Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T12:39:57.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Unified Evolutionary Model of Archaeological Style and Function Based on the Price Equation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

P. Jeffrey Brantingham
P. Jeffrey Brantingham*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, 341 Haines Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (branting@ucla.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The style-function dichotomy lies at the heart of the evolutionary archaeology research program. It also is the source of much disagreement about how we should conceive of the processes of culture change. Evolutionary archaeologists tend to view archaeological attributes as either functional, if they respond to selection, or stylistic, if they do not. Others tend to see style and function as operating simultaneously. A resolution to this problem is proposed through development of a formal mathematical model of style- and function-based evolution using a hypothetical example of temporal patterns of ceramic decoration within a community of household-based potters. Simple replicator equations are proposed to describe the household-scale dynamics of change in the relative frequency of ceramic decoration. These low-level dynamics can be distinguished on the basis of whether or not change is correlated with some measure of performance, utility, or payoff. The replicator equations are then used to derive several versions of the Price Equation (Price 1970), a very general and powerful statement about total evolutionary change in any system. At this scale of analysis, total change is similarly partitioned into payoff-correlated (functional) and payoff-independent (stylistic) contributions and it is shown that these processes are likely to operate simultaneously. Tests of the model against simulated data show that it is possible to estimate with considerable accuracy the strength of functional and stylistic contributions to culture change under ideal conditions of site preservation. Further theoretical work is needed, however, to understand how diverse site formation and disturbance processes might impact application of the model in real archaeological settings.

Résumé

Résumé

La dicotomía entre estilo y función está en la base del programa de investigación de la arqueología evolucionista. También es el origen de mucho desacuerdo sobre cómo debemos imaginar los procesos de cambio cultural. Los arqueólogos evolucionistas clasifican los atributos arqueológicos como funcionales, si responden a selección, o estilísticos, si no lo hacen. Otros piensan que estilo y función opera al mismo tiempo. Se propone una resolución para este problema mediante el desarrollo de un modelo matemático de evolución basado en estilo y función, usando un ejemplo hipotético de patrones temporales de la decoración en la cerámica en una comunidad de ceramistas organizadas en unidades domésticas. Se proponen ecuaciones sencillas replicadoras para describir, en la escala de las unidades domésticas, las dinámicas de cambio en la frecuencia relativa de decoración de la cerámica. Puede distinguir entre estas dinámicas de bajo nivel si los cambios tienen correlación con realización, utilidad, o recompensa, o no. Se usa las ecuaciones replicador para obtener diferentes versiones de la Ecuación Price (Price 1970), una declaración general y fuerte sobre cambio evolutivo en un sistema. En esta escala de análisis, el cambio total está dividido en contribuciones funcionales (que tienen una correlación con recompensa) y contribuciones estilísticos (que no tienen correlación con recompensa), y se demuestra que estos procesos funcionan al mismo tiempo. Pruebas de este modelo usando datos simulados demuestran que es posible, con mucha precisión, estimar la importancia de contribuciones funciónales y contribuciónes estilísticas bajo de coediciones ideales de conservación de sitios arqueológicos. Sin embargo, necesitamos más investigaciones teóricas para comprender cómo los procesos diversos de la formación y alteración de sitios arqueológicos afectan la aplicación de este modelo en situaciones arqueológicas reales.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 395 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2007

