DOCSLIB.ORG

Theoretical Plurality, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, and Archaeology PERSPECTIVE Anna Marie Prentissa,1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theoretical Plurality, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, and Archaeology PERSPECTIVE Anna Marie Prentissa,1 PERSPECTIVE Theoretical plurality, the extended evolutionary synthesis, and archaeology PERSPECTIVE Anna Marie Prentissa,1 Edited by Dolores R. Piperno, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, and approved November 18, 2020 (received for review April 29, 2020) The study of cultural evolution now includes multiple theoretical frameworks. Despite common influence from Darwinian evolutionary theory, there is considerable diversity. Thus, we recognize those most influenced by the tenets of the Modern Synthesis (evolutionary archaeology, cultural transmission theory, and human behavioral ecology) and those most aligned more closely with concepts emerging in the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (cultural macroevolution and evolutionary cognitive archaeology). There has been substantial debate between adherents of these schools of thought as to their appropriateness and priority for addressing the fundamentals of cultural evolution. I argue that theoretical diversity is necessary to address research questions arising from a complex archaeological record. Concepts associated with the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis may offer unique insights into the cultural evolutionary process. archaeology | cultural evolution | Modern Synthesis | Extended Evolutionary Synthesis The study of cultural evolution has itself evolved and recognized as cultural transmission theory (CTT) (2). diversified over the past 150 y. In this paper, I examine Ecologists meanwhile rethought their modus oper- the diversity in Darwinian-inspired cultural evolution- andi during the 1950s and 1960s, combining micro- ary models as applied in archaeology in order to make economics with concepts from the MS to create recommendations for how we make critical advances evolutionary ecology (EE) and its human-focused var- in the twenty-first century. I use the term cultural evo- iant, human behavioral ecology (HBE) (3). Models lution to imply the processes of change (descent with drawn from EE quickly became influential in anthro- modification) in the widest panoply of cultural phe- pology and archaeology as an approach to explaining nomena inclusive of artifact traits, socioeconomic change in economic, reproductive, and social behav- strategies, and social and ideological traditions. Cul- ior in time and space (4). Archaeologists developed tural evolution may lead to human adaptations (in Dar- their own MS-inspired approach to material cultural winian evolutionary frameworks, this means improved evolution widely identified as evolutionary archaeol- ability to survive and have viable offspring within an ogy (EA) or selectionism (5). Recognition that sociocul- environmental context), but it might be neutral to hu- tural evolution is a complex and diverse process led to man adaptation or even maladaptive (1–3). This broad development of macro-EA (6) and calls for embedding definition permits me to explore theoretical ap- of cultural evolution within the emerging Extended proaches to phenomena as diverse as the evolution Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) (7, 8). Finally, advances of technologies, subsistence and the domestication in the cognitive sciences and Darwinian thought have process, sociopolitical structures, and the cognitive recently led to the establishment of evolutionary cog- scaffolding of culture. None should be off limits to nitive archaeology (9), which has yet to find a clear archaeological analysis. theoretical home (10). Anthropologists of the mid-20th century were the The fundamental problem facing evolutionary re- first to develop a truly Darwinian approach to cultural search in archaeology today concerns its ability to evolution by reference to tenets of the Modern Syn- engage with the complexity of the cultural evolution- thesis (MS) (1) using an approach now widely ary process. Zeder (11) argues that the frameworks of aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812 Author contributions: A.M.P. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper. The author declares no competing interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. Published under the PNAS license. 1Email: [email protected]. Published January 5, 2021. PNAS 2021 Vol. 118 No. 2 e2006564118 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006564118 | 1of9 Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 the most prominent MS-aligned approaches (EA and HBE) are influenced by another progressivist, Karl Marx, who maintained incomplete as the former avoids consideration of the human de- quite a different political agenda from that of Spencer. cision making, while the latter affords nearly complete explana- Darwinian ideas were not entirely lost upon archaeologists. As tory priority to the same process. Rosenberg (12), Spencer (13), noted by Riede (38), Scandinavian archaeologists of the late 19th Prentiss and Chatters (14), and Zeder (8) criticize these frameworks century were highly influenced by Darwinian thought. Hildebrandt for avoidance of complex multiscalar process across diverse time (39, 40) and Montelius (41) recognized alignments between ar- spans. Piperno (15), Smith (16, 17), and Zeder (8, 18) point to chaeology and paleontology. Each argued for a typological ap- inadequate consideration of biocultural process as associated proach to artifacts that was analogical to paleontologist’s use of with niche construction, coevolution, ecological inheritance, de- species and directed toward the goal of defining cultural evolu- velopmental plasticity, and epigenetics. Laue and Wright (19) tionary lineages (42). The typological approach became the along with Kandler and Crema (20) demonstrate that standard in archaeology even while paleontology lost its influence population-associated factors in the evolutionary process are far on evolutionary biology during the first decades of the 20th more complex than originally imagined by simple neo-Darwinian century due to the rise of genetics research and the eventual models. Clearly, we are challenged to engage in more advanced emergence of the MS (1), whose framework is also known as neo- approaches to evolutionary analysis in archaeology, and the sub- Darwinism. Under the influence of Boasian relativism (43) and the stantive nature of these critiques indicates that diversifying our humanities (38), early 20th-century culture–historical archaeolo- study of cultural evolution is not merely a politically progressive gists dropped their interest in evolutionary thinking. Mid-20th- call for diversity and plurality as raised by one reviewer. century culture historians remained wary of engaging in consid- I argue that evolutionary research in archaeology benefits from eration of evolutionary ideas given concerns with both neo- a theoretical plurality that includes engagement with the EES. To evolution and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (5, 44, 45). make this case, I briefly review the history of cultural evolutionary Campbell (46) made the case for using tenets from the MS to studies, and then, I provide a more detailed review of contem- understand the cultural process. Campbell asserted that socio- porary theoretical approaches. I divide the latter review into cultural evolution can be understood as a Darwinian process, theoretical frameworks influenced by the MS and those most there is a relationship between sociocultural and genetic evolu- closely aligned with the EES. Following Garofoli (21), I embed tion, natural selection remains the dominant force in evolution, evolutionary cognitive archaeology into the latter group. This dis- and natural selection acts on cultural variation. While archaeolo- cussion provides me with the grounds for gauging our ability pur- gists of the 1960s and 1970s continued to pursue research sue a diverse array of advanced cultural evolutionary studies with dominated by culture–historical and processualist frameworks, a the archaeological record. I close by noting that both evolutionist small number of sociocultural anthropologists, psychologists, and and humanist scholars working in historicist frameworks will ben- biologists advanced the study of sociocultural evolution-defining efit from consideration of EES concepts. processes of cultural transmission (47, 48), gene–culture rela- tionships (49–51), and culture as phenotypic plasticity (52, 53). A Theoretical Timeline EE developed well outside of anthropology as a framework Cultural evolutionary thinking had its beginnings in the rumina- designed to provide microeconomic understandings of animal tions of early to mid-19th–century scholars. Early thinkers on or- behavior, reproduction, and community structure (3). However, ganic evolution typically assumed that cultural evolution was a anthropologists and archaeologists soon co-opted the models of simple outgrowth of biological change, whether associated with EE to address economic aspects of human foraging behavior, inherent drives toward gaining a better fit to the environment (22), sociality, and reproduction (4, 54). Archaeologists defined their coping with catastrophes (23, 24), or reactions to sudden envi- own neo-Darwinian evolutionary model during the late 1970s and ronmental change (25). Darwin drew influences from a diverse 1980s, borrowing directly from the MS with a particular focus on array of scholars spanning Charles Lyell to Thomas Malthus in artifacts (5, 35, 55). Macro-EA drew heavily on the revised Dar- – developing his critical argument that evolution resulted from winian theory developed in paleobiology (56 58) to favor an a process of natural selection acting on blindly inherited varia-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Morphological Development Can Guide Evolution Sam Kriegman1,*, Nick Cheney1, and Josh Bongard1
    How morphological development can guide evolution Sam Kriegman1,*, Nick Cheney1, and Josh Bongard1 1University of Vermont, Department of Computer Science, Burlington, VT, USA *[email protected] ABSTRACT Organisms result from adaptive processes interacting across different time scales. One such interaction is that between development and evolution. Models have shown that development sweeps over several traits in a single agent, sometimes exposing promising static traits. Subsequent evolution can then canalize these rare traits. Thus, development can, under the right conditions, increase evolvability. Here, we report on a previously unknown phenomenon when embodied agents are allowed to develop and evolve: Evolution discovers body plans robust to control changes, these body plans become genetically assimilated, yet controllers for these agents are not assimilated. This allows evolution to continue climbing fitness gradients by tinkering with the developmental programs for controllers within these permissive body plans. This exposes a previously unknown detail about the Baldwin effect: instead of all useful traits becoming genetically assimilated, only traits that render the agent robust to changes in other traits become assimilated. We refer to this as differential canalization. This finding also has implications for the evolutionary design of artificial and embodied agents such as robots: robots robust to internal changes in their controllers may also be robust to external changes in their environment, such as transferal from simulation to reality or deployment in novel environments. Introduction The shape of life changes on many different time scales. From generation to generation, populations gradually increase in complexity and relative competency. At the individual level, organisms grow from a single-celled egg and exhibit extreme postnatal change as they interact with the outside world during their lifetimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Microevolution and the Genetics of Populations ​ ​ Microevolution Refers to Varieties Within a Given Type
    Chapter 8: Evolution Lesson 8.3: Microevolution and the Genetics of Populations ​ ​ Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait ​ ​ ​ ​ within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog. Lesson Objectives ● Distinguish what is microevolution and how it affects changes in populations. ● Define gene pool, and explain how to calculate allele frequencies. ● State the Hardy-Weinberg theorem ● Identify the five forces of evolution. Vocabulary ● adaptive radiation ● gene pool ● migration ● allele frequency ● genetic drift ● mutation ● artificial selection ● Hardy-Weinberg theorem ● natural selection ● directional selection ● macroevolution ● population genetics ● disruptive selection ● microevolution ● stabilizing selection ● gene flow Introduction Darwin knew that heritable variations are needed for evolution to occur. However, he knew nothing about Mendel’s laws of genetics. Mendel’s laws were rediscovered in the early 1900s. Only then could scientists fully understand the process of evolution. Microevolution is how individual traits within a population change over time. In order for a population to change, some things must be assumed to be true. In other words, there must be some sort of process happening that causes microevolution. The five ways alleles within a population change over time are natural selection, migration (gene flow), mating, mutations, or genetic drift.
    [Show full text]
  • Phenotypic Plasticity Vs. Microevolution in Relation to Climate Change Noticeable Impacts of Climate Change Phenotypic Plasticit
    6/6/14 Phenotypic Plasticity vs. Microevolution in Relation to Climate Change By Elizabeth Berry, Alex Lefort, Andy Tran, and Maya Vrba (EPA, 2013) Noticeable Impacts of Climate Change Phenotypic Plasticity vs Microevolution !! Canadian Squirrel: earlier breeding !! Phenotypic Plasticity: The ability of a genotype to produce different phenotypes in different environments (Charmantier & Gienapp 2013) !! American Mosquito: changes in dormancy !! Microevolution: Evolution in a small scale-within a single population (UC Museum of Paleontology 2008) !! Field Mustard plant: early blooming times !! Distinction: Phenotypic Plasticity acts on individuals, Microevolution acts on populations. !! Drosophila melanogaster: changes in gene flow !! Norm of Reaction: The range of phenotypic variation available to a given genotype that can change based on the environment. University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2008 European Great Tit: Parus major European Blackcap: Sylvia atricapilla !! Breeding times are evolving earlier in females to account for !! ADCYAP1: gene that controls the Climate Change. expression of migratory behavior !! Phenotypic Plasticity evident in (Mueller et al., 2011) laying times. !! Migratory activity is heritable and population-specific (Berthold & !! Some females having more flexible laying dates. Pulido 1994) ! Climate change causes evolving !! Success of offspring dependent ! on breeding times and caterpillar migratory patterns (Berthold & biomass coinciding, Pulido 1994) Jerry Nicholls and BBC, 2014 University of California
    [Show full text]
  • What Can We Learn from Fitness Landscapes?
    What can we learn from fitness landscapes? The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Hartl, Daniel L. 2014. “What Can We Learn from Fitness Landscapes?” Current Opinion in Microbiology 21 (October): 51–57. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2014.08.001. Published Version 10.1016/j.mib.2014.08.001 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:22898356 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Current Opinion in Microbiology Manuscript Draft Manuscript Number: Title: What Can We Learn From Fitness Landscapes? Article Type: 22 Growth&Develop: prokaryotes (2014 Corresponding Author: Dr. Daniel Hartl, Corresponding Author's Institution: First Author: Daniel Hartl Order of Authors: Daniel Hartl Manuscript Click here to view linked References What Can We Learn From Fitness Landscapes? Daniel L. Hartl Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 USA Contact information: Email: [email protected], TEL: 617-396-3917 In evolutionary biology, the fitness landscape of set of mutants is the mapping of genotypes onto phenotypes when the phenotype is fitness or some proxy for fitness such as growth rate or drug resistance. When the set of mutants is not too large, it is possible to create every possible combination of mutants and map these to fitness.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Basis of Fitness Landscape
    Optimisation Origin and definition of fitness landscape Position and goal 1. Basis of fitness landscape Fitness landscape analysis for understanding and designing local search heuristics Sebastien´ Verel LISIC - Universit´edu Littoral C^oted'Opale, Calais, France http://www-lisic.univ-littoral.fr/~verel/ The 51st CREST Open Workshop Tutorial on Landscape Analysis University College London 27th, February, 2017 Optimisation Origin and definition of fitness landscape Position and goal Outline of this part Basis of fitness landscape : introductory example (Done) brief history and background of fitness landscape fundamental definitions Optimisation Origin and definition of fitness landscape Position and goal Mono-objective Optimization Search space : set of candidate solutions X Objective fonction : quality criterion (or non-quality) f : X ! IR X discrete : combinatorial optimization X ⊂ IRn : numerical optimization Solve an optimization problem (maximization) ? X = argmaxX f or find an approximation of X ?. Optimisation Origin and definition of fitness landscape Position and goal Context : black-box optimization x −! −! f (x) No information on the objective definition function f Objective fonction : can be irregular, non continuous, non differentiable, etc. given by a computation or a simulation Optimisation Origin and definition of fitness landscape Position and goal Real-world black-box optimization : first example PhD of Mathieu Muniglia, Saclay Nuclear Research Centre (CEA), Paris x −! −! f (x) (73;:::; 8) −! −! ∆z P Multi-physic simulator Optimisation Origin and definition of fitness landscape Position and goal Search algorithms Principle Enumeration of the search space A lot of ways to enumerate the search space Using exact method : A?, Branch&Bound, etc. Using random sampling : Monte Carlo technics, approx.
    [Show full text]
  • •How Does Microevolution Add up to Macroevolution? •What Are Species
    Microevolution and Macroevolution • How does Microevolution add up to macroevolution? • What are species? • How are species created? • What are anagenesis and cladogenesis? 1 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Species Concepts • Biological species concept: Defines species as interbreeding populations reproductively isolated from other such populations. • Evolutionary species concept: Defines species as evolutionary lineages with their own unique identity. • Ecological species concept: Defines species based on the uniqueness of their ecological niche. • Recognition species concept: Defines species based on unique traits or behaviors that allow members of one species to identify each other for mating. 2 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Reproductive Isolating Mechanisms • Premating RIMs Habitat isolation Temporal isolation Behavioral isolation Mechanical incompatibility • Postmating RIMs Sperm-egg incompatibility Zygote inviability Embryonic or fetal inviability 3 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Modes of Evolutionary Change 4 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Cladogenesis 5 Sunday, March 6, 2011 6 Sunday, March 6, 2011 7 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Evolution is “the simple way by which species (populations) become exquisitely adapted to various ends” 8 Sunday, March 6, 2011 All characteristics are due to the four forces • Mutation creates new alleles - new variation • Genetic drift moves these around by chance • Gene flow moves these from one population to the next creating clines • Natural selection increases and decreases them in frequency through adaptation 9 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Clines
    [Show full text]
  • V Sem Zool Punctuated Equilibrium
    V Sem Zool Punctuated Equilibrium Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are two ways in which the evolution of a species can occur. A species can evolve by only one of these, or by both. Scientists think that species with a shorter evolution evolved mostly by punctuated equilibrium, and those with a longer evolution evolved mostly by gradualism. Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are speciation theory and are valid models for understanding macroevolution. Both theories describe the rates of speciation. For Gradualism, changes in species is slow and gradual, occurring in small periodic changes in the gene pool, whereas for Punctuated Equilibrium, evolution occurs in spurts of relatively rapid change with long periods of non-change. The gradualism model depicts evolution as a slow steady process in which organisms change and develop slowly over time. In contrast, the punctuated equilibrium model depicts evolution as long periods of no evolutionary change followed by rapid periods of change. Both are models for describing successive evolutionary changes due to the mechanisms of evolution in a time frame. Punctuated equilibrium The punctuated equilibrium hypothesis states that speciation events occur rapidly in geological time - over hundreds of thousands to millions of years and that little change occurs in the time between speciation events. In other words, change only happens under certain conditions, and it happens rapidly. Instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill or equilibrium punctuated by episodes of very fast development of new forms. It was proposed by Eldridge and Gould to explain the gaps in the fossil record - the fact that the fossil record does not show smooth evolutionary transitions.
    [Show full text]
  • Predictability of a Large Intragenic Fitness Landscape
    On the (un)predictability of a large intragenic fitness landscape Claudia Banka,b,c,1, Sebastian Matuszewskib,c,1, Ryan T. Hietpasd,e, and Jeffrey D. Jensenb,c,2,3 aInstituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia,ˆ 2780-156 Oeiras, Portugal; bSchool of Life Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Fed´ erale´ de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; cSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; dEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46225; and eDepartment of Biochemistry & Molecular Pharmacology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01605 Edited by Andrew G. Clark, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved October 11, 2016 (received for review August 2, 2016) The study of fitness landscapes, which aims at mapping geno- of previously observed beneficial mutations or on the dissection types to fitness, is receiving ever-increasing attention. Novel exper- of an observed adaptive walk (i.e., a combination of muta- imental approaches combined with next-generation sequencing tions that have been observed to be beneficial in concert). (NGS) methods enable accurate and extensive studies of the fitness Secondly, theoretical research has proposed different land- effects of mutations, allowing us to test theoretical predictions scape architectures [such as the House-of-Cards (HoC), the and improve our understanding of the shape of the true under- Kauffman NK (NK), and the Rough Mount Fuji (RMF) model], lying fitness landscape and its implications for the predictability studied their respective properties, and developed a number and repeatability of evolution. Here, we present a uniquely large of statistics that characterize the landscape and quantify the multiallelic fitness landscape comprising 640 engineered mutants expected degree of epistasis (i.e., interaction effects between that represent all possible combinations of 13 amino acid-changing mutations) (10–14).
    [Show full text]
  • DEB Virtual Office Hour
    Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) Virtual Office Hour Welcome to the DEB Virtual Office Hour. We will begin soon. Please submit questions via the Q&A box available to you on WebEx. Please set notification to ‘All Panelists’ Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) Virtual Office Hour – Welcome! Program Directors in attendance today • Matt Olson – Evolutionary Processes ([email protected]) • Kendra McLauchlan – Ecosystem Sciences ([email protected]) • Ford Ballantyne – Ecosystem Sciences ([email protected]) • Doug Levey – Population and Community Ecology ([email protected]) • Leslie Rissler – Evolutionary Processes ([email protected]) • Sam Scheiner – Evolutionary Processes ([email protected]) • Chris Schneider – Systematics and Biodiversity Sciences ([email protected]) Facilitators – Christina Washington, Alina Dallmeier, and Megan Lewis DEB Virtual Office Hour Questions: • Submit your questions via the Q&A box on your screen and set to “All Panelists” • For recently asked questions and future office hour topics, see the DEB blog (https://debblog.nsfbio.com/) • For specific questions about your project, please contact a Program Director DEB Virtual Office Hour • DEB Office Hours: second Monday of each month, 1-2 pm EST Upcoming Topics: Feb 10: Rules of Life/Understanding the Rules of Life Mar 9: RAPID/EAGER/Workshops Apr 13: OPUS May 11: CAREERs June 8: BIO Postdoc Program DEB Virtual Office Hour Today’s Topics: • Bridging Ecology and Evolution Track in DEB Core Solicitation • Demystifying the Co-Review Process • Open question and answer
    [Show full text]
  • Phenotypic Plasticity and Plant Adaptation
    Acta Bot. Neerl. 44(4), December 1995, p. 363-383 * Phenotypic plasticity and plant adaptation S.E. Sultan Department of Biology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459-0170, USA SUMMARY This paper focuses on phenotypic plasticity as a major mode of adaptation in plants. A methodological critique examines difficulties in studying plasticity, including the conceptually critical distinction between functionally adaptive and inevitable aspects of response. It is that argued plasticity studies depend critically upon the genotypic the and factor sample, choice of environmental factors states, and the definitionof phenotypic traits. Examples are drawn from recent studies to showing adaptive response by genotypes physical aspects of the environment, as well as to biotic factors such as neighbour density and the presence of bacterial symbionts. Alterations of offspring traits by parental plants of Polygonum persicaria are discussed as a cross-generational aspect of plastic response to environment. Finally, individual plasticity and local ecotypes are alternative bases of examined as species ecological breadth, and these alternatives methodological problems in distinguishing are discussed. Key-words: adaptation, maternal effects, norm of reaction, phenotypic plasticity, Polygonum, species distribution. INTRODUCTION Natural environments inevitably vary, both spatially and temporally. According to the classic neo-Darwinian model, organisms accommodate that variation by means of natural selection, which through evolutionary time matches specific genotypes and environments. By assuming a simple Mendelian relationship of genotype to phenotype, this powerful model provides a genetic mechanism for adaptive phenotypic changes in In this I wish to focus second mode of populations. paper on a major adaptation, one which is becoming particularly well understood in plants: the capacity of a single genotype to produce different, functionally appropriate phenotypes in different This environments, or adaptive phenotypic plasticity.
    [Show full text]
  • Myths and Legends of the Baldwin Effect
    Myths and Legends of the Baldwin Effect Peter Turney Institute for Information Technology National Research Council Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6 [email protected] Abstract ary computation when there is an evolving population of learning individuals (Ackley and Littman, 1991; Belew, This position paper argues that the Baldwin effect 1989; Belew et al., 1991; French and Messinger, 1994; is widely misunderstood by the evolutionary Hart, 1994; Hart and Belew, 1996; Hightower et al., 1996; computation community. The misunderstandings Whitley and Gruau, 1993; Whitley et al., 1994). This syn- appear to fall into two general categories. Firstly, ergetic effect is usually called the Baldwin effect. This has it is commonly believed that the Baldwin effect is produced the misleading impression that there is nothing concerned with the synergy that results when more to the Baldwin effect than synergy. A myth or legend there is an evolving population of learning indi- has arisen that the Baldwin effect is simply a special viduals. This is only half of the story. The full instance of synergy. One of the goals of this paper is to story is more complicated and more interesting. dispel this myth. The Baldwin effect is concerned with the costs Roughly speaking (we will be more precise later), the and benefits of lifetime learning by individuals in Baldwin effect has two aspects. First, lifetime learning in an evolving population. Several researchers have individuals can, in some situations, accelerate evolution. focussed exclusively on the benefits, but there is Second, learning is expensive. Therefore, in relatively sta- much to be gained from attention to the costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Holocene Hunter-Gatherers ‘Gaomiao’ in Hunan, China: the First of the Two-Layer Model in the Population History of East/Southeast Asia
    4 Mid-Holocene Hunter-Gatherers ‘Gaomiao’ in Hunan, China: The First of the Two-layer Model in the Population History of East/Southeast Asia Hirofumi Matsumura, Hsiao-chun Hung, Nguyen Lan Cuong, Ya-feng Zhao, Gang He and Zhang Chi Gaomiao, the eponymous archaeological site of the Gaomiao Culture (ca. 7500–5500 BP) has produced evidence of a unique hunter-gatherer society in Hunan Province, China, that produced fine decorated pottery. The human remains unearthed from this site provided an excellent opportunity to assess phenotypic and biological relationships between the Gaomiao and prehistoric and modern human populations that have inhabited East/Southeast Asia over the past ca. 10,000 years through cranial morphometrics. The assessment of morphometric affinity presented here addresses the peopling of East Asia, particularly in the context of the ‘two-layer’ hypothesis describing the population history of this region. The results suggest that the Gaomiao skeletons inherited genetic signatures from early colonising populations of Late Pleistocene southern Eurasian origin to a certain extent, and might share a common ancestry with present-day Australian Aboriginal and Melanesian people. Introduction The study of the population history of East Asia remains complex due to various migration processes and intermixing of populations throughout prehistory, poor archaeological sample sizes and limited radiometric dating. In general terms, East Asia is thought to have been originally inhabited by (to use the classic term) ‘Mongoloid’ peoples from the Late Pleistocene onwards. In the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene of Southeast Asia, several sets of human remains exhibit Australo-Melanesian characteristics, and it has been argued that an indigenous population possessing this morphological form occupied Southeast Asia.
    [Show full text]