ABSTRACT
Evolutionary theory continues to transform how we understand ourselves and our place in the world, providing a powerful, general framework within which to understand the evolution of human behavioural diversity. Within and beyond biology, appreciation of evolution as a guiding principle has allowed previously disparate disciplines to communicate and integrate (Dunbar and Barrett 2007). Evolutionists have called for the social sciences to become more Darwinian (e.g., Boyd and Richerson 1985, 2005; Cartmill 1994; Gintis 2004; Henrich et al. 2008; Lieberson and Lynn 2003; Mesoudi 2007; Mesoudi et al. 2006; Sear et al 2007; Shennan 2002), yet a profound mistrust of the evolutionary approach to human behaviour is still pervasive in many social science disciplines (Blute 1997; Boone and Smith 1998; Bryant 2004; Hodgson 2002; Ingold 2000; Marks 1995, 2004; Rose 1999; Steel 2004). A sometimes bitter divide has emerged between those who consider themselves on one or the other side of an intellectual boundary that supposedly separates ‘interpretive’ and evolutionary approaches to behaviour. Disagreements abound over the usefulness and validity of scientific approaches in anthropology and archaeology, over the methods that may be justifiably used to examine human behaviour, and over the use and understanding of evolutionary theory and terminology (Aberle 1987; Carrithers et al. 1990; Dunnell 1982; Trigger 1998). Unhelpful caricatures of the work of each ‘side’ contribute to a general feeling that the differences are irreconcilable (see Fearn 2008 for recent mudslinging in anthropology; Kristiansen 2004 for discussion in archaeology). Many evolutionists are enthusiastic about subdisciplinary communication in the behavioural sciences (we include ourselves), but reconciliation under Darwinian theory may not be realistic, since there are many in the social sciences who do not wish to study evolutionary approaches to human behaviour. Moreover, disagreements over the validity of disparate research areas will not be resolved through enforcing a shared theory. However, integration may be possible through shared commitments to basic ‘scientific’ methodological approaches that enable communication and critical evaluation. This will in turn depend on a commitment to evidence-based research.
