Abstract
In a world of smart desktop approaches, it can be instructive to return to the roots of the discussion of whether it is possible to model the behaviour of small-scale human cultures based on environmental parameters. Present-day modellers appear to have forgotten this debate, which played such an important role in the anthropology of the early twentieth century. The question was never settled. Around the 1960s, a group of theoretical archaeological modellers decided that it was possible to model the landscape behaviour of hunter-gatherers based solely on the environmental data and thereby ignore social anthropological information supporting the opposing view. This was the beginning of a tradition of archaeological modelling that ignored differences in cultural landscape behaviour in similar environments and over time, the information provided by the developing discipline of landscape ecology, and with that the documented environmental complexity and its inherent small-scale dynamics. It is difficult to detect any scientific rationale behind this conscious archaeological isolation from relevant data provided by other disciplines, and the demand for cheap and fast management methods rather than science-based arguments appears the more likely driver. This presentation traces the history of this cultural “nature versus nurture” debate and discusses its implications.
1 Introduction
So-called archaeological “topographical” (deductive) modelling of high-probability prehistoric hunter-gatherer settlement zones in the landscape is typically based on a series of general assumptions about the physical landscape. Parameters such as distance to water, land inclination, sun exposure, and soil type are perceived as being important. A central problem is, however, that no solid and systematic documentation exists for a general relationship between such landscape parameters and a general pattern of settlement behaviour in relation to prehistoric foraging cultures.
One example of misleading assumptions about prehistoric settlement behaviour is the familiar Danish fishing-site model employed in maritime archaeological management. This model assumes that Late Mesolithic settlements associated with inlets and fjords were mainly concentrated at the mouths of these water bodies and ignores the inland settlements that are also well known to have existed during this period (Fischer, 1995). The administrative practice has, accordingly, been to only demand funding for surveys of these specific locations, in response to threats to archaeological remains posed by development and other potentially destructive factors.
Examination of well-surveyed areas with the Mesolithic coastal sites situated above the present sea level, where such inlet/fjord circumstances can be studied today, reveals a quite different pattern, with only 25% of the settlements located in direct conjunction with the mouths of the inlets/fjords (Figure 1) (Grøn, 2020). Nevertheless, the fishing-site model apparently continued to live a life of its own, even when contradictory empirical data were readily available. Consequently, many submerged Mesolithic sites located in extensive areas threatened by construction work and other factors have not been managed and/or protected as they should have been according to the relevant Danish legislation.
The distance of Late Mesolithic graves (red line) and settlements (blue line) associated with inlets and fjords from the mouth of the water bodies on which they are located, shown in intervals of 20% of the total length of the latter. While the graves follow the pattern prescribed by the fishing-site model, the distribution of the settlements is quite different. After Grøn (2020).
Examination of several generalising archaeological topographical modelling approaches shows that the relationship between their basic assumptions, on the one hand, and the positions of the prehistoric forager sites in the landscape, on the other, is unclear. One problem appears to be that landscape behaviour varies not only between individual cultural groups but also between their subgroups (Anderson, 1996; Cook Hale & Garrison, 2019; Grøn et al., 2022; Hamer et al., 2019; Miller & Carmody, 2020; Svoboda, 1995).
This kind of archaeological modelling apparently also ignores the significant small-scale dynamics that are recognised today in landscape ecology: These dynamics have an important role relative to the ways in which hunter-gatherers configure themselves spatially in response to the ever-fluctuating available resources (Anderson, 1996; Cook Hale & Garrison, 2019; Grøn et al., 2022; Levin, Powell, & Steele, 1993; Miller & Carmody, 2020; Verboom & Wamelink, 2005; Wiens, 1995).
A central question is how and why such a mismatch could develop between generalising archaeological topographical modelling of prehistoric cultures and archaeological reality. To elucidate this process, I will trace the archaeological, ethnographic/social anthropological debate about environmental determinism back to its beginning and then present a more general discussion of the modelling-related problems.
2 Environmental Determinism in Archaeological Modelling – Background and Development
Environmental determinism is the idea that individual human actions, beliefs, and values are controlled or determined by the ambient environment. Accordingly, societies, cultures, and civilizations are perceived as the product of their environments. Such thinking extends back at least to ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Chinese cultures (Mathewson, 2008). The Chinese chancellor Guan Zhong, who lived in 720–645 BC, maintained that the character of major rivers shaped the character of the surrounding peoples; for instance, swift-flowing, twisting rivers made people “greedy, uncouth and warlike” (Rickett, 1998, pp. 106–107). The sociologist Ibn Khaldún (who lived 1332–1406 AD) believed that the physical environment influenced non-physical factors: Soil, climate, and food determined whether people were nomadic or sedentary and what customs and ceremonies they observed and held, as well as their skin colour (Khaldún, 1967, pp. 59–60):
“The black skin common to the inhabitants of the first and second zones is the result of the composition of the air in which they live, and which comes about under the influence of the greatly increased heat in the south. The sun is at the zenith there twice a year at short intervals. In all seasons, the sun is in culmination for a long time. The light of the sun, therefore, is plentiful. People there go through a very severe summer, and their skins turn black because of the excessive heat.”
During the colonial period, many of Khaldún’s texts were translated and used, together with numerous other similar texts, to promote colonial propaganda (Hannoum, 2003). For instance, Thomas Jefferson (who lived 1743–1826 AD) supported African colonisation by arguing that tropical climates encouraged uncivilised laziness, relaxed attitudes, promiscuity, and generally degenerative societies, while the frequent variability of the weather in middle and northern latitudes promoted a stronger work ethic and led to a more robust civilisation (e.g. Jefferson, 1787, pp. 228–242).
Friedrich Ratzel’s Anthropogeografie, published in 1882, attempted to raise the environmental deterministic understanding of all types of human societies to a systematic scientific level. It considered the extensive territorial demands of groups at “lower cultural levels,” such as foragers and herders (Ratzel, 1909, pp. 5–6, 73–84, 102–107). Further contributions to anthropogeographical thinking came from researchers such as Huntington (1915), Koller (1918), and Semple (1911), leading up to social anthropologist Julian Steward’s culture ecological studies in the 1930s (Steward, 1968), which were extensively published in his Theory of Culture Change (Steward, 1955). Steward (1955, p. 37) saw hunter-gatherer “culture, environment and subsistence adaptation” as being intricately linked:
“According to the holistic view, all aspects of culture are functionally interdependent upon one another. The degree and kind of interdependency, however, are not the same with all features. Elsewhere, I have offered the concept of cultural core – the constellation of features which are most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements. The core includes such social, political, and religious patterns as are empirically determined to be closely connected with these arrangements.”
In combination with Spaulding’s attempt to develop a statistical/spatial interpretational methodology for prehistoric cultures (Spaulding, 1960), this close connection between cultural subsistence and specific central cultural elements was taken so literally by a generation of positivistic/processually oriented archaeologists that it was seen as enabling prediction of the positions of settlements of the various culture types, based on landscape/environmental features (e.g., Bettinger, 1980; Crumley, 1979; Freilich, 1967; Jochim, 1976; Williams, Thomas, & Bettinger, 1973; Wood, 1978). This type of modelling had a special focus on forager cultures, which were perceived as being especially well suited to ecologically based prediction because they were more directly dependent on their environment than other culture types (Bettinger, 1980).
This wave of New Archaeology was centred on ecology and human-land relations and was related to a positivistic focus on ethnoarchaeology, a discipline perceived as a “live laboratory” for archaeology (Binford, 1968; Freilich, 1967; Shanks & Tilley, 1992, pp. 29–45). The human–land relationship was understood within the framework of rather static and generalising natural models, which regarded the various foraging societies as behaviourally uniform and did not consider differences in cultural behaviour (Binford, 1968; Jarman, Vita-Finzi, & Higgs, 1972; Wilmsen, 1973).
