Tag Archives: cultural evolution

Interdisciplinarity: goals and conditions

FINALLY PUBLISHED!

paradigmi_big“Our view of interdisciplinarity takes very seriously the long training any specialist has to undertake in order to acquire the huge knowledge and the tuned epistemological attitudes necessary to master his or her research methods and protocols. Indeed, we think that a successful interdisciplinary project would educate its participants into this respectful view of anyone else’s training, getting rid of the naïve idea that others’ jobs are useless or easy to do. For sure, the expected result is not that one researcher ‘absorbs’ the others who become superfluous.”

Brambilla R, Serrelli E (2016). The goals and conditions of successful interdisciplinarity. Some critical guidelines in planning, managing and evaluating interdisciplinary projects. Paradigmi. Rivista di critica filosofica 2/2016: 151-169. ISSN 1120-3404 [DOI 10.3280/PARA2016-002012]
Continue reading Interdisciplinarity: goals and conditions

Cultural Traits. A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Cultural Diversity

Out now!

9783319243474Understanding Cultural Traits: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Cultural Diversity, Edited by Fabrizio Panebianco and Emanuele Serrelli.

Interested in writing a review? Read it online for free and get your free hardcopy! Go on the dedicated homepage and then “Access an Online Book Review Copy” via the link under “Service for this Book”. After successful registration on Springer site, you will be provided access to the online content of the book for a period of 6 months. After publication of the review in the journal, you will receive a hard copy of the book. Continue reading Cultural Traits. A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Cultural Diversity

Species on the Threshold

Species on the Threshold: How Cultural Evolution Changes the Landscapes of Our Life

Emanuele Serrelli spoke on the relationship between cultural and biological evolution at the conference:

La specie sulla soglia: come l’evoluzione culturale cambia i paesaggi della nostra vita

Venerdì, 31 Ottobre 2014
16:30 – 19:30
Mostra d’Oltremare, Arena Flegrea, Napoli (Forum Internazionale delle Culture)

L’importanza di prendere atto che l’evoluzione sia divenuta soprattutto culturale è una delle principali responsabilità della nostra specie che ci vede “sulla soglia” di un cambiamento e di un apprendimento epocali. La cultura ha oggi il compito di attivare la responsabilità individuale e collettiva per essere all’altezza di questo processo di profonda trasformazione.

A cura di Amici della terra club dell’Irpinia associazione ONLUS e Hirpus associazione di promozione sociale. Part of the Series: Passavamo sulla terra leggeri: Culture, Educazione, Sostenibilità.

KeynoteVincenzo Moretti, Sociologo, responsabile della sezione Società Culture e Innovazione alla Fondazione Giuseppe Di Vittorio

RoundtableGiancarlo Blasi, ingegnere, socio di HIRPUS APS (moderator); Giovanni Mastino, fisico, Associazione Amici della Terra Italia; Luca Mori, filosofo, Università di Pisa; Emanuele Serrelli, filosofo della scienza, Università di Milano Bicocca; Giuseppe Bruno, ingegnere, Università di Napoli.

All videos here!!!

Emanuele Serrelli on the relationship between cultural and biological evolution:


2014, Oct 31 (h.16:30-19:30) – Org. Hirpus, Naples, Forum Universale delle Culture: La specie sulla soglia: come l’evoluzione culturale cambia i paesaggi della nostra vita. With V. Moretti, G. Blasi, L. Famiglietti, L. Mori, G. Bruno, R. Filippini. Public conference.

http://www.forumculture.org/event.cfm?id=663

Cultural Traits and Multidisciplinary Dialogue

9783319243474…We have walked on a fine line: the notion of a cultural trait is interesting because it has something to say to many sciences, but, paradoxically, also because it generates harsh conflicts on top scientific journals more and more frequently. Historical linguistics and cultural evolution are two of many fields where these clashes happen, and we want to hint to those conflicts before delving into the contribution we have to offer.

