Operationalizing niche construction theory with stone tools

Radu Iovita^{1

2

3}, David R Braun^{3

4}, Matthew J Douglass^{5

6}, Simon J Holdaway^{7

8}, Sam C Lin⁹, Deborah I Olszewski¹⁰, Zeljko Rezek^{3

10}

Affiliations

¹ Center for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York, USA.
² Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
³ Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
⁴ Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
⁵ College of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
⁶ Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
⁷ School of Social Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
⁸ Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, UK.
⁹ Centre for Archaeological Science and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
¹⁰ Department of Anthropology and University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

PMID: 33475216
DOI: 10.1002/evan.21881

Operationalizing niche construction theory with stone tools

Radu Iovita et al. Evol Anthropol. 2021 Jan.

. 2021 Jan;30(1):28-39.

doi: 10.1002/evan.21881. Epub 2021 Jan 21.

Authors

Radu Iovita^{1

2

3}, David R Braun^{3

4}, Matthew J Douglass^{5

6}, Simon J Holdaway^{7

8}, Sam C Lin⁹, Deborah I Olszewski¹⁰, Zeljko Rezek^{3

10}

Affiliations

¹ Center for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, New York, USA.
² Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
³ Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
⁴ Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
⁵ College of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
⁶ Agricultural Research Division, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
⁷ School of Social Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
⁸ Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, UK.
⁹ Centre for Archaeological Science and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
¹⁰ Department of Anthropology and University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

PMID: 33475216
DOI: 10.1002/evan.21881

Abstract

One of the greatest difficulties with evolutionary approaches in the study of stone tools (lithics) has been finding a mechanism for tying culture and biology in a way that preserves human agency and operates at scales that are visible in the archaeological record. The concept of niche construction, whereby organisms actively construct their environments and change the conditions for selection, could provide a solution to this problem. In this review, we evaluate the utility of niche construction theory (NCT) for stone tool archaeology. We apply NCT to lithics both as part of the "extended phenotype" and as residuals or precipitates of other niche-constructing activities, suggesting ways in which archaeologists can employ niche construction feedbacks to generate testable hypotheses about stone tool use. Finally, we conclude that, as far as its applicability to lithic archaeology, NCT compares favorably to other prominent evolutionary approaches, such as human behavioral ecology and dual-inheritance theory.

Keywords: cultural evolution; lithics; niche construction.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

1. Bird DW, O'Connell JF. 2006. Behavioral ecology and archaeology. J Archaeol Res 14:143-188.
1. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. 1985. Culture and the evolutionary process, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
1. Dunnell RC. 1981. Evolutionary theory and archaeology. In: Schiffer MB, editor. Adv. Archaeol. Method theory Sel. Stud. 1 4. New York: Academic Press. p 35-99.
1. Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW. 2003. Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
1. Lewontin RC. 1983. Gene, organism and environment. In: Bendall DS, editor. Evol. Mol. Men, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 273-285.

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 714842; PALAEOSILKROAD project)

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Wiley
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Operationalizing niche construction theory with stone tools

Affiliations

Operationalizing niche construction theory with stone tools

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

References

REFERENCES

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Other Literature Sources