The resulting archaeological modelling therefore departed from the assumption that the location of archaeological remains relates to specific characteristics of the natural environment. In practice, this approach often boils down to locational modelling based primarily on topography, as the only generally and readily available type of high-resolution landscape information, supported by a few other rather generalised and/or roughly reconstructed surface quality data such as soil type, vegetation, slope, elevation, water, and reconstructed micro-climate (e.g., Fischer, 1995; Gaffney & Van Leusen, 1995; Jasiewicz & Sobkowiak-Tabaka, 2015; Kohler & Parker, 1986; van Leusen & Kamermans, 2005; Stančič & Kvamme, 1999; Verhagen, 2007; Wandsleeben & Verhart, 1997).
The lacking inclusion of “socio-cultural” factors, such as the significant differences in behaviour and subsistence strategy evident between cultures at similar “technological levels” and in similar landscape types is recognised as a problem by Verhagen (2007, p. 20), who refers to various recent attempted solutions, typically by the application of GIS and Agent Based Modelling (ABM). Since we still struggle to understand the rationale/logic of hunter-gatherers and the variation in these between different cultural groups, the formulation of realistic rationales/logics for the synthetic agents controlling the behaviour of different groups, in some cases down to the individual level, is clearly unacceptable (e.g., Bullock, 2014; Lake, 2015; Verhagen, Nuninger, Tourneux, Bertoncello, & Jeneson, 2013). Decisions made by single individuals may, in some cases, have a significant and culturally important “turning-point” effect for the entire cultural group to which they belong, as well as for other related groups. It is difficult to imagine a modelling approach that can deal with such events in a realistic way. In general, the idea of realistically reconstructing detailed personal behavioural patterns of individuals, each with his/her own specific identity and role in relation to behaviourally different cultural groups, appears far-fetched at best.
A significant aspect of the archaeological modelling literature is its almost complete absence of references to the ethnographical/social anthropological debate about the degree to which the environment can determine the behaviour of individual cultures. Archaeologists Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, probably reflecting the general attitude in the modelling world, see information from ethnography/social anthropology as being difficult to apply to archaeological problems (Renfrew & Bahn, 2000, p. 186). So, quite absurdly, archaeological topographical modelling sets out with a broad basis in ethnography/social anthropology, which is, however, subsequently rejected because this discipline provides confusing data that demonstrate cultural diversity independent of the environment. Instead of basing their assumptions about prehistoric foragers on live cultural observations, archaeologists rest their modelling on simplistic “desktop” assumptions, which imply that cultures at the same technological level behave similarly in similar environments. It is therefore highly relevant to examine the aspect of the environmental determination discussion that the modelling literature has ignored (Grøn et al., 2022).
3 The “Dark Side” of the Theoretical Background for Topographical Modelling
The environmental deterministic thinking that resulted in the development of archaeological topographical modelling has, from the outset, come under fire from the opposing position in ethnography/social anthropology, i.e., that human culture – independent of its technology – plays a significant role in how the human–environment relationship of a specific culture plays out. Researchers such as Boas (1896), Forde (1934, pp. 460–466), Herskovits (1949, pp. 153–166), Kroeber (1939, pp. 205–217), Wallis (1926, pp. 702–708), and Wissler (1926) were significant early opponents, representing a qualifying body of ethnographic/social anthropological fieldwork and experience.
Typical for this opposition is a view expressed by Wallis (1926, pp. 702–708):
“In explaining everything the environment explains nothing …. If we wish to predict what a people will do when they move into a new environment, it is more important to know the people than to know the place – or better, one must know both.”
Herskovits forwarded the interesting argument that, if the environment is an important determinant of culture, similar environments should be inhabited by similar cultures. He then demonstrated, by various examples, that similar cultures have existed in different environments and that different cultures have existed in similar environments: For example, the Inuit and some Arctic Siberian tribes, who inhabited similar environments but interacted with them in quite different ways (Herskovits, 1949, p. 158):
“Here in the difficult circumpolar habitat then we have two quite different ways of life… The adaptation of both peoples is equally successful inasmuch as the only test of success in adaptation is survival.”
Later, social anthropology, and the more social-anthropologically orientated ethnoarchaeology, emphasised that, even though ecology always imposes some restrictions on the behaviour of a culture in the landscape, cultural traditions independent of the actual environment also encompass significant economic, social, and spiritual features which influence settlement patterns (Grøn, 2018; Grøn & Turov, 2007; Sutton, 2010; Woodburn, 1972), or as Barth (1969) puts it:
“[….], we need a viewpoint that does not confuse the effects of ecologic circumstances on behaviour with those of cultural tradition, but which makes it possible to separate these factors and investigate the non-ecological cultural and social components creating diversity.”
The “historical determinism” of the structuralist branch of modern social anthropology, which focuses on the study of the historical development of structural features within the social-spiritual spheres of societies, leaves significantly less space for environmental determinism (Lévi-Strauss, 1967, pp. 1–28, 229–239). Consequently, it represents an understanding directly opposed to that of New Archaeology, which generally ignores the effects of ideology and spiritual phenomena (Binford, 1968):
“This reasoning is functionally linked to a methodology that limits the archeologist to generalizing about the “facts” he uncovers. Since preservation is always imperfect, inferences from the facts of material culture to statements about the non-material culture move us away from the primary data and thus diminish the reliability of our statements.”
Social anthropology in the second half of the twentieth century therefore shifted from a position where the environment’s dominant role as a determining factor for landscape behaviour, as well as a significant number of the other cultural traits in relation to the technological levels of the various cultures, was under discussion, to a consensus where other, purely cultural, factors were seen as playing a significant role.
While ethnography/social anthropology, based on a broad spectrum of observations, rejects environmental determination of human culture, the extensive and well-founded literature on “evolutionary psychology” explains how human societies tend to develop cultural differences with quite different realities, rationales, and “foraging strategies” even in similar technological and landscape situations (e.g. Cosmides & Tooby, 1989; MacDonald, 2009; Tooby & Cosmides, 1989).
4 Where to Position Current Archaeological Topographical Modelling in the Study of Small-Scale Human Cultures?
The distance between the approaches to foraging cultures in archaeological topographical modelling and New Archaeology related ethnoarchaeology, on the one hand, and in social anthropology and social-anthropology related ethnoarchaeology, on the other, is so significant that these two areas appear to represent separate and not even parallel universes.
Through centuries, ethnography/social anthropology has accumulated field experience and a theoretical background understanding of all possible aspects of live foraging cultures: How they develop and influence each other, how they mark their identities through differences at even the cultural sub-group level, and so on (e.g., Grøn, Klokkernes, & Turov, 2009). Compared to this, New Archaeology-related ethnoarchaeology has, through the decades it has existed, generally adopted a much narrower approach to such cultures, mainly attempting to relate them to specific rather static physical features. Ignoring the ethnographical/social anthropological data on the landscape behaviour of these cultures, because it is too complex to incorporate into archaeological topographical modelling, categorises this type of modelling as not being scientific or research based.
A parallel pattern of omission of relevant scientific information is evident in the way archaeological topographical modelling deals with the environmental data. Research results from landscape ecology demonstrate that the vegetation, a key factor for the distribution of resources in the landscape and consequently for the landscape behaviour of the small-scale cultures that rely upon them, generally exhibits a major degree of small-scale dynamics, continuously changing the resource situation in the landscape and, accordingly, the premises for cultural landscape behaviour (Grøn, 2018; Grøn & Turov, 2007; Grøn et al., 2022; Hansson, Fahrig, & Merriam, 1995; Wiens, 1995). Detailed reconstruction of the environmental dynamics in prehistoric situations demands environmental data of such high spatial as well as a temporal resolution that, in several instances, these data will be impossible to obtain. One problem is the preservation of such high-resolution information, another is the precision with which this information can be dated, and a third is the immense cost of obtaining and analysing such a high-resolution dataset. Archaeological topographical modelling is normally restricted to relying on easily available – and cheap – environmental data. Therefore, it produces coarse, generalised, and rather static images of the prehistoric environment, which are of limited value relative to a concrete understanding of the environmental dynamics that formed the basis for prehistoric cultural landscape behaviour. Consequently, archaeological topographical modelling can similarly not be categorised as either scientific or research based within this field.
