Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:27:49.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective Population Size and the Effects of Demography on Cultural Diversity and Technological Complexity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

L. S. Premo
L. S. Premo*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910 and Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
*
([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central tenet of the so-called demographic hypothesis is that larger populations ought to be associated with more diverse and complex toolkits. Recent empirical tests of this expectation have yielded mixed results, leading some to question to what extent changes in population size might explain interesting changes in the prehistoric archaeological record. Here, I employ computer simulation as a heuristic tool to address whether these mixed results reflect deficiencies in the formal models borrowed from population genetics or problems with the generalizations archaeologists have derived from them. I show that two previously published and highly influential models highlight two different effects of demography. My results illustrate how natural selection and cultural selection weaken the relationship between census population size, cultural diversity, and mean skill level, suggesting that one should not expect population size to predict the diversity or complexity of a cultural trait under all conditions. The concept of effective population size is central to understanding why the effects of population size can vary among traits that are passed by different mechanisms of cultural transmission within the same population. In light of these findings, I suggest ways to strengthen (rather than abandon) empirical tests of the demographic hypothesis.

Uno de los principios centrales de la llamada hipótesis demográfica es que poblaciones grandes deben estar asociadas con herramientas más diversas y complejas. Pruebas empíricas recientes sobre estas expectativas han producido resultados mixtos, llevando a algunos a cuestionar hasta qué grado los cambios en el tamaño poblacional pueden explicar cambios interesantes en el registro arqueológico prehistórico. En este trabajo, empleo simulaciones computacionales como una herramienta heurística para abordar si estos resultados mixtos reflejan deficiencias en los modelos formales tomados de la genética de poblaciones, o problemas con las generalizaciones que los arqueólogos han derivado de ellos. Muestro que dos modelos previamente publicados y que han sido altamente influyentes resaltan dos diferentes efectos de la demografía. Mis resultados ilustran como la selección natural y la selección cultural debilitan la relación entre el tamaño de la población de censo, la diversidad cultural, y el nivel de habilidad promedio, sugiriendo que no se debe esperar que el tamaño poblacional prediga la diversidad o la complejidad de un rasgo cultural bajo todas las condiciones. El concepto de tamaño efectivo de la población es central para el entendimiento del por qué los efectos del tamaño poblacional pueden variar entre rasgos que son transmitidos por diferentes mecanismos de transmisión dentro de la misma población. A la luz de estos hallazgos, sugiero maneras para fortalecer (en lugar de abandonar) las pruebas empíricas de la hipótesis demográfica.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 605 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Bentley, R. Alexander, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2011 The Selectivity of Social Learning and the Tempo of Cultural Evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 9:125–141.Google Scholar
Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Caballero, Armando 1994 Developments in the Prediction of Effective Population Size. Heredity 73:657–679.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, and Feldman, Marcus W. 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, Brian 2001 The Effect of Life-History and Mode of Inheritance on Neutral Genetic Variability. Genetical Research, Cambridge 77:153–166.Google Scholar
Collard, Mark, Buchanan, Briggs, Morin, Jesse, and Costopoulos, Andre 2011 What Drives the Evolution of Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Technology? A Reanalysis of the Risk Hypothesis with Data from the Pacific Northwest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 366:1129–1138.Google Scholar
Collard, Mark, Buchanan, Briggs, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2013 Population Size as an Explanation for Patterns in the Paleolithic Record: More Caution Is Needed. Current Anthropology 54:S388–S396.Google Scholar
Collard, Mark, Buchanan, Briggs, O’Brien, Michael J., and Scholnick, Jonathan B. 2013 Risk, Mobility, or Population Size? Drivers of Technological Diversity among Recent Western North American Hunter-gatherers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 368:20120412.Google Scholar
Collard, Mark, Kemery, Michael, and Banks, Samantha 2005 Causes of Toolkit Variation among Hunter–Gatherers: A Test of Four Competing Hypotheses. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 29:1–19.Google Scholar
