Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution (original) (raw)
Related papers
Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, by Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd
Biology & Philosophy, 2008
When I read this book's predecessor, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, not long after it came out 20 years ago, it seemed to me to offer a new and more productive future for my discipline, archaeology. There were many features that were attractive but one of the most refreshing was its lack of dogmatism. Like many other humanities and social science disciplines, in the mid 1980s archaeology, in Britain at least, was going through a period of major upheaval. In the case of archaeology the so-called processual approach that had been pioneered by authors such as Lewis Binford in the 1960s, with its emphasis on culture as adaptation and its rejection of history, was being challenged by views that emphasised the meaning of artefacts rather than their function, and cultural uniqueness arising from specific histories rather than universal adaptive processes. You had to choose one camp or the other; there was no room for fence-sitting. The evolutionary approach of dual inheritance theory advocated by Boyd and Richerson rejected this dilemma. Adaptation was important but so were specific histories. It could not merely be assumed that adaptive problems called into existence their own solutions. The dynamics of culture itself were important. Moreover, the very features of human culture that made it adaptive also opened up the possibility of maladaptive developments. If one accepted this perspective, establishing the importance of adaptive payoffs or the specifics of particular histories in understanding patterning in the archaeological record was not a matter of making a dogmatic commitment a priori but something to be elucidated in particular cases as a result of empirical work.
& Marko P Archaeology , Evolution and Darwinism
2009
This paper presents a short history of the influence evolutionary thinking has had on anthropology and archaeology. The focus is on four major "schools" in evolutionist thought: the classical evolutionism of the 19 century, Neo-evolutionism, social biology (sociobiology) and Neo-Darwinian archaeology. The basic conclusion of this text is that the idea of socio-cultural evolution, understood in the broadest sense, has left a lasting impression on anthropological and archeological theory, and that it still represents a useful theoretical framework for new research.
NEXUS, 2003
According to evolulionary ardlilCCllogy (the "selecti0nist" sch001 of archaeological theory) the archaeol0gical record can be explained in terms of generic Darwinian processes of evolution, Evolution is seen as the din~rential pcrsistenee 01' cullural traits and as lhe ditl'erel1lial repr0ductive success of individuals in result 0flhe cultural traits they possess, Ilowe\'er. 0nc 01' the maj0r criticisms ofc\'olulionary archaeology is concerned with lhc absence ofa defined unit 01' selection, !,:v0lutionary biol0gist Richard Dawkins and others have suggested that the sanK generic process as biological cl'Olution govcrns culture change and that culture evolvcs as a result of the differcntial replication 0fculluralunits. the mcmcs. thm play an analogous r0k as genes, If this is S0. it is suggestcd thaI Ihe unil 0f selection lhal might be lacking in evoluti0nalY archaeol0gy is Ihe mcme, Since memetics (I he sludy of memes as cultural repliealors) is a Iheory of cultural change il has lhe p01enliall0 provide lhe explanawry framework lor Ihe temporal and spatial pallerns of archaeological phen0mena, Despilc ils POlcllliaL memelics seems 10 il1lroduce Lamarckian processes of evolUli0n in Ihe culture medium. which arc nOI veryexplanawry,
Archaeology, Evolution and Darwinism
This paper presents a short history of the influence evolutionary thinking has had on anthropology and archaeology. The focus is on four major "schools" in evolutionist thought: the classical evolutionism of the 19th century, Neo-evolutionism, social biology (sociobiology) and Neo-Darwinian archaeology. The basic conclusion of this text is that the idea of socio-cultural evolution, understood in the broadest sense, has left a lasting impression on anthropological and archeological theory, and that it still represents a useful theoretical framework for new research.
Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation.
1997
As is the case with all scholarly endeavors, there are individuals who played a major role in helping make Rediscovering Darwin a reality, but who-for one reason or another-are not listed in any bibliography. My own realization of the applicability of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory was inspired by a lecture I attended as a graduate student at the University of Arizona in the Fall of 1978. Given jointly by Robert Netting and Keith Basso, the lecture was an assessment of the state of anthropology as a unified discipline. Their conclusion was a rather disheartening prognostication of the potential fragmentation of the field due to the diverse interests of its practitioners and the lack of a general theory of human behavior. Unwilling to accept this pronouncement, it came to me later that evening that Darwinian evolution might provide a much more robust and satisfactory explanatory framework than the 'evolutionary' (i.e., Spencer's, Tylor's, White's, Service's) and other theories Netting and Basso so effectively critiqued. As is so often the case with personal revelations, however, none of my colleagues seemed to appreciate this 'flash of insight'. Several years later, after listening to one of my occasional tirades about the unappreciated potential of Darwinian theory for understanding human behavior, my wife Margaret (also an archaeology graduate student, but at a different university) suggested that I read a book by Robert Dunnell. However, with a title of Systematic* in Prehistory , it didn't seem to have much to do with evolutionary theory nor did it seem relevant to my interests in paleolithic prehistory and Pleistocene environments. As I have long since learned, however, I should have heeded her advice. As it was, I finally read an article by Dunnell in 1987 and realized (with a mixture of disappointment, relief, and a little embarrassment) that I was neither the only one nor the first to recognize the potential of Darwinian theory in archaeology.
The fate of evolutionary archaeology: survival or extinction?
World archaeology, 2006
It is important to be clear as to whether a theory such as evolutionary archaeology pertains to biological evolution, in which acquired change is obliterated at the end of each generation, or cultural change, in which acquired change is retained. In evolutionary archaeology, (1) the population is said to consist of artifacts, yet (2) artifacts are said to be phenotypic. Neither (1) nor (2) is necessarily problematic in and of itself, but the two are inconsistent, as the first pertains to cultural change whereas the second to the biological evolution of humans. A first step to avoiding this problem is to recognize that there is a need for a theory of change specific to human culture. Referring to ongoing work using a related approach to cultural change, it is suggested that the inconsistencies in evolutionary archaeology, though problematic, are not insurmountable.
IUT10NS TO ARCHAEOLOGY Darwinian Archaeologies Edited by Foreword by
The significance of evolutionary theory for archaeology is fiercely debated: one does not entitle a theory or interpretation, let alone a book, as "Darwinian" without inviting controversy. For many archaeologists the word Darwinism im plies a denial of our humanity and free will and is thought to support a perni cious political agenda by legitimizing selfish individualism. For others, the word invokes quite different ideas: it suggests an attempt to view ourselves as part of, rather than separate from, the natural world with the many positive po litical, social, and economic implications that would follow. Others remain un moved. They simply feel that any reference to biological evolution is irrelevant to the explanation of human behavior and culture change. In short, there is much controversy and little agreement.