Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T02:59:07.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Spatial Scale of Social Learning Affects Cultural Diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

L. S. Premo  and
Jonathan B. Scholnick
L. S. Premo
Affiliation:
Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany ([email protected])
Jonathan B. Scholnick
Affiliation:
School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sewall Wright's (1943) concept of isolation by distance is as germane to cultural transmission as genetic transmission. Yet there has been little research on how the spatial scale of social learning—the geographic extent of cultural transmission—affects cultural diversity. Here, we employ agent-based simulation to study how the spatial scale of unbiased social learning affects selectively neutral cultural diversity over a range of population sizes and densities. We show that highly localized unbiased cultural transmission may be easily confused with a form of biased cultural transmission, especially in low-density populations. Our results have important implications for how archaeologists infer mechanisms of cultural transmission from diversity estimates that depart from the expectations of neutral theory.

Resumen

Resumen

El concepto de Sewall Wright de aislamiento por distancia es relevante tanto en la transmisión cultural, como en la transmisión genética. Sin embargo, ha habido poca investigación sobre cómo la escala espacial de aprendizaje social—la extensión geográfica de la transmisión cultural—afecta a la diversidad cultural. Aquí, utilizamos simulaciones basadas en agentes ) para estudiar cómo la escala de aprendizaje social no sesgada, afecta la diversidad cultural no adaptativa bajo un rango de tamaños y densidades de poblaciones. Mostramos que la transmisión cultural no sesgada altamente localizada puede ser fácilmente confundida con una forma de transmisión cultural parcial, especialmente en poblaciones de baja densidad. Nuestros resultados tienen importantes implicaciones para la forma en que los arqueólogos infieren mecanismos de transmisión cultural, a partir de estimaciones de diversidad que se alejan de las expectativas de la teoría neutral.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 163 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2011

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

Bettinger, Robert L. 2008 Cultural Transmission and Archaeology. In Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 1–9. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Bishop, Ronald L., Rands, Robert L., and Holley, George R. 1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5:275–330.Google Scholar
Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. 1985 Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. J. 2003 A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement. American Antiquity 68:487–509.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi L. and Feldman, Marcus W. 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Monographs in Population Biology 16. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Crow, James F, and Kimura, Motoo 1970 An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Harper Row, New York.Google Scholar
Ewens, W. J. 1972 The Sampling Theory of Selectively Neutral Alleles. Theoretical Population Biology 3:87–112.Google Scholar
Ewens, W. J. 1979 Mathematical Population Genetics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, and McElreath, Richard 2003 The Evolution of Cultural Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:123–135.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., and Gumerman, George J. (editors) 2000 Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies: Agent-based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., VanBuskirk, Stephanie, and Ruscavage-Barz, Samantha 2004 Vessels and Villages: Evidence forConformist Transmission in Early Village Aggregations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:100–118.Google Scholar
Lansing, J. Stephen, Watkins, Joseph C., Hallmark, Brian, Cox, Murray P., Karafet, Tatiana M., Sudoyo, Herawati, and Hammer, Michael F. 2008 Male Dominance Rarely Skews the Frequency Distribution of Y Chromosome Haplotypes In Human Populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 105:11645–11650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Premo, L. S. 2006 Patchiness and Prosociality: Modeling the Evolution and Archaeology ofPlio-Pleistocene Hominin Food Sharing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Premo, L. S. 2007 Exploratory Agent-based Models: Towards an Experimental Ethnoarchaeology. In Digital Discovery: Exploring New Frontiers in Human Heritage, edited by Jeffrey T. Clark and Emily M. Hagemeister, pp. 29–36. Archeolingua Press, Budapest.Google Scholar
Premo, L. S. 2008 Exploring Behavioral Terra Incognita with Archaeological Agent-Based Models. In Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Technologies as Tools of Discovery in Archaeology, edited by Bernard Frischer and Anastasia Dakouri-Hild, pp. 46–56. BAR International Series 1805. ArchaeoPress, Oxford.Google Scholar
Premo, L. S. 2010 On the Role of Agent-Based Modeling in Post-Positivist Archaeology. In Simulating Change: Archaeology into the 21st Century, edited by Andre Costopoulos and Mark Lake. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press.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
Schiffer, Michael B. 2008 Transmission Processes: A Behavioral Perspective. In Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 102–111. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Slatkin, Montgomery 1994 An Exact Test for neutrality based on the Ewens Sampling Distribution. Genetics Research 64:71–74.Google Scholar
Slatkin, Montgomery 1996 A Correction to the Exact Test Based on the Ewens Sampling Distribution. Genetics Research 68:259–260.Google Scholar
Wilensky, Uri 1999 NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, Illinois.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
Wright, Sewall 1940 Breeding Structure of Populations in Relation to Speciation. American Naturalist 74:232–248.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall 1943 Isolation by Distance. Genetics 28:114–138.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall 1946 Isolation by Distance under Diverse Systems of Mating. Genetics 31:39–59.Google Scholar