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P. 1985b Absolute Seriation : A Time-Series Approach. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis : Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by Carr, C., pp. 509–539. Westport, Kansas Google Scholar
City, Missouri. 1986 Midwestern Hopewellian Exchange and Supralocal Interaction. In Peer-Polity Interaction and Sociopolitical Change, edited by Renfrew, C. and Cherry, J., pp. 117–126. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
City, Missouri. 1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B. C. -A. D. 600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Keegan, W. F., pp. 153–181. Occasional Paper No. 7. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.Google Scholar
City, Missouri. 1990 Selection and Evolution in Nonhierarchical Organization. In The Evolution of Political Systems : Sociopolitics in Small-Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by Upham, S., pp. 62–86. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Braun, D. P., and Plog, S. 1982 Evolution of “Tribal” Social Networks : Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence. American Antiquity 47 : 504–525.Google Scholar
Buikstra, J. E., Koningsberg, L., and Bullington, J. 1986 Fertility and the Development of Agriculture in the Prehistoric Midwest. American Antiquity 51 : 528–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, R. 1983 Adaptation. In Dimensions of Darwinism, edited by Grene, M., pp. 287–314. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Campbell, B. G. 1966 Human Evolution : An Introduction to Man's Adaptation. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859 On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. 1982 Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T., Ayala, F. J., Stebbins, G. L., and Valentine, J. W. 1977 Evolution. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978a Style and Function : A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43 : 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978b Archaeological Potential of Anthropological and Scientific Models of Function. In Archaeological Essays in Honor of Irving B. Rouse, edited by Dunnell, R. C. and Hall, E. S., Jr., pp. 41–73. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1980 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 35–99. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1985 Methodological Issues in Contemporary Americanist Archaeology. In Proceedings of the 1984 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 2, edited by Asquith, P. D. and Kitcher, P., pp. 717— 744. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1988 Archaeology and Evolutionary Theory. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C, and Feathers, J. K. 1991 Late Woodland Manifestations of the Maiden Plain, Southeast Missouri. In Stability, Transformation, and Variation : The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by Nassaney, M. S. and Cobb, C. R., pp. 21–45. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Feathers, J. K. 1988 Explaining the Transition from Sand to Shell Temper in Southeastern Missouri Pottery. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.Google Scholar
Feathers, J. K. 1989 Effects of Temper on Strength of Ceramics : Response to Bronitsky and Hamer. American Antiquity 54 : 579–588.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1985 Evolutionary Morphology : Beyond the Analogous, the Anecdotal, and the Ad Hoc. Paleobiology 11 : 120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. 1979 Evolutionary Biology. 1st ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. 1986 Evolutionary Biology. 2nd ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google ScholarPubMed
Ghiselin, M. T. 1966 On Semantic Pitfalls of Biological Adaptation. Philosophy of Science 33 : 147–153.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. 1969 The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1976 Darwin's Untimely Burial. Natural History 85 : 24–30.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989 Wonderful Life : The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. 1979 The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm : A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B205 : 581–598.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Vrba, E. 1982 Exaptation—A Missing Term in the Science of Form. Paleobiology 8 : 4–15.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., Raup, D. M., Sepkoski, J. J., Jr., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1977 The Shape of Evolution : A Comparison of Real and Random Clades. Paleobiology 3 : 23–40.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, R. 1971 The Chemistry and Physics of Clays. Ernest Benn, London.Google Scholar
Hargrave, M. L. 1981 Woodland Ceramic Chronometry and Occupational Intensity at the Carrier Mills Archaeological District, Saline County, Illinois. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.Google Scholar
Holland, T. D. 1989 Fertility in the Prehistoric Midwest : A Critique of Unifactorial Models. American Antiquity 54 : 389–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirch, P. V. 1980 The Archaeological Study of Adaptation : Theoretical and Methodological Issues. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 3, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 101–156. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Krimbas, C. B. 1984 On Adaptation, Neo-Darwinian Tautology, and Population Fitness. Evolutionary Biology 17 : 1–57.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. D., and Jones, G. T. 1987 Elements of an Inclusive Evolutionary Model for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6 : 199–219.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1978 Adaptation. Scientific American 239 : 156–169.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1986 Adaptation. Reprinted in Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology : An Anthology, edited by Sober, E., pp. 235–251. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1960 A Scientific Theory of Culture. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Malthus, T. R. 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population. Johnson, London.Google Scholar
Marks, J., and Staski, E. 1988 Individuals and the Evolution of Biological and Cultural Systems. Human Evolution 3 : 147–161.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1973 Populations, Species, and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1988 Toward a New Philosophy of Biology : Observations of an Evolutionist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Million, M. G. 1975 Ceramic Technology of the Nodena Phase People (ca. AD 1400-1700). Southeast Archaeological Conference Bulletin 18 : 201–208.Google Scholar
Mills, S., and Beatty, J. 1979 The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. Philosophy of Science 46 : 263–286.Google Scholar
Neff, H. 1992 Ceramics and Evolution. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 4, edited by Schiffer, M. B.. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, in press.Google Scholar
O' Brien, M. J. 1987 Sedentism, Population Growth, and Resource Selection in the Woodland Midwest : A Review of Coevolutionary Developments. Current Anthropology 28 : 177–197.Google Scholar
O' Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1990 Variation, Selection, and the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 31–79. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
O' Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1991 Evolutionary Selectionism and the Role of Archaeology. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Ospovat, D. 1981 The Development of Darwin's Theory. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Pryor, F. L. 1986 The Adaptation of Agriculture : Some Theoretical and Empirical Evidence. American Anthropologist 88 : 879–897.Google Scholar
Reid, K. 1984 Fire and Ice : New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Late Archaic Fiber-Tempered Pottery in the Mid-Latitude Lowlands. American Antiquity 49 : 55–76.Google Scholar
Reynolds, V. 1984 The Relationship Between Biological and Cultural Evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 13 : 71–79.Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1984 The Origins of Agriculture : An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1985 Darwinian Selection, Symbolic Variation, and the Evolution of Culture. Current Anthropology 26 : 65–88.Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1986 The Evolution of the Capacity for Culture : Sociobiology, Structuralism, and Cultural Selection. Current Anthropology 27 : 315–332.Google Scholar
Rindos, D. 1989 Undirected Variation and the Darwinian Explanation of Cultural Change. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1–45. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. 1971 Functional Statements in Biology. Philosophy of Science 38 : 37–95.Google Scholar
Rye, O. S. 1976 Keeping Your Temper Under Control : Materials and the Manufacture of Papuan Pottery. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11 : 106–137.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. 1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28 : 595–622.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1984 The Nature of Selection : Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Steward, J. H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Steward, J. H. 1956 Cultural Evolution. Scientific American 194(5) : 69–80.Google Scholar
Stimmell, C, Heimann, R. B., and Hancock, R. G. V. 1982 Indian Pottery from the Mississippi Valley : Coping with Bad Raw Materials. In Archaeological Ceramics, edited by Olin, J. S. and Franklin, A. D., pp. 219–228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Styles, B. W. 1981 Early Late Woodland Subsistence in the Lower Illinois Valley. Scientific Papers No. 8. Northwestern University Archeological Program, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. W., Jr. 1948 A Study of Archeology. Memoir Series No. 69. American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973 A New Evolutionary Law. Evolutionary Theory 1 : 1–30.Google Scholar
Williams, M. B. 1986 The Logical Status of the Theory of Natural Selection and Other Evolutionary Consequences. Reprinted in Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology : An Anthology, edited by Sober, E., pp. 83–98. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director : Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Cleland, C. E., pp. 317–342. Anthropological Papers No. 61. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar