‘Behavioral modernity’ as a process, not an event, in the human niche

Kissel, Marc; Fuentes, Agustín

doi:10.1080/1751696x.2018.1469230

Cited by 33 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Behavioural and cognitive modernity are thought to have come about between 100 000 and 30 000 years ago, as evidenced by the proliferation in cultural artefacts of both utilitarian and aesthetic value. (Although some researchers argue that the onset of behavioural modernity was less pronounced than once thought [1][2][3], and the concept of behavioural modernity itself has been called into question [4], this paper does not delve into these discussions so as to focus squarely on the task of modelling the cognitive changes underlying this cultural transition.) Some attribute this transition to an enhanced ability to process social information [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Although cultural transmission-in which one individual acquires elements of culture from another-is observed in many species, cultural evolution is much rarer, and perhaps unique to our species. 1 Critical to cultural evolution is the capacity to combine ideas, adapt existing solutions to new situations and reframe information in one's own terms. 2 This paper uses network theory to address how this capacity arose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A model of the transition to behavioural and cognitive modernity using reflexively autocatalytic networks

Gabora

Steel

2020

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a model of the cognitive mechanisms underlying the transition to behavioural and cognitive modernity in the Upper Palaeolithic using autocatalytic networks. These networks have been used to model life’s origins. More recently, they have been applied to the emergence of cognitive structure capable of undergoing cultural evolution. Mental representations of knowledge and experiences play the role of catalytic molecules, the interactions among them (e.g. the forging of new associations or affordances) play the role of reactions, and thought processes are modelled as chains of these interactions. We posit that one or more genetic mutations may have allowed thought to be spontaneously tailored to the situation by modulating the degree of (i) divergence (versus convergence), (ii) abstractness (versus concreteness), and (iii) context specificity. This culminated in persistent, unified autocatalytic semantic networks that bridged previously compartmentalized knowledge and experience. We explain the model using one of the oldest-known uncontested examples of figurative art: the carving of the Hohlenstein–Stadel Löwenmensch, or lion man. The approach keeps track of where in a cultural lineage each innovation appears, and models cumulative change step by step. It paves the way for a broad scientific framework for the origins of both biological and cultural evolutionary processes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model of the transition to behavioural and cognitive modernity using reflexively autocatalytic networks

Gabora

Steel

2020

J. R. Soc. Interface.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The package of morphological traits we once labeled “anatomically modern” shows up in varying forms, in varying places, and in different populations of Homo across Africa and Eurasia over the last 400,000–300,000 years 7 . Almost every type of material evidence, of “symbol” or other indicators of substantive and repetitive meaning‐making, 45 that were considered indicators of uniquely modern human cognition also show up associated with populations that do not have contemporary human morphology 42 . It has become increasingly clear that what makes us human is not the emergence of a chin, more vertical frontal bones or a high rounded cranium, nor is it the creation of symbolic artifacts, language, conscious thought, or anything of that nature.…”

Section: What Is a Human?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the last half century paleoanthropologists and archeologists relied on two major developments as having "identified" the emergence of contemporary humans: behavioral modernity and anatomical modernity. 7,8,[40][41][42] Anatomical modernity (fossils that are morphologically contiguous with contemporary humans) was initially used as a core marker of "being human." But the dates of such fossils are highly variable, going from 100,000 years ago, to 180,000 years ago, to 300,000 years ago, depending on which fossils and which morphological markers one uses.…”

Section: What Is a Human?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ripples of modernity: How we can extend paleoanthropology with the extended evolutionary synthesis

Kissel

Fuentes

2021

Evolutionary Anthropology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary understandings of paleoanthropological data illustrate that the search for a line defining, or a specific point designating, “modern human” is problematic. Here we lend support to the argument for the need to look for patterns in the paleoanthropological record that indicate how multiple evolutionary processes intersected to form the human niche, a concept critical to assessing the development and processes involved in the emergence of a contemporary human phenotype. We suggest that incorporating key elements of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) into our endeavors offers a better and more integrative toolkit for modeling and assessing the evolution of the genus Homo. To illustrate our points, we highlight how aspects of the genetic exchanges, morphology, and material culture of the later Pleistocene complicate the concept of “modern” human behavior and suggest that multiple evolutionary patterns, processes, and pathways intersected to form the human niche.

show abstract

“…Modern human behaviour (defined as behaviours that indicate modern-level linguistic and cognitive abilities and identified archaeologically through the presence of, among others, deliberate burials, complex lithic and hafting technologies, personal ornamentation, pigment use and ‘symbolic’ art and artefacts; Henshilwood and Marean 2003 ; Mellars 2007 ) is far from unproblematic as a concept (Ames et al 2013 ), and many elements of such behaviour were also exhibited by archaic humans ( e.g. Zilhão et al 2010 ; Joordens et al 2015 ; Hoffmann et al 2018 ; Kissel and Fuentes 2018 ). Furthermore, prosocial motivations and behaviours, including care for the ill and injured (Spikins et al 2019 ), and collaborative hunting practices and food sharing (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al 2014 ; Agam and Barkai 2016 ; Faurby et al 2020 ), emerged relatively early in human evolution.…”

Section: Introduction—approaches To the ‘Modern Human Transition’mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Ecological Changes, Social Behaviour and Human Intergroup Tolerance 300,000 to 30,000 BP

Spikins

French

John-Wood

et al. 2021

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeological evidence suggests that important shifts were taking place in the character of human social behaviours 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. New artefact types appear and are disseminated with greater frequency. Transfers of both raw materials and finished artefacts take place over increasing distances, implying larger scales of regional mobility and more frequent and friendlier interactions between different communities. Whilst these changes occur during a period of increasing environmental variability, the relationship between ecological changes and transformations in social behaviours is elusive. Here, we explore a possible theoretical approach and methodology for understanding how ecological contexts can influence selection pressures acting on intergroup social behaviours. We focus on the relative advantages and disadvantages of intergroup tolerance in different ecological contexts using agent-based modelling (ABM). We assess the relative costs and benefits of different ‘tolerance’ levels in between-group interactions on survival and resource exploitation in different environments. The results enable us to infer a potential relationship between ecological changes and proposed changes in between-group behavioural dynamics. We conclude that increasingly harsh environments may have driven changes in hormonal and emotional responses in humans leading to increasing intergroup tolerance, i.e. transformations in social behaviour associated with ‘self-domestication’. We argue that changes in intergroup tolerance is a more parsimonious explanation for the emergence of what has been seen as ‘modern human behaviour’ than changes in hard aspects of cognition or other factors such as cognitive adaptability or population size.

show abstract

‘Behavioral modernity’ as a process, not an event, in the human niche

Cited by 33 publications

References 99 publications

A model of the transition to behavioural and cognitive modernity using reflexively autocatalytic networks

A model of the transition to behavioural and cognitive modernity using reflexively autocatalytic networks

The ripples of modernity: How we can extend paleoanthropology with the extended evolutionary synthesis

Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Ecological Changes, Social Behaviour and Human Intergroup Tolerance 300,000 to 30,000 BP

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About