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

Bettinger, Robert L., Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. 1996 Style, Function and Cultural Evolutionary Processes. In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by H. D. G. Maschner, pp. 133–164. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Boone, James L., and Smith, Eric A. 1998 Is it Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Anthropology 39:S141–S173.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, Choi, Jung K. and Hopfensitz, Astrid 2003 The Co-evolution of Individual Behaviors and Social Institutions. Journal Of Theoretical Biology 223:135–147.Google Scholar
Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey 2006 Measuring Forager Mobility. Current Anthropology 47:435–459.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, and Kuhn, Steven L. 2001 Constraints on Levallois Core Technology: A Mathematical Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:747–761.Google Scholar
Braun, David P. 1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B.C.–A.D. 600. In Emergent Horticultural Societies of the Eastern Woodland, edited by W. F. Keegan, pp. 153–181. Occasional Paper no. 7, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.Google Scholar
Conkey, Margaret W., and Hastorf, Christine A. 1990 Introduction. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 1–4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Connell, Joseph H. 1980 Diversity and the Coevolution of Competitors, or the Ghost of Competition Past. Oikos 35:131–138.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function—Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43:192–202.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Bettinger, Robert L. 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66:493–504.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Lipo, Carl P. 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:316–334.Google Scholar
Frank, Steven A. 1997 The Price Equation, Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem, Kin Selection, and Causal Analysis. Evolution 51:1712–1729.Google Scholar
Franklin, Natalie R. 1989 Research with Style: A Case Study from Australian Rock Rrt. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by S. J. Shennan, pp. 278–290. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
Gintis, Herbert 2000 Game Theory Evolving. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Gintis, Herbert, Smith, Eric A. and Bowles, Samuel 2001 Costly Signaling and Cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 213:103–119.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. 2002 The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Grafen, Alan 2000 Developments of the Price Equation and Natural Selection under Uncertainty. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 267:1223–1227.Google Scholar
Hamilton, William D. 1970 Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in an Evolutionary Model. Nature 228:1218–1220.Google Scholar
Hayden, Brian 1998 Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems (Design theory). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:1–55.Google Scholar
Hegmon, Michelle 1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517–536.Google Scholar
Hegmon, Michelle 1995 The Social Dynamics of Pottery Style in the Early Puebloan Southwest. Occasional Paper No. 3, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph 2001 Cultural Transmission and the Diffusion of Innovations: Adoption Dynamics Indicate that Biased Cultural Transmission is the Predominate Force in Behavioral Change. American Anthropologist 103:992–1013.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph 2004 Demography and Cultural Evolution: How Adaptive Cultural Processes Can Produce Maladaptive Losses - The Tasmanian Case. American Antiquity 69:197–214.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, and McElreath, Richard 2003 The Evolution of Cultural Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:123–135.Google Scholar
Kidder, Alfred V. 1917 A Design-Sequence from New Mexico. PNAS 3(5):369–370.Google Scholar
Kidder, Alfred V. 1931 The Potter of Pecos, Vol. 1. The Dull Paint Wares. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, No. 5. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Kidder, Alfred V., and Shepard, Anna O. 1936 The Potter of Pecos, Vol. 2. The Glaze-Paint, Cullinary and Other Wares. Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition, No. 7. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., VanBuskirk, Stephanie, and Ruscavage-Barz, Samantha 2004 Vessels and Villages: Evidence for Conformist Transmission in Early Village Aggregations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 23:100–118.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426–442.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2000 Chronometers and Units in Early Archaeology and Paleontology. American Antiquity 65:691–707.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John 1982 Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McElreath, Richard, Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. 2003 Shared Norms and the Evolution of Ethnic Markers. Current Anthropology 44:122–129.Google Scholar
Mills, Barbara J. 2004 The Establishment and Defeat of Hierarchy: Inalienable Possessions and the History of Collective Prestige Structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American Anthropologist 106:238–251.Google Scholar
Neiman, Fraser D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:7–36.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., and Holland, Thomas D. 1992 The Role Of Adaptation In Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 57:36–59.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., and Lee Lyman, R. 1999 Seriation, Stratigraphy, and Index Fossils: The Back-bone of Archaeological Dating. Klewer Academic/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., Holland, Thomas D., Hoard, Robert J., and Fox, Gregory L. 1994 Evolutionary Implications of Design and Performance Characteristics of Prehistoric Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:259.Google Scholar
Price, George R. 1970 Selection and Covariance. Nature 227:520–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, James R. 1977 The Meaning of Style in Archeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42:369–380.Google Scholar
Schuster, Peter, and Sigmund, Karl 1983 Replicator Dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 100:533–538.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J., and Wilkinson, J. R. 2001 Ceramic Style Change and Neutral Evolution: A Case Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66:577–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Watson 1971 Painted Ceramics of the Western Mound at Awatovi. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 38, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Stanish, Charles, and Haley, Kevin J. 2005 Power, Fairness, and Architecture: Modeling Early Chiefdom Development in the Central Andes. In Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes, edited by Kevin J. Vaughn, Dennis Ogburn, and Christina A. Conlee, pp. 53–69. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 14.Google Scholar
Stirzaker, David 2003 Elementary Probability. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Surovell, Todd A. 2003 The Behavioral Ecology of Folsom Lithic Technology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Ugan, Andrew, Bright, Jason, and Rogers, Alan 2003 When is Technology Worth the Trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1315–1329.Google Scholar
Weibull, Jorgen W. 1995 Evolutionary Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Wiessner, Pauline 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari-San Projectile-Points. American Antiquity 48:253–276.Google Scholar
Wobst, H. Martin 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317–342. Anthropology Papers 31. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar