Reply to Smith: On distinguishing between models, hypotheses, and theoretical frameworks

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 111, Issue 28, 2014, Pages

  Gremillion, Kristen J ^a   Barton, Loukas ^b   Piperno, Dolores R ^c,d  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^d SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; HYPOTHESIS; LETTER; NOMENCLATURE; OPTIMAL FORAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

AGRICULTURE; ARCHAEOLOGY; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84904308037     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1408909111     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Smith BD (2014) Failure of optimal foraging theory to appeal to researchers working on the origins of agriculture worldwide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:E2829.
2. Gremillion KJ, Barton L, Piperno DR (2014) Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(17):6171-6177.
3. Zeder MA (2012) The broad spectrum revolution at 40: Resource diversity, intensification, and an alternative to optimal foraging explanations. J Anthropol Archaeol 31(3):241-264.
4. Broughton JM, Cannon MD, Bartelink EJ (2010) Evolutionary ecology, resource depression, and niche construction theory: Applications to central California hunter-gatherers and Mimbres-Mogollon agriculturalists. J Archaeol Method Theory 17(4):371- 421.
5. Smith BD (2011) A cultural niche construction theory of initial domestication. Biol Theory 6(3):260-271.