Abstract
Demography is increasingly being invoked to account for features of the archaeological record, such as the technological conservatism of the Lower and Middle Pleistocene, the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, and cultural loss in Holocene Tasmania. Such explanations are commonly justified in relation to population dynamic models developed by Henrich [Henrich J (2004) Am Antiq 69:197–214] and Powell et al. [Powell A, et al. (2009) Science 324(5932):1298–1301], which appear to demonstrate that population size is the crucial determinant of cultural complexity. Here, we show that these models fail in two important respects. First, they only support a relationship between demography and culture in implausible conditions. Second, their predictions conflict with the available archaeological and ethnographic evidence. We conclude that new theoretical and empirical research is required to identify the factors that drove the changes in cultural complexity that are documented by the archaeological record.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | E2241-E2247 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | PNAS |
| Volume | 113 |
| Issue number | 16 |
| Early online date | 4 Apr 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Apr 2016 |
Bibliographical note
AcknowledgmentsWe thank three anonymous reviewers and our PNAS editor, James O'Connell, for their generous feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. K.V. acknowledges support from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (VIDI Grant 016.144312). M.C. is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research of Canada, the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, and Simon Fraser University. R.C. and W.R. acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant DP120100580).
Keywords
- cultural evolution
- demography
- Upper Paleolithic transition
- Tasmania
- cultural complexity