Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Hunter-Gatherers pp 91–138Cite as

Hunter-Gatherers as Optimal Foragers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1730 Accesses

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology ((IDCA))

Abstract

Optimal foraging theory is a logical extension of the materialist perspective described in previous chapters, and viewed by some as an alternative to middle-range theory that is both more solidly grounded in formal theory and more directly related to the basic materialist concerns of subsistence and settlement that have traditionally dominated anthropological treatments of hunter-gatherers. We provide verbal descriptions, theoretical justifications, and graphical and mathematical representations of a variety of classic and more recently developed models derived from microeconomics and ethology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To follow the parallel a step further, in this light the middle-range critics of optimal foraging theory seem to be taking much the same stand as J. S. Mill took against utilitarianism. In reference to the analogy between utilitarian theory and models of frictionless engines in physics, Mill noted that, although for some purposes such simplifying assumptions might be useful, they alone could never result in a comprehensive accounting of actual cases. That was so because such disturbing causes as friction often caused expectations arising from simple principles to be wrong when put to empirical test and more important because those disturbing causes were not merely random noise but rather forces important in their own right, subject to their own laws, and, therefore, a legitimate and necessary subject of study (cf. Burrow 1966:74). The analogy between J. S. Mill’s “disturbing” forces and middle-range “processes of site formation” can hardly be overlooked here.

  2. 2.

    Metcalfe and Jones (1988:495) argue that the diet breadth model differs from Binford’s modified general utility curve in that the contingency model predicts that the use (or disuse) of an item will be complete rather than partial (an item is either in the optimal set or it is not). By this logic, one would expect all skeletal elements representing body parts above a given utility threshold to be equally represented (or unrepresented) in archaeological assemblages; that is, they would not be differentially represented according to their individual utility as Binford’s utility curves imply. In practice, however, the utility indexes obtained for individual skeletal elements are probably best regarded as means representing the central points of a presumably large range of variation. This and other sources of error, including those made in butchering and judging utility, make the probabilistic utility curve at least as realistic as the non-probabilistic contingency alternative.

References

  • Alvard, M. S. (1993). Testing the “ecologically noble savage” hypothesis: Interspecific prey choice by Piro hunters of Amazonian Peru. Human Ecology, 21, 355–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, K. R. (2006). A formal model for predicting agriculture among the Fremont. In D. J. Kennett & B. Winterhalder (Eds.), Behavioral ecology and the transition to agriculture (pp. 87–102). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basgall, M. (1987). Resource intensification among hunter-gatherers: Acorn economics in prehistoric California. Research in Economic Anthropology, 9, 21–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basgall, M. E., & Giambastiani, M. A. (1995). Prehistoric use of a marginal environment: Continuity and change in occupation of the Volcanic Tablelands, Mono and Inyo Counties, California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis. University of California, Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumhoff, M. A. (1963). Ecological determinants of aboriginal California populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 49(2), 155–236, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (1980). Explanatory/predictive models of hunter-gatherer adaptation. In M.B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory, Vol. 3 (pp.189–255). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (1991a). Hunter-gatherers: Archaeological and evolutionary theory. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (1999a). From traveler to processor: Regional trajectories of hunter-gatherer sedentism in the Inyo-Mono region, California. In B. R. Billman & G. M. Feinman (Eds.), Settlement pattern studies in the Americas: Fifty years since Viru (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (1999b). What happened in the Medithermal? In C. Beck (Ed.), Models for the Millennium: Great Basin anthropology today (pp. 62–74). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (2001). Holocene hunter-gatherers. In G. M. Feinman & T. D. Price (Ed.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A sourcebook (pp. 137–198). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (2009a). Hunter-gatherer foraging: Five simple models. Clinton Corners: Eliot Werner Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L., & Baumhoff, M. A. (1982). The Numic spread: Great Basin cultures in competition. American Antiquity, 47(3), 485–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L., & Baumhoff, M. A. (1983). Return rates and intensity of resource use in Numic and Prenumic adaptive strategies. American Antiquity, 48(4), 830–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L., Mali, R., & McCarthy, H. (1997). Central place models of acorn and mussel processing. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 887–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L., Winterhalder, B., & McElreath, R. (2006). A simple model of technological intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 538–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1977a). General introduction. In L. R. Binford (Ed.), For theory building in archaeology (pp. 1–10). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1978a). Nunamiut ethnoarchaelogy. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological siteformation. American Antiquity, 45, 4–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1982). The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1983a). In pursuit of the past: Decoding the archaeological record. London: Thames and Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1983b). Working at archaeology. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, D. W., & Bliege Bird, R. (2002). Children on the reef: Slow learning or strategic foraging. Human Nature, 13, 269–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, D. W., & O’Connell, J. F. (2006). Behavioral ecology and archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 14, 143–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, D. W., Bleige Bird, R., & Codding, B. F. (2009). In pursuit of mobile prey: Martu hunting strategies and archaeofaunal interpretations. American Antiquity, 74, 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. (1988). Behavioral ecology in traditional societies. Tree, 3, 26–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box, G. E. P. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356), 791–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broughton, J. M., Cannon, M. D., Bayham, F. E., & Byers, D. A. (2011). Prey body size and ranking in zooarchaeology: Theory, empirical evidence, and applications from the northern Great Basin. American Antiquity, 76, 403–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrow, J. W. (1966). Evolution and society: A study in Victorian social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging: The marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9, 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codding, B. F., & Jones, T. L. (2013). Environmental productivity predicts migration, demographic, and linguistic patterns in prehistoric California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(36), 14569–14573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. N. (1981). Pacific Coast foragers: Affluent or overcrowded? In S. Koyama and D.H.Thomas (Eds.), Affluent foragers: Pacific coasts east and west (pp. 155–188). Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, G. (1961). Economic theory and primitive society. American Anthropologist, 63, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, G. (1969). Theoretical issues in economic anthropology. Current Anthropology, 10, 63–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, G., & Kocke, J. (1983). The work of the Polanyi group: Past, present and future. In S. Ortiz (Ed.), Economic anthropology: Topics and theories (pp. 21–50). (Monographs in economic anthropology I. Society of economic anthropology). Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. G. (1973). Social relations in a Philippine market. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, W. G. (1978). Review of “Max Weber’s theory of concept formation: History, laws, and ideal types,” by T. Burger. American Anthropologist, 80, 121–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emlen, J. M. (1973). Ecology: An evolutionary approach. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, K. V. (1973). Archaeology with a capital “S.”. In C. L. Redman (Ed.), Research and theory in current archaeology (pp. 47–53). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, K. V. (1982). The golden Marshalltown: A parable for the archaeology of the 1980s. American Anthropologist, 84, 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell, S. D., & Lucas, H. L. (1970). On territorial behaviorand other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica, 19, 16–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, R. (2015). A model of lithic raw material procurement. In N. Goodale & W. Andrefsky (Eds.) Lithic technological systems and evolutionary theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, E. W. (n.d.) Karok field notes 1939–1942. Ethnological Documents of the Department and Museum of Anthropology, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, E. W. (1936). Californian balanophagy. In R. H. Lowie (Ed.), Essays in anthropology presented to A. L. Kroeber (pp. 87–98). New York: Books for Libraries Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, W. (1974). Subsistence activities among the Hupa. In R. Beals & J. Hester Jr. (Eds.), Indian land use and occupancy in California (Vol. I, pp. 52–55). New York: Garland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammett, J. E., & Lawlor, E. J. (2004). Paleoethnobotany in California. In P. E. Minnis (Ed.), People and plants in ancient western North America, (pp. 278–366). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K., & O’Connell, J. F. (1981). Affluent hunters? Some comments in light of the Alyawara case. American Anthropologist, 83, 622–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K., Hill, K., & O’Connell, J. F. (1982). Why hunters gather: Optimal foraging and the Aché of eastern Paraguay. American Ethnologist, 9, 379–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heizer, R. F. (1958). Prehistoric central California: A problem in historical-developmental classification. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, 41, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado, A., Hawkes, K., Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1985). Female subsistence strategies among the Aché of eastern Paraguay. Human Ecology, 13, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2000). The optimal forager and economic man. In T. Ingold (Ed.), The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill (pp. 27–39). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. L. (1994). Pounding acorn: Women’s production as social and economic focus. In J.M. Gero & M. W. Conkey (Eds.), Engendering archaeology (pp. 301–325). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennett, D., Anderson, A., & Winterhalder, B. (2006). The ideal free distribution, food production, and the colonization of Oceania. In D. J. Kennett & B. Winterhalder (Eds.), Behavioral ecology and the transition to agriculture (pp. 265–288). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L., & Barrett, S. A. (1960). Fishing among the Indians of Northwestern California. University of California Anthropological Records 21, pp. 1–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. B. (1968). What hunters do for a living, or how to make out on scarce resources. In R. B. Lee & I. Devore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 30–48). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, T., Lu, F., Yu, D., & Mangel, M. (2011). The behaviour and diet breadth of Central-Place foragers: An application to human hunters and neotropical game management. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 13, 171–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupo, K. D. (2007). Evolutionary foraging models in zooarchaeological analysis: Recent applications and future challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research, 15, 143–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R. H., & Pianka, E. R. (1966). On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist, 100, 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, P. J. (1976). Miwok balanophagy: Implications for the cultural development of some California acorn-eaters. Berkeley: Archaeological Research Facility, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, J. M., & Houston, A. I. (1987). Partial preferences and foraging. Animal Behavior, 35, 1084–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, D., & Jones, K. T. (1988). A reconsideration of animal body-part utility indices. American Antiquity, 53, 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, C. (2012). Modeling modes of hunter-gatherer food storage. American Antiquity, 77(4), 714–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D. M., Gibson, A., Lawson, D. W., & Sear, R. (2013). Human behavioral ecology: Current research and future prospects. Behavioral Ecology, 24, 1031–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, J. F., & Hawkes, K. (1981). Alyawara plant use and optimal foraging theory. In B. Winterhalder & E. A. Smith (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer foraging strategies (pp. 99–125). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, J. F., Jones, K. T., & Simms, S. (1982). Some thoughts on prehistoric archaeology in the Great Basin. In D. B. Madsen & J. F. O’Connell (Eds.), Man and environment in the Great Basin (pp. 227–240). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology Papers 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orians, G. H., & Pearson, N. E. (1979). On the theory of central place foraging. In D. J. Horn, G. R. Stairs, & R. D. Mitchell (Eds.), Analysis of ecological systems (pp. 155–177). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco-Cobos, L., Rosetti, M., Cuatianquiz, C., & Hudson, R. (2010). Sex differences in mushroom gathering: Men expend more energy to obtain equivalent benefits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 289–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, K. (1957). The economy as instituted process. In K. Polanyi, C. Arensburg, & H. Pearson (Eds.), Trade and market in the early empires (pp. 243–270). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontzer, H., Raichlen, D., Wood, B., Mabulla, A., & Marlowe, F. (2011). Hadza forager energetics and the evolution of the human metabolic strategy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, S52, 242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. D. (1968). Notes on the original affluent society. In R. B. Lee & I. Devore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 85–89). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. D. (1976). Culture and practical reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoener, T. W. (1974). The compression hypothesis and temporal resource partitioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 71, 4169–4172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A. (1980). Evolutionary ecology and the analysis of human foraging behavior: An inuit example from the East Coast of Hudson Bay. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A. (1981). The application of optimal foraging theory to the analysis of hunter-gatherer group size. In B. Winterhalder & E. A. Smith (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer foraging strategies (pp. 35–65). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A. (1983). Anthropological applications of optimal foraging theory: A critical review. Current Anthropology, 24, 625–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suttles, W. (1968). Coping with abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In R. B. Lee & I. Devore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 56–68). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. H. (1986). Contemporary hunter-gatherer archaeology in America. In D. J. Meltzer & D. D. Fowler (Eds.), American Archaeology: Past and present (pp. 237–276). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. H., & Meyer, D. (1983). Behavioral faunal analysis of selected horizons. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 59(1), 353–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushingham, S., & Bettinger, R. L. (2013). Why foragers choose acorns before salmon: Storage, mobility, and risk in aboriginal California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32(4), 527–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugan, A., & Simms, S. (2012). On prey mobility, prey rank, and foraging goals. American Antiquity, 77, 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugan, A., Bright, J., & Rogers, A. (2003). When is technology worth the trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, 1315–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1948). The theory of social and economic organization. (trans: A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1977). Foraging strategy adaptations of the Boreal Forest Cree: An evaluation of theory and models from evolutionary ecology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1980). Canadian fur bearer cycles and Cree-Ojibwa hunting and trapping practices. American Naturalist, 115, 870–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1981). Optimal foraging strategies and hunter-gatherer research in anthropology. In B. Winterhalder & E. A. Smith (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer foraging strategies: Ethnographic and archaeological analyses (pp. 13–35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B., & Bettinger, R. L. (2010). Nutritional and social benefits of foraging in California. California Archaeology, 2, 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B., & Smith, E. A. (2000). Analyzing adaptive strategies: Human behavioral ecology at twenty-five. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(2), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B., Lu, F., & Tucker, B. (1999). Risk-sensitive adaptive tactics: Models and evidence from subsistence studies in biology and anthropology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 7, 301–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B., Kennett, D. J., Grote, M. N., & Bartruff, J. (2010). Ideal free settlement of California’s Northern Channel Islands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 29, 469–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlgemuth, E. (1996). Resource intensification in prehistoric central California: Evidence from archaebotanical data. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 18, 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Robert L. Bettinger

  2. Department of Anthropology, Univeristy of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Raven Garvey

  3. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

    Shannon Tushingham

Authors
  1. Robert L. Bettinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raven Garvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shannon Tushingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert L. Bettinger .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bettinger, R., Garvey, R., Tushingham, S. (2015). Hunter-Gatherers as Optimal Foragers. In: Hunter-Gatherers. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7581-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation