Archaeological Theory
Dr. Kantner's contributions to archaeological theory focus on how biological evolutionary theory can be applied to archaeological problems, including comparisons of cultural vs. biological evolutionary processes and microeconomic vs. evolutionary game theory. Understanding human behavior is hard enough when working with living populations; it would seem to be that much harder to deal with people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. Dr. Kantner is therefore also interested in how modeling techniques used by human behavioral ecologists can be adapted to looking at complex prehistoric behavior. A sample of his writings on these topics is provided below:
Books
 |
The product of a School for Advanced Research Advanced Seminar, this 2010 edited volume brought together ethnographers and archaeologists to explore why and how leadership emerges and variously becomes institutionalized among disparate small-scale and middle-range human societies. Dr. Kantner co-organized the seminar, and co-edited this resulting book, with Jelmer Eerkens of UC-Davis and Kevin Vaughn of Purdue University.
|
Journal Articles
 |
Implications of human behavioral ecology for understanding the development of "prestige goods" are explored in this 2010 Journal of Anthropological Research article. Through a consideration of the concepts of tolerated theft and package size, prestige goods are discussed as a mechanism for converting unequal horticultural productivity into a resource that can be differentially accumulated. A case study is presented on turquoise use in the ancient Puebloan Southwest.
|
 |
A 2008 article in the Journal of Archaeological Research provides a critical update on regional archaeology, a theoretical and methodological approach to understanding the past that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Dr. Kantner explores how the premise of regional archaeology -- that the past can be understood by looking at social and environmental phenomena across regional space -- today informs most archaeological research. On the other hand, many specific methods of regional analysis have not held up to analytical scrutiny. Both conclusions challenge the utility of distinguishing regional archaeology as a unique area of inquiry.
|
Book Chapters