Two Issues in Archaeological Phylogenetics: Taxon Construction and Outgroup Selection

O’Brien, Michael J.; Lyman, R. Lee; Saab, Youssef; Saab, Elias; Darwent, John; Glover, Daniel S.

doi:10.1006/jtbi.2002.2548

Cited by 48 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Especially tree-thinking and phylogenetic approaches now dominate as they, once operational units are defined, order these hierarchically in explicitly nested sets (e.g. O'Brien et al 2002;Riede 2011a). In their brief but lucid discussion of archaeological taxonomic units for the Late Palaeolithic, Gamble et al (2005) have gone some way towards constructing an operational taxonomy based on a hierarchy of attributes and clusters thereof.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Reassessment of Cultural Taxonomies in the Central European Late Palaeolithic

Sauer

Riede

2018

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the analysis of archaeological relationships and processes, a uniform classification of the dataset is a fundamental requirement. To achieve this, a standardised taxonomic system, as well as consistent and valid criteria for the grouping of sites and assemblages, must be used. The Central European Late Palaeolithic (ca. 12,000-9700 cal BC) has a long research history and many regionally and temporally specific units-groups and cultures-are recognised. In this paper, we examine the complex taxonomic landscape of this period and critically analyse the use of typological, functional and economic criteria in the definition of selected groups. We subject three different archaeological taxonomic units, the Bromme culture from Denmark, the Fürstein group from Switzerland and the Atzenhof group from Germany, to particularly detailed scrutiny and highlight that the classificatory criteria used in their definition are inconsistent across units and most likely unsuitable for circumscribing past sociocultural units. We suggest a comprehensive re-examination of the overarching taxonomic system for the Late Palaeolithic, as well as a re-evaluation of the methodologies used to delineate sociocultural units in the Palaeolithic.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Reassessment of Cultural Taxonomies in the Central European Late Palaeolithic

Sauer

Riede

2018

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, "the history of these changes is recorded in the similarities and differences in the complex characteristics of related [objects] -in the extent to which the characteristics of their common ancestors have been modified by subsequent additions, losses, and transformations" (Brown and Lomolino 1998, p. 328). In recent years, phylogenetics has begun to be widely implemented in archeology (e.g., O'Brien et al 2001O'Brien et al , 2002O'Brien et al , 2008O'Brien et al , 2012Darwent and O'Brien 2006;Harmon et al 2006;Collard 2007, 2008;Lycett 2007;Cochrane 2008;Riede 2008;Cardillo 2010;Marwick 2012;GarcíaRivero and O'Brien 2014;Jennings andWaters 2014) and otherfields of material culture studies (e.g., Tehrani and Collard 2002, 2009a, 2009bShennan 2003, 2009;Shennan and Collard 2005;Jordan and Mace 2006;Shennan 2009;Jordan and O'Neill 2010;Tehrani et al 2010;Prentiss et al 2015). Phylogenetic relationships are defined in terms of the relative recency of common ancestry: Two taxa are deemed to be more closely related to one another than to a third taxon as long as the former share a common ancestor that is not also shared by the latter.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a character occurs in two states in the study group, but only one of the states is found in the outgroup, the principle of parsimony is invoked (see below) and the state found only in the study group is deemed to be evolutionarily novel with respect to the outgroup state, thus determining the polarity of the evolutionary change. Applied to archaeological case studies, occurrence seriation can be successfully applied to select an appropriate outgroup (O'Brien et al 2002). Third, a branching diagram is constructed that represents the relationships between the characters under study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of anthropomorphism in the neolithic engraved plaques of Southwestern Iberian Peninsula: a systematic approach from phylogenetics

Rivero

2016

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engraved slate plaques are a common part of the grave goods found in the Late NeolithicCopper Age I megaliths of the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula (~3500-2700 cal BC). These objects have received a great deal of attention, since they are the first symbolic figurines to have become widespread in the Iberian Peninsula (almost 4000 plaques are estimated to be known today). Most previous studies, even from different and opposing archaeological perspectives, have highlighted the anthropomorphic nature of these plaques. The hypotheses regarding the evolution of their anthropomorphism and possible function have been diverse, yet there is a noteworthy absence of taxonomical studies in which the diversity and stylistic sequence of these symbolic objects have been systematically approached. This paper puts forward several models for the evolution of the anthropomorphism of the engraved plaques, based on cladistics and occurrence seriation. The results are then analyzed in conjunction with the currently available chronological and stratigraphic information. The paper concludes with a proposal of the most probable typology and its sequence, leading to a better understanding of the diversity and evolution of the plaques. Beyond this particular phenomenon, this paper provides insights into the study of the evolution of the symbolic representation of the human figure, through the development of an innovative methodological protocol.

show abstract

“…19 This can be seen in areas of direct interest to human evolution. One example is the association of the Aurignacian industries with the dispersals of modern humans into Europe and, conversely, the issue of whether there is a link between Neanderthal populations and the Mousterian in general and the Chatelperronean in particular.…”

Section: Back To Population Historymentioning

confidence: 98%

On stony ground: Lithic technology, human evolution, and the emergence of culture

Foley

Lahr

2003

Evolutionary Anthropology

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Culture is the central concept of anthropology. Its centrality comes from the fact that all branches of the discipline use it, that it is in a way a shorthand for what makes humans unique, and therefore defines anthropology as a separate discipline. In recent years the major contributions to an evolutionary approach to culture have come either from primatologists mapping the range of behaviors, among chimpanzees in particular, that can be referred to as cultural or “proto‐cultural” 1, 2 or from evolutionary theorists who have developed models to account for the pattern and process of human cultural diversification and its impact on human adaptation. 3–5.

show abstract

Two Issues in Archaeological Phylogenetics: Taxon Construction and Outgroup Selection

Cited by 48 publications

References 51 publications

A Critical Reassessment of Cultural Taxonomies in the Central European Late Palaeolithic

A Critical Reassessment of Cultural Taxonomies in the Central European Late Palaeolithic

The evolution of anthropomorphism in the neolithic engraved plaques of Southwestern Iberian Peninsula: a systematic approach from phylogenetics

On stony ground: Lithic technology, human evolution, and the emergence of culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About