For all the represented disciplines, the book constitutes a first step towards an ever-deferred interdisciplinary dialogue, and towards the construction of common working platforms. For the reader, Cultural Traits is a way to enter a representative sample of the intellectual diversity that surrounds such an important topic as culture, and a means to stimulate innovative avenues of research. Each of the involved disciplines enters the debate with a self-presenting attitude, emphasizing its own methodological practices, and explaining whether and how cultural traits have a role in its own research programs and epistemic goals. Along these lines some chapters are more methodological, while others address case studies, and methodological aspects are inferred more indirectly. Are there differences in aspects of culture that are studied by different disciplines? What definitions of cultural traits are on the table? How do we delimit a trait? How is the problem declined at different observational scales, and which scales are most in focus? Do traits travel in geographical space, and how? Are there other relevant spaces? How are traits modified in their diffusion? Is it possible and useful to build models of this diffusion? Only a strong multidisciplinary perspective can help to clarify these problems about cultural traits, by means of which we understand our precious heritage, cultural diversity…


Panebianco F, Serrelli E (2016). Cultural traits and multidisciplinary dialogue. Introduction to Panebianco F, Serrelli E, eds., Understanding cultural traits. A multidisciplinary perspective on cultural diversity. Springer, Switzerland, Chapter 1, pp. 1-20. ISBN 978-3-319-24347-4 [DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24349-8_1] [BOA][RG]

Evolutionary Genetics and Cultural Traits

The chapter explains why evolutionary genetics – a mathematical body of theory developed since the 1910s – eventually got to deal with culture: the frequency dynamics of genes like “the lactase gene” in populations cannot be correctly modeled without including social transmission. While the body of theory requires specific justifications, for example meticulous legitimations of describing culture in terms of traits, the body of theory is an immensely valuable scientific instrument, not only for its modeling power but also for the amount of work that has been necessary to build, maintain, and expand it. A brief history of evolutionary genetics is told to demonstrate such patrimony, and to emphasize the importance and accumulation of statistical knowledge therein. The probabilistic nature of genotypes, phenogenotypes and population phenomena is also touched upon. Although evolutionary genetics is actually composed by distinct and partially independent traditions, the most important mathematical object of evolutionary genetics is the Mendelian space, and evolutionary genetics is mostly the daring study of trajectories of alleles in a population that explores that space. The ‘body’ is scientific wealth that can be invested in studying every situation that happens to turn out suitable to be modeled as a Mendelian population, or as a modified Mendelian population, or as a population of continuously varying individuals with an underlying Mendelian basis. Mathematical tinkering and justification are two halves of the mutual adjustment between the body of theory and the new domain of culture. Some works in current literature overstate justification, misrepresenting the relationship between body of theory and domain, and hindering interdisciplinary dialogue.


Look for it in the Publications page (with additional links):

Serrelli E (forthcoming). Evolutionary genetics and cultural traits in a ‘body of theory’ perspective. In Panebianco F, Serrelli E, eds. Understanding cultural traits. A multidisciplinary perspective on cultural diversity. Springer, Chapter 11. [http://hdl.handle.net/10281/49987]

Modeling sociocultural evolution

Summer2013, July: Emanuele Serrelli teaches (with Nathalie Gontier) Modeling sociocultural evolution at the 1st International Summer School on Evolution, Ciencia Viva Knowledge Pavilion, Lisbon, Portugal. The program is also on Academia.edu.

THE IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSAL SYMBIOGENESIS, UNIVERSAL PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA THEORY, PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY AND NICHE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SOCIOCULTURAL SCIENCES

Course Description

In recent years, the classic humanity and life science departments have seen a fast rise of new fields such as Evolutionary Anthropology, Evolutionary Sociology, Evolutionary Linguistics and Evolutionary Psychology. These new fields primarily examine how Natural Selection Theory can be universalized to explain the origin and evolution of human cognition, culture or language. A consequence is that scholars active in dual inheritance theories, gene-culture co-evolutionary theory, memetics, or the units and (multiple) levels of selection debate, are actively seeking what the adaptive benefits are of sociocultural traits; what the sociocultural analogs are of genes; and which sociocultural selective pressures or levels of sociocultural selection can be distinguished.

We, on the contrary, will explore how biological evolutionary theories that are associated with the Extended Synthesis can be extended and implemented into studies on human, sociocultural and linguistic evolution.

In biology, theories of symbiosis, symbiogenesis, horizontal and lateral gene transfer have demonstrated that the transmission of traits does not necessarily follow a linear and vertical pattern of descent. In sociocultural evolution too, the transmission of traits is multidirectional, and often occurs through horizontal transmission.

Punctuated equilibria theory has proven that evolution is not necessarily gradual, and scholars active in the fields of archeology and anthropology also point out periods in human evolution that are characterized by cultural stasis which are intermitted by rapid sociocultural change.

