Copying error, evolution, and phylogenetic signal in artifactual traditions: An experimental approach using “model artifacts”

Abstract

Spatio-temporal patterns of artifactual variation are increasingly being studied via the explicit application of cultural evolutionary theory and methods. Such broad-scale (macroevolutionary) patterns are mediated, however, by a series of small-scale (microevolutionary) processes that occur at the level of individual artifacts, and individual artifact users and producers. Within experimental biology, "model organisms" have played a crucial role in understanding the role of fundamental microevolutionary processes, such as mutation and the inheritance of variation, in respect to macroevolutionary patterns. There has, however, been little equivalent laboratory work to better understand how microevolutionary processes influence macroevolutionary patterns in artifacts and their analysis. Here, we adopt a "model artifact" approach to experimentally study the issues of copy error (mutation) and resultant phylogenetic signal in artifact traditions. We used morphometric procedures to examine shape copying error rates in our "model artifacts." We first established experimentally that statistically different rates of copying error (mutation) could be induced when participants used two different types of shaping tool to produce copies of foam "artifacts." Using this as a baseline, we then tested whether these differing mutation rates led to differing phylogenetic signal and accuracy in two separate experimental transmission chains (lineages), involving participants copying the previous participant's artifact. The analysis demonstrated that phylogenetic reconstruction is more accurate in artifactual lineages where copying error is demonstrably lower. Such results demonstrate how fidelity of transmission impacts directly on the evolution of technological traditions and their empirical analysis. In particular, these results highlight that differing contexts of cultural transmission relating to fidelity might lead to differing patterns of resolution within reconstructed evolutionary sequences. Overall, these analyses demonstrate the importance of a "model artifact" approach in discussions of cultural evolution, equivalent in importance to the use of model organisms in evolutionary biology in order to better understand fundamental microevolutionary processes of direct relevance to macroevolutionary archaeological patterns.

Evolutionary neuroscience of cumulative culture

“…It encompasses an evolutionary continuum from early Paleolithic skills at or just beyond the limits of modern apes (32) to the virtuoso craftsmanship of later prehistory (33). The study of knapping skill acquisition and transmission is thus a promising avenue for evolutionarily grounded investigation into the foundations of human cumulative culture, including the copying fidelity needed to explain empirical patterns in the archaeological record (34,35). To be clear, knapping is but one of many evolutionarily relevant skills that might be studied, but it is one of which we have a good archaeological record and which may reasonably be hoped to be representative of broader trends.…”

The role of play objects and object play in human cognitive evolution and innovation

“…We argue that, together, life history and niche‐construction theory can shed light on this conundrum. In quantitative models of cultural evolution, innovations are seen to simply emerge by chance akin to mutations . True inventions, as well as transfers of concepts from one cultural or technological domain (e.g., ceramics, flint‐knapping) into another remain effectively blackboxed .…”

“…In quantitative models of cultural evolution, innovations are seen to simply emerge by chance akin to mutations. [24][25][26][27] True inventions, as well as transfers of concepts from one cultural or technological domain (e.g., ceramics, flint-knapping) into another remain effectively blackboxed. 23 Yet, unlike mutations, inventiveness, or the ability to be creative with the materials at hand, and innovation, the emergence of novel cultural variants, 28 are not evenly distributed over human evolutionary history.…”

Creativity: linchpin in the quest for a viable theory of cultural evolution

“…While transmission-the spread of existing traits-is a component of evolution, evolution additionally entails cumulative, adaptive, open-ended change. Studies that do incorporate cultural novelty are often limited to trivial sources such as 'cultural mutation' [65] or copying error [66], thereby neatly avoiding the issue of creativity.…”