Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages

Abstract

Certain aspects of what archaeologists have traditionally called stylistic variation can be understood as the result of the introduction of selectively neutral variation into social-learning populations and the sampling error in the cultural transmission of that variation (drift). Simple mathematical models allow the deduction of expectations for the dynamics of these evolutionary mechanisms as monitored in the archaeological record through assemblage diversity and interassemblage distance. The models are applied to make inferences about the causes of change in decorative diversity and interassemblage distance for Woodland ceramics from Illinois.

Towards a unified science of cultural evolution

“…It is therefore not surprising that the tools and approaches used by paleobiologists have been successfully imported into archaeology. Adopting evolutionary "population thinking" (O'Brien & Lyman 2000), using the methods of cladistics (Mace & Holden 2005), and importing models of selection or drift (Neiman 1995) can produce a more accurate understanding of the past than traditional archaeological methods. Historical records of cultural artifacts will often be more complete and accurate than the fossil record, offering a potentially important role for historians in the study of cultural evolution.…”

Phylogenetic analyses of Lapita decoration do not support branching evolution or regional population structure during colonization of Remote Oceania

“…Clark & Murray (2006) also examined the pattern of colonization in Fiji and Tonga, and post-colonization interaction, through the distribution of Lapita motifs. Using the assumptions of 'distance-decay' (Green 1979) and unbiased transmission (Boyd & Richerson 1985;Neiman 1995;Bentley & Shennan 2003) to understand motif distribution, Clark & Murray argue that in any particular area, the oldest motifs will be the most abundant and the youngest will be least abundant. When a population colonizes a new area, primarily only the oldest, most abundant motifs, will enter the archaeological record of the colonized area, with the newer, less-established motifs dropping out of the decorative system.…”

Population size predicts technological complexity in Oceania

“…Humans are much better at learning from conspecifics than any other animal, allowing human populations to gradually create technologies, knowledge and institutions too elaborate for any one person to invent. One important corollary of this hypothesis is that larger populations will generate more complex cultural adaptations than smaller, isolated ones (Neiman 1995;Shennan 2001;Henrich 2006;Powell et al 2009). Here, we test this prediction empirically and show that in Oceania around the time of early European contact, large, well-connected populations had more complicated marine foraging technology than did small, isolated populations.…”

“…First, cultural transmission is subject to a process analogous to genetic drift (Neiman 1995;Shennan 2001)-in finite populations, the number of people adopting a variant is affected by sampling variation. This means that cultural variants are lost by chance when their practitioners are not imitated.…”