Crow, James F, and Kimura, Motoo 1970 An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Fisher, Ronald A. 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hartl, Daniel L., and Clark, Andrew G. 2007 Principles of Population Genetics. 4th ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
Hedrick, Philip W. 2011 Genetics of Populations. 4th ed. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph 2004 Demography and Cultural Evolution: How Adaptive Cultural Processes Can Produce Maladaptive Losses: The Tasmanian Case. American Antiquity 69:197–214.Google Scholar
Kimura, Motoo 1983 The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kimura, Motoo, and Ohta, Tomoko 1969 The Average Number of Generations until Fixation of a Mutant Gene in a Finite Population. Genetics 61:763–771.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Y., and Aoki, Kenichi 2012 Innovativeness, Population Size and Cumulative Cultural Evolution. Theoretical Population Biology 82:38–47.Google Scholar
Kline, Michelle A., and Boyd, Robert 2010 Population Size Predicts Technological Complexity in Oceania. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B 277:2559–2564.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., VanBuskirk, Stephanie, and Ruscavage-Barz, Samantha 2004 Vessels and Villages: Evidence for Conformist Transmission in Early Village Aggregations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:100–118.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. 1974 The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Columbia University Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex 2011a Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex 2011b Variable Cultural Acquisition Costs Constrain Cumulative Cultural Evolution. PLoS ONE 6:e18239.Google Scholar
Neiman, Fraser D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:7–36.Google Scholar
Oswalt, Wendell. H. 1976 An Anthropological Analysis of Food-getting Technology. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Powel, Adam, Shennan, Stephen, and Thomas, Mark G. 2009 Late Pleistocene Demography and the Appearance of Modern Human Behavior. Science 324:1298–1301.Google Scholar
Premo, Luke. S. 2012 The Shift to a Predominantly Logistical Mobility Strategy Can Inhibit Rather than Enhance Forager Interaction. Human Ecology 40:647–649.Google Scholar
Premo, Luke. S. 2015 Mobility and Cultural Diversity in Central-place Foragers: Implications for the Emergence of Modern Human Behavior. In Learning Strategies and Cultural Evolution during the Palaeolithic, edited by Mesoudi, Alex and Aoki, Kenichi, pp. 45–65. Springer Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Premo, Luke S., and Kuhn, Steven L. 2010 Modelling Effects of Local Extinction on Culture Change and Diversity in the Paleolithic. PLoS ONE 5(12):e15582.Google Scholar
Premo, Luke S., and Scholnick, Jonathan B. 2011 The Spatial Scale of Social Learning Affects Cultural Diversity. American Antiquity 76:163–176.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight 2006 Tasmanian Knowledge and Skill: Maladaptive Imitation or Adequate Technology? American Antiquity 71:164–184.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight 2008 An Interaction Model for Resource Implement Complexity Based on Risk and Number of Annual Moves. American Antiquity 73:599–625.Google Scholar
Richerson, Peter J., and Boyd, Robert 2005 Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rogers, Deborah S., and Ehrlich, Paul R. 2008 Natural Selection and Cultural Rates of Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:3416–3420.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J. 2001 Demography and Cultural Innovation: A Model and Its Implications for the Emergence of Modern Human Culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:5–16.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J., and Wilkinson, J. R. 2001 Ceramic Style Change and Neutral Evolution: A Case Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66:577–593.Google Scholar
Storz, Jay F., Ramakrishnan, Uma, and Alberts, Susan C. 2001 Determinants of Effective Population Size for Loci with Different Modes of Inheritance. The Journal of Heredity 92:497–502.Google Scholar
Templeton, Alan R. 2006 Population Genetics and Microevolutionary Theory. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.Google Scholar
Vaesen, Krist 2012 Cumulative Cultural Evolution and Demography. PLoS ONE 7:e40989.Google Scholar
Vaesen, Krist, Collard, Mark, Cosgrove, Richard, and Roe-broeks, Wil 2016 Population Size does not Explain Past Changes in Cultural Complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in press, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1520288113.Google Scholar
Wilensky, Uri 1999 NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, Illinois. Electronic document, http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/, accessed August 24, 2016.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall 1931 Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall 1938 Size of Population and Breeding Structure in Relation to Evolution. Science 87:430–431.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Premo Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Premo Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 131 KB