Human Behaviour and the Scientific Method

Authors Avatar

Human Behaviour and the Scientific Method

The productivity of cross disciplinary fertilisation is in no way diminished by the contents of the articles that stimulated this discussion. Not only does the application of evolutionary ecological theories to the study of human behaviour initiate new areas of research for scholars of human behaviour it also stimulates discussions of the underlying theories and assumptions of such disciplines as anthropology and archaeology. For the purpose of this discussion no distinction will be made between anthropology and archaeology, in the fashion of North American scholars, both will be considered the study of humans. This discussion will attempt to address the application of evolutionary ecological theories to the study of humans generally.

In the first instance some key points in the articles by Hames and Vickers (1983) and Beckerman (1983) will be outlined. The question of technology will be addressed by suggesting that material culture is simply an extension of the human phenotype (Maschner & Mithen 1996: 6).  This will be followed by a discussion of some key terms from evolutionary ecology and their possible usefulness. The discussion will then move to the scientific method and the application of empirical research and its use in anthropology. Finally it will be argued that, with some adaptations and clarifications, the adoption of theories from the natural sciences will enlarge the body of knowledge already accumulated by anthropology.

Behavioural ecology provides a powerful and complex set of ideas for understanding animal behaviour in terms of its evolutionary consequences. In principle, since humans are a species that has evolved through natural selection, like any other, the same ideas can be applied to the study of human behaviour. Whether what people do corresponds to the predictions derived from optimality theory in particular cases is a matter for research rather than dogmatic assertion one way or the other (Shennan 2002: 5).

The articles

It must initially be noted that the article by Hames and Vickers (1983) is the introduction to a larger collection of articles and consequently attempts to outline the arguments of other authors (of cause the reader would know this). It is suggested that the arguments are not sufficiently developed in the introduction to critically evaluate and are also far too broad for this discussion. At the start of their article Hames and Vickers notes that although studies of the Amazonian region had expanded knowledge of the area, there was at the time limited empirical data (1983: 1). The authors go on to suggest ‘that the ecological approach offers powerful tools for the analysis of … human adaptation in Amazonia’ (Hames & Vickers 1983: 1). After a description of the various environmental conditions such as soil types and vegetation distribution the authors suggest studies of individual communities are used ‘to test hypotheses concerning general adaptive processes in Amazonian societies’ (Hames & Vickers 1983: 7).

In section three of their article Hames and Vickers outline some of the arguments for environmentally deterministic interpretations of Amazonian cultural evolution. They site a plethora of authors claiming that poor soil limited the development of agriculture, or that the lack of protein restricted sociocultural development. Hames and Vickers notes that the ‘Amazonian habitat has been cited … as a prime example of how the environment determines and limits sociocultural evolution’ (1983: 7). It is argued that although the environment is clearly a limiting factor, an individual can not eat pig if there are no pigs, it is not the only limiting or selective factor in culture change. This statement is preposed for reasons outlined below.

Join now!

In section four ‘Environmental Models of Amazonian Adaptive Behavior’ the authors discuss ‘variability in particular cultural traits’ (Hames & Vickers 1983:12). They outline some of the arguments used to explain warfare and settlement patterns and the relation with resources such as protein in Amazonia. These arguments and the theories that inspire them should complement the dialogue on human behaviour from traditional anthropologists, adding another tool to the social science kit. Hames and Vickers also highlight some of the problems encountered by researchers initially suggesting that the lack of high quality data is a serious limiting factor for those interested in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay