Analogy Versus Behavioral Ecology in the Study of Human Evolution

Abstract

In a recent critique published in this journal (Ben-Dor, M. & R. Barkai, 2026, Paleolithic dietary flexibility? Methodological considerations in analogy-based reconstructions of Paleolithic energetic returns, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 33, article 47, pp. 1–27), the authors characterize behavioral ecology approaches to the study of foraging efficiency as being fundamentally constrained by their reliance on conventional analogy-based reasoning. This characterization, however, misrepresents the aims and theoretical and methodological foundations of these approaches. Rather than relying on simple analogies, behavioral ecology models evaluate how interactions among variables such as prey behavior, encounter rates and contexts, seasonal variation in the macronutrient composition of game tissues, technology, pursuit success rates, opportunity costs, and other ecological and economic factors influence foraging efficiency across diverse habitats and among a wide range of societies. By explicitly identifying and testing the mechanisms that generate variation in economic returns, these approaches provide a rigorous and theory-driven alternative to conventional analogy-based interpretations. We also identify several problems with Ben-Dor and Barkai’s claim that proboscideans constituted high-ranked prey during the Lower and Middle Pleistocene. These include a selective use of relevant data, assumptions that lack sufficient empirical support, methodological shortcomings in the treatment and interpretation of the available evidence, and reliance on inadequately controlled archaeological datasets. Given these limitations, we find little support for their claim that proboscideans represented a frequent and easily acquired prey resource during the Pleistocene.