Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T17:38:46.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cultural evolution as inheritance, not intentions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2024

R. Alexander Bentley*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
Michael J. O'Brien
Affiliation:
Department of History, Philosophy, and Geography and Department of Life Sciences, Texas A&M University–San Antonio, USA Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA
*
*Author for correspondence ✉ [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cultural inheritance is a central issue in archaeology. If variation were not inherited, cultures could not evolve. Some archaeologists have dismissed cultural evolutionary theory in general, and the significance of inheritance specifically, substituting instead a view of culture change that results from agency and intentionality amid a range of options in terms of social identity, cultural values and behaviours. This emphasis projects the modern academic imagination onto the past. Much of the archaeological record, however, is consistent with an intergenerational inheritance process in which cultural traditions were the defining characteristics of behaviour.

Type
Debate
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd

Introduction

Since the early twentieth century, archaeologists have examined how inherited cultural practices such as kinship, wealth, subsistence and access to resources are reflected in the archaeological record (e.g. Kroeber Reference Kroeber1916; Colton Reference Colton1942). While inheritance is essential to evolutionary theory, both biological and cultural (Shennan Reference Shennan2011a; Bonduriansky & Day Reference Bonduriansky and Day2018), some anthropologists and archaeologists are calling for the dismissal of inheritance in cultural evolution altogether. One proposal, for instance, offers a new concept, ‘perdurance’, defined as the “continual bringing forth or production of a world that—in the passage of generations—is ever in formation” (Ingold Reference Ingold2022: S37). This contrasts with evolutionary archaeology, which views items in the archaeological record as proxies for studying the transmission of cultural traits between people in a process of descent with modification (O'Brien & Lyman Reference O'Brien and Lyman2002). On an intergenerational timescale, this is nothing but cultural inheritance, akin to biological inheritance.

Key themes in this debate include agency—how individuals shape and are shaped by social norms, cosmology and status hierarchies—and intentionality. Cultural historian Albert Spaulding (Reference Spaulding, Meggers and Evans1954: 14) characterised culture by “its continuous transmission through the agency of person-to-person contact”. Agency theory is compatible with evolutionary archaeology (e.g. Ribeiro Reference Ribeiro2022), despite a focus in agency theory on how variants are intentionally introduced into cultural evolution. Evolutionary archaeology, by contrast, analyses variation regardless of intent (O'Brien & Holland Reference O'Brien and Holland1992), not only because “evidence of these individual decisions cannot be recovered by archaeologists” (Flannery Reference Flannery1967: 122) but also because short-term intentions, as microevolutionary processes, do not direct the long-term process of macroevolution. Weeding and seed harvesting, for example, are short-term individual intentions, whereas generations of those inherited practices were unintentionally pivotal to the cultural evolution of agriculture (Rindos Reference Rindos1984), “with unexpectedly sustained cultural connections in deep time” (Allaby et al. Reference Allaby, Stevens, Kistler and Fuller2022: 268).

Inheritance and learning

Most archaeologists would agree that intentionality is framed by inherited social practices and knowledge (e.g. Hodder & Cessford Reference Hodder and Cessford2004; Ribeiro Reference Ribeiro2022). In life, daily routines become embedded in social rules, obligations and interactions, to the point of being ‘embodied’ human movements (Roux Reference Roux2007). The creativity of children, for example, usually becomes constrained in adolescence by social norms (Lew-Levy et al. Reference Lew-Levy, Milks, Lavi, Pope and Friesem2020). As Hodder and Cessford described:

As a child grows up within routinized domestic space, it learns that particular practices, movements, ways of holding oneself, deferential gestures, and so on are positively valued while others are not. The child learns social rules in the practices of daily life within the house. In this way daily practices become social practices (Hodder & Cessford Reference Hodder and Cessford2004: 18).

In evolutionary archaeology, this learning is termed cultural inheritance, which creates traditions, which are identifiable as patterned ways of doing things over extended periods of time (O'Brien et al. Reference O'Brien, Lyman, Mesoudi and VanPool2010). Learning is an “extension of biology through culture” (Whiten Reference Whiten2017: 1). In cultural evolutionary theory, culture is information—such as knowledge, beliefs and skills—transmitted between individuals through learning pathways. As cultural inheritance is often cumulative, “beneficial modifications are culturally transmitted and progressively accumulated over time” (Derex Reference Derex2021: 1).