Archaeological topographical modelling is employed as a decision-making tool for identifying areas at high “archaeological risk” or of high “archaeological vulnerability”; a methodological approach that, according to Verhagen and consistent with the viewpoint expressed in this article, cannot be regarded as scientific (e.g., Verhagen, 2007, pp. 13–14; Verhagen & Whitley, 2012). Its fundamental aim is to identify areas with a high density of prehistoric sites. Since this density is the sum of sites derived from the various prehistoric cultures, it represents the “sum” of the archaeological remains resulting from the potentially different landscape behaviour of these cultures. The identification of potential areas at high archaeological risk is consequently based on an assumed general cultural relation to landscape features that however in reality have no documented relationship with the landscape behaviour of the individual prehistoric cultures. For example, topographical features such as surface inclination, distance to water, soil type, and sun exposure must be presumed to identify areas of different importance and use intensity by the different prehistoric cultures.
Published tests on the results of archaeological topographical modelling are mostly restricted to relatively small data samples in relation to individual modelling projects (e.g., Lieskovský, Ďuračiová, & Karell, 2013; Podobnikar, Veljanovski, Stanèiè, & Oštir, 2001; Verhagen, 2007, pp. 106–107; Verhagen & Whitley, 2012). Large-scale empirical testing of the various archaeological topographical modelling methods, employing extensive and varied areas where large numbers of archaeological sites have been recording in relation to the various relevant landscape situations, would therefore be advantageous. This would help refine the assumptions employed in the modelling and thereby contribute to bridging the gap between the models and an empirical archaeological understanding of the landscape behaviour of individual archaeological hunter-gatherer cultures. In turn, this would facilitate the more scientific application of archaeological topographical modelling to prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures in general. Where such a large-scale test was undertaken for prehistoric hunter-gatherers, this showed that site locations did not correlate linearly with baseline ecological conditions, and where environmental conditions (past and present) did correlate with site locations, sub-regional variation was evident and temporal variation could also be observed (Cook Hale & Garrison, 2019).
5 Conclusion
It must be concluded from this study that it is not possible to model the landscape behaviour of prehistoric hunter-gatherer cultures based solely on topographical parameters. The environmentally complex and culturally individualistic image of recent foraging cultures, which has won general acceptance in ethnography/social anthropology and has recently been documented by a group of North American archaeologists based on Anderson’s extensive database work (Anderson, 1996; Cook Hale & Garrison, 2019; Miller & Carmody, 2020), must form the basis for future attempts to develop more precise and realistic modelling. For it to become a better prediction tool for archaeology, as well as being scientifically acknowledged, archaeological topographical modelling of small-scale cultures must be able to accommodate, and incorporate at a reasonable degree of resolution, differences in landscape behaviour and resource strategies at the cultural group, and even cultural the sub-group level. As it has been practiced to date, this type of modelling systematically ignores important bodies of basic information, thereby reducing its value to the level of “fake research”; i.e., a method with no proper basis in the available data.
The degree to which such a demand can be successfully met – and at what level of resolution – remains an open question. However, as the successful future development of archaeological topographical modelling will depend on it, there is no viable alternative to accepting ethnographical/social anthropological thinking and attempting to find ways of incorporating this into archaeological modelling in good accordance with the important principles of interdisciplinarity.
The focus here has primarily been on the non-inclusion in archaeological topographical modelling of variations in landscape behaviour at the cultural and cultural sub-group level, partly due to a lack of appreciation of small-scale dynamics in the environment, i.e., the substrate that small-scale cultures exploit through their landscape behaviour. There are other problems that must be dealt with in relation to this type of modelling (Grøn et al., 2022), but this is the most pressing and must be dealt with urgently.
-
Funding information: The author state no funding involved.
-
Conflict of interest: The author state no conflict of interest.
-
Data availability statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Anderson, D. G. (1996). Approaches to modeling regional settlement in the archaic period Southeast. In K. E. Sassaman & D. G. Anderson (Eds.), Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast (pp. 157–176). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Search in Google Scholar
Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference (pp. 9–38). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Bettinger, R. L. (1980). Explanatory/Predictive models of hunter-gatherer adaptation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 3, 189–255.10.1016/B978-0-12-003103-0.50010-1Search in Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. (1968). Archaeological perspectives. In S. R. Binford & L. R. Binford (Eds.), New perspectives in archaeology (pp. 5–32). New York: Aldine Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Boas, F. (1896). The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology. Science, N.S., 4, 901–908.10.1126/science.4.103.901Search in Google Scholar
Bullock, S. (2014). Levins and the lure of artificial worlds. The Monist. Theme: Models and Simulations, 97(3), 301–320.10.5840/monist201497320Search in Google Scholar
Cook Hale, J. W., & Garrison, E. G. (2019). Climate change, cultural adaptations, and lower coastal plain occupations of Georgia and Florida from the early to middle Holocene: Extrapolating spatial trends into the offshore. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 55(2019), 1–14.10.1016/j.jaa.2019.101071Search in Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part II. Case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 51–97.10.1016/0162-3095(89)90013-7Search in Google Scholar
Crumley, C. L. (1979). Three locational models: An epistemological assessment for anthropology and archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 141–173.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, A. (1995). An entrance to the Mesolithic world below the ocean. Status of ten years’ work on the Danish sea floor. In A. Fischer (Ed.), Man and Sea in the Mesolithic. Coastal settlement above and below present sea level. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Kalundborg, Denmark, 1993 (pp. 371–384). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Search in Google Scholar
Forde, C. D. (1934). Habitat, economy and society. A geographical introduction to ethnology. London: Methuen.Search in Google Scholar
Freilich, M. (1967). Ecology and culture: Environmental determinism and the ecological approach in anthropology. Anthropological Quarterly, 40(1), 26–43.10.2307/3316830Search in Google Scholar
Gaffney, V., & Van Leusen, P. M. (1995). Postscript-GIS, environmental determinism and archaeology: A parallel text. In G. Lock & Z. Stančič (Eds.), Archaeology and geographical information systems. A European perspective (pp. 367–382). London: Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Grøn, O. (2018). Some problems with modelling the positions of prehistoric hunter-gatherer settlements on the basis of landscape topography. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 20, 192–199.10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.04.034Search in Google Scholar
Grøn, O. (2020). Late Mesolithic marine territoriality in coastal southern Scandinavia. Archäologische Informationen, 43. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/arch-inf/article/view/81415Search in Google Scholar
Grøn, O., & Turov, M. G. (2007). Resource’pooling’ and resource management. An ethno-archaeological study of the Evenk hunter-gatherers, Katanga County, Siberia. In B. Hårdh, K. Jennbert, & D. Olausson (Eds.), On the road. Studies in Honour of Lars Larsson (pp. 67–72, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia in 4o, No. 26). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Search in Google Scholar
Grøn, O., Klokkernes, T., & Turov, M. G. (2009). Cultural small-scale variations in a hunter-gatherer society: Or ‘everybody wants to be a little bit different!’ An ethnoarchaeological study from Siberia. In S. B. McCartan, R. Schulting, G. Warren, & P. Woodman (Eds.), Mesolithic Horizons. Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005 (Vol. I, pp. 203–209). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Search in Google Scholar
Grøn, O., Hansson, A., Cook Hale, J., Phillips, C., Zander, A., Groß, D., & Nilsson, B. (2022). Mapping stone age sites by topographical modelling: Problems and possibilities. In S. D’Amico & V. Venuti (Eds.), Handbook of cultural heritage analysis (pp. 1595–1642). Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-60016-7_54.Search in Google Scholar
Hamer, W. B., Knitter, D., Grimm, S. B., Serbe, B., Eriksen, B. V., Nakoinz, O., & Duttmann, R. (2019). Location modeling of final palaeolithic sites in Northern Germany. Geosciences, 9(10), 430. doi: 10.3390/geosciences9100430.Search in Google Scholar
Hannoum, A. (2003). Translation and the colonial imaginary: Ibn Khaldún orientalist. History and Theory, 42(February 2003), 61–81.10.1111/1468-2303.00230Search in Google Scholar
Hansson, L., Fahrig, L., & Merriam, G. (1995). Preface. In L. Hansson, L. Fahrig, & G. Merriam (Eds.), Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. London: Chapman & Hall.10.1007/978-94-011-0717-4Search in Google Scholar
Herskovits, M. J. (1949). Man and his works. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Search in Google Scholar
Huntington, E. (1915). Civilization and climate. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jasiewicz, J., & Sobkowiak-Tabaka, I. (2015). Geo-spatial modelling with unbalanced data: Modelling the spatial pattern of human activity during the Stone Age. Open Geoscience, 7, 289–307.10.1515/geo-2015-0031Search in Google Scholar
Jarman, M. R., Vita-Finzi, C., & Higgs, E. S. (1972). Site catchment analysis in archaeology. In P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, & G. W. Dimbleby (Eds.), Man, settlement and Urbanism (pp. 61–66). London: Duckworth.Search in Google Scholar
Jefferson, T. (1787). Notes on the State of Virginia. London: John Stockdale.Search in Google Scholar
Jochim, M. A. (1976). Hunter-gatherer subsistence and settlement: A predictive model. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Khaldún, I. (1967). The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history (translated by Franz Rosenthal). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kohler, T. A., & Parker, S. C. (1986). Predictive models for archaeological resource location. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 9, 397–452.10.1016/B978-0-12-003109-2.50011-8Search in Google Scholar
Koller, A. H. (1918). The theory of environment. An outline of the history of the idea of Milieu, and its present status part I. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. (1939). Cultural and natural areas of native North America. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lake, M. W. (2015). Explaining the Past with ABM: On modelling philosophy. In G. Wurzer, K. Kowarik, & H. Reschreiter (Eds.), Agent-based modeling and simulation in archaeology, advances in geographic information science (pp. 3–35). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-00008-4_1Search in Google Scholar
van Leusen, M., & Kamermans, H. (Eds.). (2005). Predictive modelling for archaeological heritage management: A research agenda. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.Search in Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1967). Structural anthropology. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, S. A., Powell, T. M., & Steele, J. H. (Eds.). (1993). Patch dynamics (Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 96). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-3-642-50155-5Search in Google Scholar
Lieskovský, T., Ďuračiová, R., & Karell, L. (2013). Selected mathematical principles of archaeological predictive models creation and validation in the GIS environment. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology, IV(2), 177–180.10.24916/iansa.2013.2.4Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, K. (2009). Evolution, psychology, and a conflict theory of culture. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 208–233.10.1177/147470490900700206Search in Google Scholar
Mathewson, K. (2008). Environmental determinism. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human geography (pp. 132–134). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Miller, S. D., & Carmody, S. B. (2020). Fire on the mountain: The ideal free distribution and early hunter-gatherer demography in the tennessee river drainage, USA. Environmental Archaeology. The Journal of Human Palaeoecology, 2020, 15. 10.1080/14614103.2020.1777054.Search in Google Scholar
Podobnikar, T., Veljanovski, T., Stanèiè, Z., & Oštir, K. (2001). Archaeological predictive modelling in cultural resource management. In M. Konečný (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science: GI in Europe: Integrative – Interoperable – Interactive (pp. 535–544). Brno, Czech Republic: Association of Geographic Information Laboratories in Europe.Search in Google Scholar
Ratzel, F. (1909). Anthropogeographie. Erster Teil: Grundzügeder Anwendung der Erdkunde auf die Geschichte. Stuttgart: Verlag von J. Engelhorn.Search in Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P. (2000). Archaeology (3rd ed.). London: Thames & Hudson.Search in Google Scholar
Rickett, W. A. (1998). Guanzi. Political, economic, and philosophical essays from Early China (Vol. II). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691215044Search in Google Scholar
Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1992). Re-constructing archaeology. Theory and practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Semple, E. C. (1911). Influences of geographic environment. On the basis of Ratzel’s system of anthropo-geography. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Search in Google Scholar
Stančič, Z., & Kvamme, K. L. (1999). Settlement patterns modelling through Boolean overlays of social and environmental variables. In J. A. Barceló, I. Briz, & A. Vila (Eds.), New Techniques for Old Times. CAA 98. Computer Applications and Quantative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 26th Conference, Barcelona, March 1998 (BAR S757, pp. 231–238). Oxford: Archaeopress.Search in Google Scholar
Steward, J. H. (1955). Theory of culture change. The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Search in Google Scholar
Steward, J. H. (1968). The economic and social basis of primitive bands. In R. H. Lowie (Ed.), Essays in anthropology presented to A. L. Kroeber in celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday June 11, 1936 (Essay Index Reprint Series, pp. 331–350). Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. (1960). The dimensions of archaeology. In G. E. Dole & R. L. Carneiro (Eds.), Essays in the science of culture. In Honor of Leslie A. White (pp. 437–456). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.Search in Google Scholar
Sutton, P. (2010). The logic of wik camping, North Australia. In K. Hardy (Ed.), Archaeological Invisibility and Forgotten Knowledge. Conference Proceedings, Łódź, Poland, 5th–7th September 2007 (BAR S2183, pp. 91–107). Oxford: Archaeopress.Search in Google Scholar
Svoboda, J. (1995). Palaeolithic landscapes of Moravia: A mosaic of occupation strategies. Geolines, 2, 7–9.Search in Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part I. Theoretical considerations. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29–4910.1016/0162-3095(89)90012-5Search in Google Scholar
Verboom, J., & Wamelink, G. W. W. (2005). Spatial modeling in landscape ecology. In J. A. Wiens & M. R. Moss (Eds.), Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology (pp. 79–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614415.010Search in Google Scholar
Verhagen, P. (2007). Case studies in archaeological predictive modelling. Leiden: Leiden University Press.10.5117/9789087280079Search in Google Scholar
Verhagen, P., & Whitley, T. G. (2012). Integrating archaeological theory and predictive modeling: A live report from the scene. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19, 49–100.10.1007/s10816-011-9102-7Search in Google Scholar
Verhagen, P., Nuninger, L., Tourneux, F. P., Bertoncello, F., & Jeneson, K. (2013). Introducing the human factor in predictive modelling: A work in progress. In G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Crysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I. Romanowska, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), CAA 2012: Proceedings of the 40th Conference in Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, England (pp. 379–388). Utrecht: Pallas Publications.10.2307/j.ctt6wp7kg.43Search in Google Scholar
Wallis, W. D. (1926). Geographical environment and culture. Social Forces, 4(4), 702–708.10.2307/3004448Search in Google Scholar
Wandsleeben, M., & Verhart, L. (1997). Geographical information systems. Methodological progress and theoretical decline? Archaeological Dialogues, 4(1), 53–70.10.1017/S1380203800000908Search in Google Scholar
Williams, L., Thomas, D. H., & Bettinger, R. L. (1973). Notions to numbers: Great Basin settlements as polythetic sets. In C. L. Redman (Ed.), Research and theory in current archaeology (pp. 215–237). New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N. (1973). Interaction, spacing behavior, and organization of hunting bands. Journal of Anthropological Research, 29, 1–31.10.1086/jar.29.1.3629622Search in Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A. (1995). Landscape mosaics and ecological theory. In L. Hansson, L. Fahrig, & G. Merriam (Eds.), Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes (pp. 1–26). London: Chapman & Hall.10.1007/978-94-011-0717-4_1Search in Google Scholar
Wissler, C. (1926). The relation of nature to man in aboriginal America. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wood, J. J. (1978). Optimal location in settlement space: A model for describing locational strategies. American Antiquity, 43(2), 258–270.10.2307/279249Search in Google Scholar
Woodburn, J. (1972). Ecology, nomadic movement and the composition of the local group among hunters and gatherers: An East African example and its implications. In P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, & G. W. Dimbleby (Eds.), Man, settlement and Urbanism (pp. 193–206). London: Duckworth.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Ole Grøn, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
