Measuring Foraging Efficiency with Archaeological Faunas: The Relationship Between Relative Abundance Indices and Foraging Returns

Ugan, Andrew; Bright, Jason

doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0679

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional ethnographic and experimental data and attention to modeling different pursuit strategies, goals, and currencies should enhance the sophistication and realism of PCM applications to this problem. (See Elston and Zeanah, 2002;Hildebrandt and McGuire, 2002; and sections below on individual constraints and costly signaling theory; also Cannon, 2001;Lyman, 2003a,b;Stiner and Munro, 2002;Ugan and Bright, 2001; for further methodological commentary. )…”

Section: Diet Breadth and The Question Of "Intensification"mentioning

confidence: 96%

Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral ecology is the study of adaptive behavior in relation to social and environmental circumstances. Analysts working from this perspective hold that the reproductive strategies and decision-making capacities of all living organisms-including humans-are shaped by natural selection. Archaeologists have been using this proposition in the study of past human behavior for more than 30 years. Significant insights on variation in prehistoric human subsistence, life history, social organization, and their respective fossil and archaeological consequences have been among the more important results.

show abstract

Section: Diet Breadth and The Question Of "Intensification"mentioning

confidence: 96%

Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Well-known issues arising from the use of zooarchaeological data in general, such as preservational bias, taphonomic history, sample size, excavation techniques, analyst methodology, and space and time compression, can significantly and selectively impact faunal abundances and the resulting interpretation (e.g., Cannon 1999Cannon , 2001Cruz-Uribe 1988;Grayson 1984;Grayson et al 2001;Lupo 1995, 2005). Analysts need to carefully evaluate the differential impact of these potential biases before making inferences, but even in the face of careful analysis, zooarchaeologists are beginning to explore what dimensions of the diet these units actually measure (e.g., Broughton and Grayson 1993;Jones 2004;Lupo and Schmitt 2005;Ugan and Bright 2001).…”

Section: Units Of Measurement and Dietmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary Foraging Models in Zooarchaeological Analysis: Recent Applications and Future Challenges

Lupo

2007

J Archaeol Res

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last few decades have witnessed a rapid rise in the use of foraging models derived from behavioral ecology to explain and predict temporal and spatial differences in faunal assemblages. Although these models build on conventional ideas about utility firmly embedded in zooarchaeological analyses, when cast in an evolutionary framework these ideas produce some of the most sophisticated and elegant interpretations of archaeofaunas to date. In this article I review the methodological and practical strengths and weaknesses of current zooarchaeological applications of foraging models. Recent applications of foraging models to the zooarchaeological record reveal important variability in human-prey interactions across time and space. Case-specific applications generate theoretical and methodological advances that augment and are complementary to model building in allied fields. Recent applications also identify shortcomings in the underlying assumptions and rationale of some foraging models that mirror past and on-going discussions in anthropology and biology. I discuss how these shortcomings can fruitfully direct future applications and research in foraging economics.

show abstract

“…A second premise guiding these analyses concerns what archaeofaunal diversity and abundance indices actually measure (e.g., Cannon, 2001;Grayson, 1984;Jones, 2004;Lyman, 2003;Ugan and Bright, 2001). Archaeologists assume that there is a relationship between measures of prey abundance and diversity and some measure of prehistoric diet breadth.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%