I thank Bentley and O'Brien (Reference Bentley and O'Brien2024) for their cogent review of issues associated with inheritance and intention in cultural evolution. Intent is, of course, present in cultural process and that begs the question as to when and how we concern ourselves with it as a factor in cultural evolution (Rosenberg Reference Rosenberg2022). Intent underlies our understanding of both micro- and macro-scale processes of cultural evolution. Lamarckian microevolutionary process depends on decision-makers choosing whether or not to accept and sometimes alter cultural traits (Boyd & Richerson Reference Boyd and Richerson1985). Zeder (Reference Zeder, Prentiss, Kuijt and Chatters2009, Reference Zeder2018) points out that even long-term change may be affected by conscious infrastructural investments that alter capacity for socioeconomic production and, subsequently, canalise later developments.

Eldredge (Reference Eldredge1985) reminds us that evolutionary processes play out in what he terms ecological and genealogical hierarchies (see also Rosenberg Reference Rosenberg2022). Individuals make and act upon decisions with regard to their energy expenditure and return in the ecological hierarchy. That, in turn, affects what is preserved in the genealogical hierarchy. Evolutionary ecological frameworks centred on decision-making and associated actions can be very useful for explaining behavioural transitions, especially as related to subsistence, sociality and reproduction (e.g. Prentiss et al. Reference Prentiss2023a; Boone & Alsgaard Reference Boone and Alsgaard2024).

Research into cultural evolution also focuses on the differential persistence of traits metaphorically lodged in Eldredge's genealogical hierarchy. Here, the research target is on the evolution of the cultural trait. An essential assumption effectively argued by Bentley and O'Brien (Reference Bentley and O'Brien2024: 1406) is that traits are transmitted across the long term, forming inherited lineages. We assume that cultural microevolution is the foundation for development of macroevolutionary lineages via cultural transmission processes. The study of cultural macroevolutionary lineages may also offer insights into evolutionary dynamics not visible on microevolutionary scales as, for example, processes of multiscalar punctuated change (Kolodny et al. Reference Kolodny, Creanza and Feldman2015; Vidiella et al. Reference Vidiella, Carrignon, Bentley, O'Brien and Valverde2022). Our challenge comes with developing evolutionary explanations for those evident patterns and some scholars still effectively invoke aspects of intent (Spencer Reference Spencer, Prentiss, Kuijt and Chatters2009).

Laue and Wright (Reference Laue, Wright and Prentiss2019) draw upon advanced fitness landscape theory to argue that evolutionary dynamics over the very long term may operate differently from scenarios viewed on ethnographic scales requiring specific reference to intent. While Wright's (Reference Wright1931) classic model remains useful to archaeologists seeking adaptive explanations for cultural transitions (Bettinger Reference Bettinger, Prentiss, Kuijt and Chatters2009; Garvey Reference Garvey2021), recent models implicate more complex processes of neutral and nearly neutral evolution (Laue & Wright Reference Laue, Wright and Prentiss2019). Gavrilets (Reference Gavrilets1997) proposes a multidimensional system whereby a rugged microevolutionary landscape (as per Wright Reference Wright1931) may periodically elevate a trait into a macroevolutionary landscape where variants move on nearly neutral causeways, which periodically intersect with others, providing opportunities for emergent phenomena and rapid bursts of change. This has been a useful model for understanding major cultural transitions as, for example, with the emergence of the Thule tradition in the Bering Strait of Western Alaska and Eastern Chukotka, Siberia by c. 1500–1600 cal. BP (Prentiss et al. Reference Prentiss2023b). Here we see a convergence of multiple technological lineages and a major transition in labour organisation (walrus and whaling crews), communication (Old Bering Sea artistic motifs) and the unit of selection (multi-village polities).

In an inclusive cultural evolutionary theory, we clearly benefit from having the option to consider conscious behaviour and alternative perspectives on the formation of long-lived lineages. Whether our research emphasises intent-driven decision-making or the effects of general evolutionary forces on cultural traits over lengthy time spans, we can scaffold a diverse array of inferences and tests while avoiding the excesses of a “floridly imagined” past (Chapman & Wylie Reference Chapman and Wylie2016: 3).