Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:41:06.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Cultural Evolutionary Models: A Reply to Read's Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph Henrich
Joseph Henrich*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Emory University, 1557 Dickey Drive, Atlanta, GA 30322 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This reply to Read's (2006) critique of my paper (Henrich 2004) is divided into three parts. Part I clarifies misinterpretations and mischaracterizations of both Dual Inheritance Theory in general and my model specifically. Part II addresses several problems in Read's empirical analyses of forager toolkits, and presents an alternative analysis. Part III tackles some common misunderstandings about the relationship between cost-benefit models (such as Read's) and cultural evolutionary modeling approaches, as well as highlighting some concerns with Read's efforts. In writing this, I have tried to introduce the reader to the issues in debate, but to fully understand this reply, one should read both my paper and Read’s critique.

Résumé

Résumé

El presente artículo considera varios aspectos de la crítica que hace Read (2006) a mi artículo “Demografía y evolución cultural: Cómo procesos culturales adaptativos pueden producir pérdidas maladaptativas, como en el caso de Tasmania” (Henrich 2004). Primero, clarifico que mi modelo específico, y la Teoría de Herencia Dual de forma más general, son aplicables a la transmisión de un conjunto amplio de representaciones culturales, incluyendo habilidades, conocimientos, prácticas, creencias, valores, y preferencias. Segundo, justifico algunos de los supuestos específicos que fueron utilizados al elaborar mi modelo matemático. En particular, explico cómo el suponer que los individuos aprenden del individuo más capaz o culto en la población resulta muy conservador, y de hecho crea un sesgo contrario a las conclusiones teóricas principales que resultan de mi modelo. Utilizaré los datos empíricos que existen sobre el conjunto de herramientas de los cazadores-recolectores para demostrar que poblaciones aisladas realmente sí terminan mostrando una complejidad por debajo de lo esperado en base a la temperatura efectiva. Todo esto establecerá que el análisis que hace Read de estas herramientas es insuficiente, idiosincrásico, y en su carácter teórico-práctico está conceptualizado de forma errónea. Concluyo con una explicación de cómo los modelos evolutivos culturales, al añadir matices psicológicos plausibles y al atacar el problema de la imperfección en el acceso a la información, de hecho no compiten con los análisis de costo-beneficio, sino que los incorporan. Para entender bien esta respuesta, se deben leer ambos trabajos, (Henrich 2004) y (Read 2006).

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 771 - 782
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Bandura, Albert 1977 Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert, Winterhalder, Bruce, and McElreath, Richard 2006 A Simple Model of Technological Intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:538–545.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter 1996 Why Culture is Common, but Cultural Evolution is Rare. Proceedings of the British Academy 88:77–93.Google Scholar
Collard, Mark, Kemery, Michael, and Banks, Samantha 2005 Causes of Toolkit Variation Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Test of Four Competing Hypotheses. Journal of Canadian Archaeology 29:1–19.Google Scholar
Collard, Mark, Shennan, Stephen, and Tehrani, Jamshid 2006 Branching, Blending, and the Evolution of Cultural Similarities and Differences Among Human Populations. Evolution and Human Behavior 27:169–184.Google Scholar
Fiske, Alan P. 1998 Learning Culture the Way Informants Do: Observing, Imitating, and Participating. Electronic document, www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/learning_culture.htm, accessed March 16, 2006.Google Scholar
Hart, Charles Merton, William, Pilling, Arnold R., and Goodale, Jane 1960 The Tiwi of North Australia. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph 2004 Demography and Cultural Evolution: Why Adaptive Cultural Processes Produced Maladaptive Losses in Tasmania. American Antiquity 69:197–214.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, and Gil-White, Francisco 2001 The Evolution of Prestige: Freely Conferred Deference as a Mechanism for Enhancing the Benefits of Cultural Transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22(3): 165–196.Google Scholar
Henrich, Natalie, and Henrich, Joseph 2007 Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, in press.Google Scholar
Jones, Rhys 1977a The Tasmanian Paradox. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, edited by Richard Wright, pp. 189–204. Humanities Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Jones, Rhys 1977b Why Did the Tasmanians Stop Eating Fish? In Explorations in Ethno-archaeology, edited by Richard Gould, pp. 11–47. University of New Mexico Press Alberqueque School of American Research, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Jones, Rhys 1995 Tasmanian Archaeology: Establishing the Sequence. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:423–46.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Lancy, David F. 1996 Playing on Mother Ground: Cultural Routines for Children’s Development. Culture and Human Development. The Guilford Press, London.Google Scholar
McBrearty, Sally, and Brooks, Alison 2000 The Revolution that Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39:453–563.Google Scholar
Oswalt, Wendell H. 1976 An Anthropological Analysis of Food-Getting Technology. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R. 1964 The Andaman Islanders. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight 2006 Tasmanian Knowledge and Skill: Maladaptive Imitation or Adequate Technology. American Antiquity 71:164–184.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen 2001 Demography and Cultural Innovation: A Model and Its Implications for the Emergence of Modern Human Culture. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 11(1):5–16.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael 1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Ugan, Andrew, Bright, Jason, and Rogers, Alan 2003 When is Technology Worth the Trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1315–1329.Google Scholar