No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
It is my view that many so-called theoretical disputes in archaeology stem from the fact that participants in the debates are actually trying to answer different questions. Thus, I begin this essay with a brief discussion of the problems that most occupy my attention. My main research area is the Pleistocene prehistory of western Eurasia, although huntergatherer studies, both archaeological and ethnographic, inform my research on the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. I am especially interested in how the role of technology in human life has changed over the past 2.5 million years. Over that time artifacts have evolved from simple extensions of the human physical apparatus and relatively peripheral elements in the behavioral repertoire of the genus Homo to a central component in practically every interaction between humans and their environments as well as between humans and other humans. In short, artifacts have been transformed from simple extensions of hands, claws and teeth into material culture. This is obviously a long and complex story, but it is also central to understanding the human condition and how it came about. Evolutionary concepts and models provide some of the best tools for learning about the kinds of long-term processes that engage my interest. Many archaeologists also find them useful for examining processes that unfolded over much shorter time frames, even within the span of a single human generation. In this essay I explore the rationale for applying evolutionary ideas to the study of technology, and some of the ways these ideas have been used. I would not claim to speak for everyone who flies the banner of evolution in archaeology, for they are a diverse and contentious lot. Instead I focus on what seem to be the most productive rationales and approaches. Speaking at the broadest level, concepts and models derived from evolutionary theory have proven or could prove useful in three general contexts. One obvious application arises where there is thought to be a direct connection between technological and biological changes occurring on an evolutionary time scale. The most salient examples are arguments linking changes in artifact form or manufacture techniques to evolutionary developments in human cognition (Coolidge and Wynn 2001; Mithen 1996, 1997; Wynn
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.