Cultural inheritance and the longue durée

Most of the archaeological record documents the slow evolution of cultural practices through time—the ‘longue durée’ (Braudel 1958). Consistency through time is the result of cultural inheritance. Take, for example, the 700 000-year-long sequence of Acheulean stone tools (1.2–0.5mya) at Olorgesailie, Kenya (Deino et al. Reference Deino, Behrensmeyer, Brooks, Yellen, Sharp and Potts2018). The thousands of handaxes at this site, spread across 29 stratigraphic levels, arguably represent the longest sequence of cultural inheritance in the archaeological record, perhaps with some genetically induced hardwiring in the brain as an assist (Corbey et al. Reference Corbey, Jagich, Vaesen and Collard2016). Does this mean that Acheulean handaxes never changed, even slightly, through time? No; within this millennia-long tradition (Key Reference Key2022), variations in handaxe form and production were subject to the evolutionary processes of isolation, drift and selection. The practice was inherited through a learning balance between imitation (copy how to do it) and emulation (copy the goal and figure out how to do it).

As tools became more complex, imitation became predominant. Neanderthals maintained the Mousterian stone-tool technology for roughly 250 000 years, exhibiting only a few different knapping methods (Lycett & Eren Reference Lycett and Eren2013). Neanderthal diet was similarly conservative for tens of thousands of years—mainly meat (Richards & Trinkhaus Reference Richards and Trinkhaus2009) from hunting strategies focused on local animals (Berlioz et al. Reference Berlioz, Capdepon and Discamps2023). This behavioural tradition is consistent with genetic evidence that Neanderthals lived in small groups of closely related kin, with sustained parental investment in children (Ríos et al. Reference Ríos2019; Skov et al. Reference Skov2022). After modern humans entered western Europe about 45 000 years ago, Neanderthals rapidly learned a new material culture and even interbred with the new arrivals (Hajdinjak et al. Reference Hajdinjak2021).

In Holocene Europe, isotopic and ancient DNA (aDNA) evidence suggests that co-existing groups in certain regions maintained their distinct, inherited forms of subsistence, including hunting–gathering, pastoralism and crop cultivation, potentially for millennia (Bollongino et al. Reference Bollongino2013; Lazaridis et al. Reference Lazaridis2014). Archaeological assemblages such as the Linearbandkeramik—with distinctive longhouses, incised pottery, stone tools, cultivation practices and livestock, division of labour (Masclans et al. Reference Masclans, Hamon, Jeunesse and Bickle2021) and intergenerational wealth transfers (Kohler et al. Reference Kohler2017)—reflect long-term cultural inheritance (e.g. Shennan Reference Shennan2011b). This led to regional variations (e.g. Bickle et al. Reference Bickle2014), and the inherited memories of specific places were such that later Neolithic houses were sometimes constructed on or near houses or burials from preceding centuries (e.g. Quinn Reference Quinn2015; Pyzel Reference Pyzel2019).

Kinship and inheritance

In Europe during and after the Neolithic, the inheritance of subsistence practices, social structures and material cultures followed kinship lines (Figure 1). Such kinship systems, which in central Europe were most often patrilocal and patrilineal, were themselves inherited, according to isotopic, genetic and linguistic evidence (Knipper et al. Reference Knipper2017; Moravec et al. Reference Moravec2018; Mittnik et al. Reference Mittnik2019; Sjögren et al. Reference Sjögren2020; Bentley Reference Bentley2022; Blöcher et al. Reference Blöcher2023). Additional evidence comes from sites such as Gurgy les Noisats, France, where aDNA links dozens of males to one male ancestor (Rivollat et al. Reference Rivollat2023), and Hazleton North, England, where 15 men, but no women, buried over five generations were descended from a single male (Fowler et al. Reference Fowler2022). These interpretations of patriliny or patrilocality in Neolithic Europe have been criticised as reflecting heteronormative male bias (e.g. Bickle & Hoffman 2007; Frieman Reference Frieman2021) or an “obsession with nuclear families” (Ensor Reference Ensor2021: 241), which present “a gendered travel dichotomy [in which] women who travel do so for men” (Frieman et al. Reference Frieman, Teather and Morgan2019: 156).

Figure 1. Representation of at least three generations of a larger paternal lineage, in burials from Haunstetten Postillionstraße in southern Germany, late third to early second millennia BC. Black fill indicates Y-chromosomal haplogroup consistent with one lineage. The colour of the bar in the middle of each symbol represents the mtDNA haplogroup. Individuals with rich grave goods are outlined in green. Additional individuals in richly furnished burials, not shown, were determined to be related to the patrilineage (figure by authors after Mittnik et al. Reference Mittnik2019: fig. 3 and Mittnik et al. Reference Mittnik, Meller, Krause, Haak and Risch2023: fig. 7).

In emphasising the agency for creative expression of kinship (e.g. Bickle & Hofmann Reference Bickle and Hofmann2007; Johnson & Paul Reference Johnson and Paul2016; Brück Reference Brück2021; Ensor Reference Ensor2021), the objections seem to miss what was possible in the past. There is no reason to assume that women migrated for men (Montón-Subías & Hernando Reference Montón-Subías and Hernando2018; Frieman Reference Frieman2021). Women in post-Neolithic Europe were physically strong (Macintosh et al. Reference Macintosh, Pinhasi and Stock2017), and the aDNA and isotopic evidence appears to reflect women as the protagonists in these patrilineal kinship systems (e.g. Bickle Reference Bickle2020; Fowler Reference Fowler2022). The bioarchaeological evidence actually indicates that men were more restricted in their movements than women—especially women with status and wealth.

In late Neolithic and early Bronze Age central and western Europe, mobile women (determined from isotopes) were buried with greater wealth than local women (Mittnik et al. Reference Mittnik2019). At the Bronze Age site of La Almoloya, Spain, for example—where a richly adorned woman was buried together with an unadorned man (Curry Reference Curry2023)—genome-wide data from 67 individuals identified all first-degree relationships among adults as involving at least one adult male, with no first-degree relationships among the 30 adult women analysed (Villalba-Mouco et al. Reference Villalba-Mouco2021). At Hazleton North, maternal sub-lineages are suggested by the descendants of one male being buried in association with each of four respective female partners (Curry Reference Curry2023; Fowler et al. Reference Fowler2022). In Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Britain, “the significance of women within patrilineal communities may be indicated by the presence of female inhumations in central positions within mortuary monuments” (Booth et al. Reference Booth, Brück, Brace and Barnes2021). In Bronze Age and Iron Age Europe, women were not only elites and specialists (Bergerbrant Reference Bergerbrant, Berge and Henriksen2019; Blank et al. Reference Blank2021; Jarman Reference Jarman2021) but also highly ranked warriors (Price et al. Reference Price2019; Moen & Walsh Reference Moen and Walsh2021).

If we allow that bioarchaeological patterns reflect inherited kinship systems, a compelling research question follows: why did patrilocality and patriliny arise in Neolithic central Europe specifically? As close as southern Scandinavia, where Bronze Age women were buried in tree coffins with arm rings and belt plates (Bergerbrant Reference Bergerbrant, Berge and Henriksen2019), isotopic analysis suggests the presence of more-varied mobility (and hence kinship?) patterns than in central Europe (Frei et al. Reference Frei2019). Elsewhere in the prehistoric world, bioarchaeological and cultural-phylogenetic methods reveal greater diversity of kinship systems, including matriliny (Jordan et al. Reference Jordan, Gray, Greenhill and Mace2009; Alt et al. Reference Alt2013; Larsen et al. Reference Larsen2015; Kennett et al. Reference Kennett2017; Miller et al. Reference Miller, Moore and Bayman2021; Yaka et al. Reference Yaka2021; Bentley Reference Bentley2022; Lee et al. Reference Lee, Miller, Bayarsaikhan, Johannesson, Miller, Warinner and Jeong2023). Taken together, this suggests that patriliny arose in Neolithic central Europe as a regional anomaly that persisted through its own rules of inheritance. Similarly, in human behavioural ecology, patriliny is explained as a relatively recent departure from the matrifocal origins of human society as cooperative breeders (Hrdy Reference Hrdy2009; Shenk et al. Reference Shenk, Begley, Nolin and Swiatek2019). The proximal causes for patriliny—often as interferences to how relations (‘alloparents’) can help parents raise children—can include wealth inheritance, pastoralism, settlement pattern, intensive cultivation and religion (Sear & Mace Reference Sear and Mace2008; Strassman et al. Reference Strassmann, Kurapati, Hug, Burke, Gillespie, Karafet and Hammer2012; Perry & Daly Reference Perry and Daly2017; Scelza et al. Reference Scelza2020).

Projecting our agency onto the past

To assume prehistoric life was much more variable, or more intentional, than the evidence indicates biases in archaeological interpretation. Contemporary scholars are surrounded by thousands, or millions, of times more material objects, ideas and social contacts than most humans who ever lived (Colwell Reference Colwell2023). In contrast, prehistoric knowledge was transferred from teachers to learners over generations, with increasing teacher–learner investment as technologies became more complex. Ethnohistorical and experimental archaeology indicate that, whereas it took hundreds of hours to master the knapping skills for an Acheulean handaxe (Stout et al. Reference Stout, Hecht, Khreisheh, Bradley and Chaminade2015), it required a decade of apprenticeship to become an expert in Harappan bead-making or ceramic wheel-throwing (Roux Reference Roux2007). It may be hard for modern scholars to conceptualise the inheritance of cultural traditions—such as cultivating crops, herding livestock and barrow-building (Haughton & Løvschal Reference Haughton and Løvschal2023), replastering house walls (Hodder & Cessford Reference Hodder and Cessford2004), telling folk tales (Graça da Silva & Tehrani Reference Graça da Silva and Tehrani2016) or depositing human bodies in bogs (van Beek et al. Reference van Beek, Quik, Bergerbrant, Huisman and Kama2023)—over centuries or millennia.

Periods of slow cultural change were eventually punctuated by cascades of innovation in sociopolitical organisation, specialised-product innovation, exchange networks and food production (Radivojević & Grujić Reference Radivojević and Grujić2018; Frieman & Lewis Reference Frieman and Lewis2021; Bellwood Reference Bellwood2023) and even kinship systems (Moravec et al. Reference Moravec2018). Cascades often reflect feedback in the inheritance of technologies and practices in regional networks, such as gold mining within the Bronze Age Caucasus (Erb-Satullo Reference Erb-Satullo2021). But while innovation cascades may seem to reflect intentional creativity (Soafer Reference Soafer2018), or a game-changing invention spurring complementary inventions (Kolodny et al. Reference Kolodny, Creanza and Feldman2015; Derex Reference Derex2021), they are ultimately driven by the effective size of the population exchanging ideas (Bettencourt & West Reference Bettencourt and West2010; Shennan Reference Shennan2011a; Vaesen & Houkes Reference Vaesen and Houkes2021; Vidiella et al. Reference Vidiella, Carrignon, Bentley, O'Brien and Valverde2022), which is affected by mobility and social networks (Scharl Reference Scharl2016; Soafer Reference Soafer2018; Romano et al. Reference Romano, Lozano and Fernández-López de Pablo2020).

It is difficult not to unintentionally project our expectations for material and social possibility onto other cultures, past or present. A half-century after Evans-Pritchard (Reference Evans-Pritchard1940) complained that he was never able to discuss anything but livestock with the Nuer of Sudan, Hutchinson (Reference Hutchinson1985: 625) wrote “in Nuerland, the first question I was asked upon meeting new faces was always the same: ‘Where you come from, do people marry with cattle or with money?’” But cultural inheritance is never a limitation of the individual mind. As Hutchinson (Reference Hutchinson1992: 296) later added, “because cattle and people were in some sense ‘one’, individuals were able to transcend some of the profoundest human frailties and thereby achieve a greater sense of mastery over their world”. Individuals who understood hundreds of local plants at Ohalo II, in Israel, 23 000 years ago (Snir et al. Reference Snir, Nadel, Groman-Yaroslavski, Melamed, Sternberg, Bar-Yosef and Weiss2015) had much more mastery of this knowledge than someone who Googles those plants today.

In summary, cultural inheritance is consistent with multiple perspectives, from macroscopic, intergenerational evolution of cultures to microscopic intentionality in an individual lifetime. There is no need, however, to project the modern academic imagination onto the past (Chapman & Wylie Reference Chapman and Wylie2016). There is more common ground, and the research questions are more vital, in studying the cultural evolutionary process that is central to our understanding of ancient innovation, social organisation and regional diversity.

Acknowledgements

We thank Catherine Frieman, Emma Bentley and an anonymous reviewer for their excellent comments, which greatly improved the manuscript.

Funding statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency or from commercial and not-for-profit sectors.

Debate responses

Antiquity invited four authors to respond to this debate article; with a final response from the original authors.

On the poverty of academic imagination: a response to Bentley & O'Brien by Tim Ingold. Antiquity 98. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.106

The past was diverse and deeply creative: a response to Bentley & O'Brien by Catherine J. Frieman. Antiquity 98. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.103

Human intent and cultural lineages: a response to Bentley & O'Brien by Anna Marie Prentiss. Antiquity 98. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.102

Cultural inheritance and technological evolution: a response to Bentley & O'Brien by A.M. Pollard. Antiquity 98. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.113

Final response from Bentley & O'Brien. On cultural traditions and innovation: finding common ground. Antiquity 98. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2024.123

References

Allaby, R.G., Stevens, C.J., Kistler, L. & Fuller, D.Q.. 2022. Emerging evidence of plant domestication as a landscape-level process. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 37: 268–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.11.002Google ScholarPubMed
Alt, K.W. et al. 2013. Earliest evidence for social endogamy in the 9,000-year-old-population of Basta, Jordan. PLoS ONE 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065649CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellwood, P. 2023. First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies (second edition). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bentley, R.A. 2022. Prehistory of kinship. Annual Review of Anthropology 51: 137–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-021036Google Scholar
Bergerbrant, S. 2019. Revisiting the ‘Egtved Girl’, in Berge, R. & Henriksen, M.M. (ed.) Arkeologi og kulturhistorie fra norskekysten til Østersjøen: 1939. Trondheim: Museumsforlaget.Google Scholar
Berlioz, E., Capdepon, E. & Discamps, E.. 2023. A long-term perspective on Neanderthal environment and subsistence: insights from the dental microwear texture analysis of hunted ungulates at Combe-Grenal (Dordogne, France). PLoS ONE 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bettencourt, L. & West, G.W.. 2010. A unified theory of urban living. Nature 467: 912–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/467912aGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bickle, P. 2020. Thinking gender differently: new approaches to identity difference in the Central European Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 30: 201–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774319000453Google Scholar
Bickle, P. & Hofmann, D.. 2007. Moving on: the contribution of isotope studies to the early Neolithic of Central Europe. Antiquity 81: 1029–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00096095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickle, P. et al. 2014. Early Neolithic lifeways in Moravia and western Slovakia: comparing archaeological, osteological and isotopic data from cemetery and settlement burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK). Anthropologie 52: 3572.Google Scholar
Blank, M. et al. 2021. Mobility patterns in inland southwestern Sweden during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01294-4Google Scholar
Blöcher, J. et al. 2023. Descent, marriage, and residence practices of a 3,800-year-old pastoral community in Central Eurasia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2303574120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bollongino, R. et al. 2013. 2000 years of parallel societies in Stone Age Central Europe. Science 342: 479–81. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245049CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T.. 2018. Extended heredity: a new understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Booth, T.J., Brück, J., Brace, S. & Barnes, I.. 2021. Tales from the supplementary information: ancestry change in Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Britain was gradual with varied kinship organization. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31: 379400. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774321000019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruaudel, F. 1958. Histoire et sciences sociales: la longue durée. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 13: 725–53.Google Scholar
Brück, J. 2021. Ancient DNA, kinship and relational identities in Bronze Age Britain. Antiquity 95: 228–37. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.216Google Scholar
Chapman, R. & Wylie, A.. 2016. Evidential reasoning in archaeology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Colton, H.S. 1942. Archaeology and the reconstruction of history. American Antiquity 8: 3340. https://doi.org/10.2307/275633Google Scholar
Corbey, R., Jagich, A., Vaesen, K. & Collard, M.. 2016. The Acheulean handaxe: more like a bird's song than a Beatles’ tune? Evolutionary Anthropology 25: 619. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, C. 2023. So much stuff: how humans discovered tools, invented meaning, and made more of everything. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, A. 2023. Family ties. Science 382: 2427. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl1577CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deino, A.L., Behrensmeyer, A.K., Brooks, A.S., Yellen, J.E., Sharp, W.D. & Potts, R.. 2018. Chronology of the Acheulean to Middle Stone Age transition in eastern Africa. Science 360: 9598. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derex, M. 2021. Human cumulative culture and the exploitation of natural phenomena. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377: 20200311. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0311CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ensor, B.E. 2021. Making aDNA useful for kinship analysis. Antiquity 95: 241–43. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erb-Satullo, N.L. 2021. Technological rejection in regions of early gold innovation revealed by geospatial analysis. Scientific Reports 11: 20255. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98514-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. 1940. The Nuer: a description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V. 1967. Culture history v. cultural process: a debate in American archaeology. Scientific American 217(2): 119–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. 2022. Social arrangements. Kinship, descent and affinity in the mortuary architecture of Early Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Archaeological Dialogues 29: 6788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. et al. 2022. A high-resolution picture of kinship practices in an Early Neolithic tomb. Nature 601: 584–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04241-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frei, K.M. et al. 2019. Mapping human mobility during the third and second millennia BC in present-day Denmark. PLoS ONE 14: e0219850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219850CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frieman, C.J. 2021. Emergent or imposed? Antiquity 95: 247–48. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieman, C.J. & Lewis, J.. 2021. Trickle down innovation? Creativity and innovation at the margins. World Archaeology 53: 723–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2021.2014948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieman, C.J., Teather, A. & Morgan, C.. 2019. Bodies in motion: narratives and counter narratives of gendered mobility in European later prehistory. Norwegian Archaeological Review 52: 148–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2019.1697355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graça da Silva, S. & Tehrani, J.J.. 2016. Comparative phylogenetic analyses uncover the ancient roots of Indo-European folktales. Royal Society Open Science 3. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150645Google Scholar
Hajdinjak, M. et al. 2021. Initial Upper Palaeolithic humans in Europe had recent Neanderthal ancestry. Nature 592: 253–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03335-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haughton, M. & Løvschal, M.. 2023. Ancestral commons: the deep-time emergence of Bronze Age pastoral mobility. Antiquity 97: 1470–87. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2023.154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. & Cessford, C.. 2004. Daily practice and social memory at Çatalhöyük. American Antiquity 69: 1740. https://doi.org/10.2307/4128346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrdy, S.B. 2009. Mothers and others: the evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, S. 1985. Changing concepts of incest among the Nuer. American Ethnologist 12: 625–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, S. 1992. The cattle of money and the cattle of girls among the Nuer, 1930–83. American Ethnologist 19: 294316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. 2022. Evolution without inheritance: steps to an ecology of learning. Current Anthropology 63: S32S55. https://doi.org/10.1086/722437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarman, C. 2021. River kings: a new history of the Vikings from Scandinavia to the Silk Road. Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
Johnson, K.M. & Paul, K.S.. 2016. Bioarchaeology and kinship: integrating theory, social relatedness, and biology in ancient family research. Journal of Archaeological Research 24: 75123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-015-9086-zGoogle Scholar
Jordan, F.M., Gray, R.D., Greenhill, S.J. & Mace, R.. 2009. Matrilocal residence is ancestral in Austronesian societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276: 1957–64. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0088Google ScholarPubMed
Kennett, D.J. et al. 2017. Archaeogenomic evidence reveals prehistoric matrilineal dynasty. Nature Communications 8: 14115. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14115Google ScholarPubMed
Key, A. 2022. The Acheulean is a temporally cohesive tradition. World Archaeology 54: 365–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2169340Google Scholar
Knipper, C. et al. 2017. Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114: 10083–88. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706355114Google Scholar
Kohler, T.A. et al. 2017. Greater post-Neolithic wealth disparities in Eurasia than in North America and Mesoamerica. Nature 551: 619–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24646CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolodny, O., Creanza, N. & Feldman, M.W.. 2015. Evolution in leaps: the punctuated accumulation and loss of cultural innovations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112: E6762–69. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520492112Google ScholarPubMed
Kroeber, A.L. 1916. Zuñi potsherds. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 18(1): 137.Google Scholar
Larsen, C.S. et al. 2015. Bioarchaeology of Neolithic Çatalhöyük: lives and lifestyles of an early farming society in transition. Journal of World Prehistory 28: 2768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-015-9084-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaridis, I. et al. 2014. Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. Nature 513: 409–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13673CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J., Miller, B.K., Bayarsaikhan, J., Johannesson, E., Miller, A.V., Warinner, C. & Jeong, C.. 2023. Genetic population structure of the Xiongnu Empire at imperial and local scales. Science Advances 9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adf3904CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lew-Levy, S., Milks, A., Lavi, N., Pope, S.M. & Friesem, D.E.. 2020. Where innovations flourish: an ethnographic and archaeological overview of hunter–gatherer learning contexts. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2020.35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lycett, S.J. & Eren, M.I.. 2013. Levallois lessons: the challenge of integrating mathematical models, quantitative experiments and the archaeological record. World Archaeology 45: 519–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2013.821670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macintosh, A.A., Pinhasi, R. & Stock, J.. 2017. Prehistoric women's manual labor exceeded that of athletes through the first 5500 years of farming in Central Europe. Science Advances 3. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao3893CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masclans, A., Hamon, C., Jeunesse, C. & Bickle, P.. 2021. A sexual division of labour at the start of agriculture? A multi-proxy comparison through grave good stone tool technological and use-wear analysis. PLoS ONE 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249130Google Scholar
Miller, J.M., Moore, D.R. & Bayman, J.M.. 2021. Gendered households and ceramic assemblage formation in the Mariana Islands, Western Pacific. Asian Perspectives 60: 178–96. https://doi.org/10.1353/asi.2020.0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittnik, A. et al. 2019. Kinship-based social inequality in Bronze Age Europe. Science 366: 731–34. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax6219CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittnik, A. et al. 2023. Kinship, status, and mobility in the Bronze Age Lech Valley, in Meller, H., Krause, J., Haak, W. & Risch, R. (ed.) Kinship, sex, and biological relatedness: the contribution of archaeogenetics to the understanding of social and biological relations: 195–217. Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt.Google Scholar
Moen, M. & Walsh, M.J.. 2021. Agents of death: reassessing social agency and gendered narratives of human sacrifice in the Viking Age. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31: 597611. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774321000111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montón-Subías, S. & Hernando, A.. 2018. Modern colonialism, Eurocentrism and historical archaeology: some engendered thoughts. European Journal of Archaeology 21: 455–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravec, J.C. et al. 2018. Post-marital residence patterns show lineage-specific evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior 39: 594601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.06.002Google Scholar
O'Brien, M.J. & Holland, T.D.. 1992. The role of adaptation in archaeological explanation. American Antiquity 57: 359. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694834Google Scholar
O'Brien, M.J. & Lyman, R.L.. 2002. Evolutionary archeology: current status and future prospects. Evolutionary Anthropology 11: 2636. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, M.J., Lyman, R.L., Mesoudi, A. & VanPool, T.L.. 2010. Cultural traits as units of analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365: 3797–806. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0012Google ScholarPubMed
Perry, G. & Daly, M.. 2017. A model explaining the matrilateral bias in alloparental investment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114: 9290–95. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705910114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, N. et al. 2019. Viking warrior women? Reassessing Birka chamber grave Bj.581. Antiquity 93: 181–98. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.258Google Scholar
Pyzel, J. 2019. Cultures of remembrance, cultures of forgetting: the past in the post-LBK societies in Rhineland and Kuyavia. Germania 97: 140.Google Scholar
Quinn, C.P. 2015. Returning and reuse: diachronic perspectives on multi-component cemeteries and mortuary politics at Middle Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Tara, Ireland. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 37: 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radivojević, M. & Grujić, J.. 2018. Community structure of copper supply networks in the prehistoric Balkans: an independent evaluation of the archaeological record from the 7th to the 4th millennium BC. Journal of Complex Networks 6: 106–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnx013Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A.S.P. 2022. Archaeology and intentionality: understanding ethics and freedom in past and present societies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richards, M.P. & Trinkhaus, E.. 2009. Isotopic evidence for the diets of European Neanderthals and early modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 16034–39. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903821106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rindos, D. 1984. The origins of agriculture: an evolutionary perspective. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Ríos, L. et al. 2019. Skeletal anomalies in the Neandertal family of El Sidrón (Spain) support a role of inbreeding in Neandertal extinction. Scientific Reports 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38571-1Google ScholarPubMed
Rivollat, M. et al. 2023. Extensive pedigrees reveal the social organization of a Neolithic community. Nature 620: 600–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06350-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romano, V., Lozano, S. & Fernández-López de Pablo, J.. 2020. A multilevel analytical framework for studying cultural evolution in prehistoric hunter–gatherer societies. Biological Reviews 95: 1020–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12599CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roux, V. 2007. Ethnoarchaeology: a non-historical science of reference necessary for interpreting the past. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 153–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9030-8Google Scholar
Scelza, B.A. et al. 2020. High rate of extrapair paternity in a human population demonstrates diversity in human reproductive strategies. Scientific Advances 6. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay6195Google Scholar
Scharl, S. 2016. Patterns of innovation transfer and the spread of copper metallurgy to Central Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 19: 215–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14619571.2016.1147313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sear, R. & Mace, R.. 2008. Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior 29: 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenk, M.K., Begley, R.O., Nolin, D.A. & Swiatek, A.. 2019. When does matriliny fail? The frequencies and causes of transitions to and from matriliny estimated from a de novo coding of a cross-cultural sample. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0006Google Scholar
Shennan, S.J. 2011a. Descent with modification and the archaeological record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366: 1070–79. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0380Google ScholarPubMed
Shennan, S.J. 2011b. Property and wealth inequality as cultural niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366: 918–26. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0309Google ScholarPubMed
Sjögren, K. et al. 2020. Kinship and social organization in Copper Age Europe: a cross-disciplinary analysis of archaeology, DNA, isotopes, and anthropology from two Bell Beaker cemeteries. PLoS ONE 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skov, L. et al. 2022. Genetic insights into the social organization of Neanderthals. Nature 610: 519–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05283-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snir, A., Nadel, D., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Melamed, Y., Sternberg, M., Bar-Yosef, O. & Weiss, E.. 2015. The origin of cultivation and proto-weeds, long before Neolithic farming. PLoS ONE 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soafer, J. (ed.) 2018. Considering creativity: creativity, knowledge and practice in Bronze Age Europe. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A.C. 1954. Prehistoric cultural development in the eastern United States, in Meggers, B.J. & Evans, C. (ed.) New interpretations of aboriginal American culture history: 1227. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington.Google Scholar
Stout, D., Hecht, E., Khreisheh, N., Bradley, B. & Chaminade, T.. 2015. Cognitive demands of Lower Paleolithic toolmaking. PLoS ONE 10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121804Google ScholarPubMed
Strassmann, B.I., Kurapati, N.T., Hug, B.F., Burke, E.E., Gillespie, B.W., Karafet, T.M. & Hammer, M.F.. 2012. Religion as a means to assure paternity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109: 9781–85. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110442109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaesen, K. & Houkes, W.. 2021. Is human culture cumulative? Current Anthropology 62: 218–38. https://doi.org/10.1086/714032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Beek, R., Quik, C., Bergerbrant, S., Huisman, F. & Kama, P.. 2023. Bogs, bones and bodies: the deposition of human remains in northern European mires (9000 BC–AD 1900). Antiquity 97: 120–40. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidiella, B., Carrignon, S., Bentley, R.A., O'Brien, M.J. & Valverde, S.. 2022. A cultural evolutionary theory that explains both gradual and punctuated change. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 19. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2022.0570Google ScholarPubMed
Villalba-Mouco, V. et al. 2021. Genomic transformation and social organization during the Copper Age–Bronze Age transition in southern Iberia. Science Advances 7. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi7038Google ScholarPubMed
Whiten, A. 2017. A second inheritance system: the extension of biology through culture. Interface Focus 7. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaka, R. et al. 2021. Variable kinship patterns in Neolithic Anatolia revealed by ancient genomes. Current Biology 31: 2455–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.050CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Representation of at least three generations of a larger paternal lineage, in burials from Haunstetten Postillionstraße in southern Germany, late third to early second millennia BC. Black fill indicates Y-chromosomal haplogroup consistent with one lineage. The colour of the bar in the middle of each symbol represents the mtDNA haplogroup. Individuals with rich grave goods are outlined in green. Additional individuals in richly furnished burials, not shown, were determined to be related to the patrilineage (figure by authors after Mittnik et al. 2019: fig. 3 and Mittnik et al. 2023: fig. 7).