Phenotypic plasticity and niche construction theory are currently redefining how we should perceive the interaction between biological organisms and their environments. Rather than being passive entities that undergo selection by an active environment, biologists are currently investigating how organisms partly construct their niche and how organisms are able to demonstrate plasticity towards changing environments. These theories too provide new means by which we can conceptualize sociocultural evolution.

Day-by-Day Program

Lecture 1: Sociocultural Evolution Studies and Applied Evolutionary Epistemology (Emanuele & Nathalie)

  • Dawkins, R. 1983 Universal Darwinism. In Hull, D.L. & Ruse, M. (eds.) The philosophy of biology. New York: Oxford University Press: 15-35. [First published in Bendall, D.S. (ed.) 1998 Evolution from molecules to man. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press: 403-25.]
  • Campbell, D.T. 1997 From Evolutionary Epistemology via Selection Theory to a Sociology of Scientific Validity. Evolution and Cognition 3: 5-38.
  • Mesoudi A, Whiten A, Laland KN 2006 Towards a Unified Science of Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29:329-383.
  • Gontier N. 2012 Applied Evolutionary Epistemology: A New Methodology to Enhance Interdisciplinary Research Between the Human and Natural Sciences. Kairos, Journal of Philosophy and Science, 4: 7-49.

Lecture 2: Sociocultural Evolution and Universal Symbiogenesis (Nathalie)

  • Gontier N. 2007.Universal Symbiogenesis: a Genuine Alternative to Universal Selectionist Accounts. Symbiosis 44: 167-181.
  • Hird, M.J. Symbiosis, Microbes, Coevolution and Sociology. Ecological Economics, 2008, 10(001): 1-6.
  • van Driem, George (2008). The Origin of Language: Symbiosism and Symbiomism, pp. 381-400 in John D. Bengtson, ed., In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Shijulal NS, List JM, Geisler H, Fangerau H, Gray RD, Martin W, Dagan T 2010 Networks Uncover Hidden Lexical Borrowing in Indo-European Language evolution. Proc R Soc B: doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1917

Lecture 3: Sociocultural Evolution and Punctuated Equilibria Theory, Stasis, Drift and Rapid (Macro)Evolution (Nathalie)

  • Borgerhoff Mulder M, Nunn CL & Towner M 2006 Macroevolutionary Studies of Cultural Trait Variation: The Importance of Transmission Mode. Evolutionary Anthropology 15: 52-64.
  • Eldredge N 2011 Paleontology and Cornets: Thoughts on Material Culture. Evolution: Education and Outreach 4: 264-373
  • d’Errico F. 2003 The Invisible Frontier: a Multiple Species Model of the Origin of Behavioral Modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 188-202.
  • Bentley RA, Hahn MW & Shennan SJ 2004 Random Drift and Culture Change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Vol 271. 1443-1450.

Lecture 4: Niche Construction and Cultural Evolution (Emanuele)

Laland, K.N. & Sterelny, K., 2006 Perspective: 7 Reasons (not) to Neglect Niche Construction. Evolution, 60(9), 1751–1762.

  • Kylafis, G. Loreau, M., 2011 Niche Construction in the Light of Niche Theory. Ecology Letters, 14(2), 82-90.
  • Laland KN, O’Brien MJ 2010 Niche Construction Theory and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, December 2010, Volume 17, Issue 4 (monographic issue on niche construction), 303-322.
  • Jeremy Kendal, Jamshid J. Tehrani and John Odling-Smee (2011). Human Niche Construction in Interdisciplinary Focus. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2011 366 (1566, monographic issue on NC), 785-792.

Lecture 5: Phenotypic Plasticity and Niche Construction (Emanuele)

  • Pigliucci, M., 2007. Do We Need an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? Evolution, 61(12), 2743–2749.
  • Pfennig, D.W. et al., 2010. Phenotypic Plasticity’s Impacts on Diversification and Speciation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(8), 459–67.
  • Donohue, K., 2005. Niche Construction Through Phenological Plasticity: Life History Dynamics and Ecological Consequences. The New Phytologist, 166(1), 83–92.
  • Panebianco F, Serrelli E (working paper), Niche Construction with “Reaction Norms” and Phenotypic Selection?

Suggested Further Reading

  • Atkinson QD et al. 2008 Languages Evolve in Punctuational Bursts. Science 319 (5863): 588.
  • Ingold, T. 1990 An Anthropologist Looks at Biology. Man, N.S. 25: 208-29.
  • Kylafis, G. Loreau, M., 2008 Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Niche Construction for its Agent. Ecology Letters, 11(10), 1072-81.
  • Gontier N. 2010. Evolutionary Epistemology as a Scientific Method: a New Look Upon the Units and Levels of Evolution Debate. Theory in Biosciences 129 (2-3): 167-182.
  • Gould, Stephen Jay (1991) Exaptation: A Crucial Tool for Evolutionary Psychology. Journal of Social Issues 47(3): 43–65.
  • Smallegange, I.M. & Coulson, T., 2012. Towards a General, Population-level Understanding of Eco-evolutionary Change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1–6.
  • Speidel, M. 2000 The Parasitic Host: Symbiosis contra Neo-Darwinism. Pli, The Warwick Journal of Philosophy 9: 119-38.
  • Taborsky, B. & Oliveira, R.F., 2012. Social Competence: an Evolutionary Approach. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(12), 679–688.
Teachers at the first Summer School on Evolution, AppEEL, Lisbon, 2013
Instructors at the International Summer School on Evolution, at the Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab in the Faculty of Science, University of Lisbon. Left to to right, Derek Turner, Michael Ruse, Frédéric Bouchard, Fiona Jordan, Nathalie Gontier, Marion Blute, Ilya Tëmkin, Luis Villarreal, Frietson Galis, Emanuele Serrelli. From Marion Blute’s blog.

http://bluteblog.com/2013/08/06/photos-from-lisbon/

Tree and network models in San Francisco

Emanuele Serrelli co-organizes with Nathalie Gontier the session “Tree and network models of micro- and macroevolution” at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (November 14-18, 2012). Developing from phylogenetic methodologies in evolutionary biology, the session examines how cultural trees and networks are composed differently (which data are used to compose trees and networks), what they can and cannot model, how inferences are made, and how they enable theory formation on cultural evolution.

AAA SESSION ON CULTURAL TRANSMISSION STUDIES: TREE AND NETWORK MODELS OF MICRO- AND MACROEVOLUTION, November 15, 8-9:45 AM

Organized by Nathalie Gontier and Emanuele Serrelli and Chaired by Larissa Mendoza Straffon

In biology, phylogenetic tree models (based on shared morphological traits, genes, or proteins) remain the primary methodological tool to reconstruct evolutionary ancestral-descent relationships. Phylogenetic and phylogenomic methodologies are also applied to reconstruct linguistic and cultural descent relationships. Such reconstructions have now advanced up to the point that one can estimate divergence in time, and the rate at which such linguistic or cultural divergence occurred. Both biological as well as sociocultural phylogenetics now demonstrate that besides natural selection, drift and punctuated equilibria theory can explain many of life’s and sociocultural divergences. And comparative analyses demonstrate that ancestral-descent relations of human populations significantly overlap with linguistic family trees and cultural diversification trees. Phylogenetics has also brought to light that horizontal evolution occurs abundantly in life’s evolution, and scholars active in the field have therefore challenged classic tree of life iconography. Today, scholars active in Horizontal Gene Transfer studies are therefore introducing network phylogenies (“webs of life”) that allow the depiction and modeling of reticulate evolution. In the sociocultural sciences, linguists, archeologists and anthropologists have criticized hominin and cultural bifurcating trees because they are unable to depict hominin hybridization and horizontal transmission and diffusion of sociocultural traits. And here too, network models are introduced that allow the formalization and depiction of linguistic and sociocultural interactions through time. In sum, biological and sociocultural sciences both make use of tree and network models to depict biological and sociocultural evolution. We will examine how cultural trees and networks are composed differently (which data are used to compose trees and networks), what they can and cannot model, how inferences are made, and how they enable theory formation on cultural evolution.

  1. THE ‘GLOBAL PHYLOGENY’ AND ITS HISTORY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A UNIFIEDTHEORY OF HUMAN BIOLOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC CO-EVOLUTION, Frank Kressing, Ulm University
  2. THE CHALLENGE OF TREE-THINKING AND NETWORK-THINKING: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES ACROSS BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL DOMAINS, Emanuele Serrelli, University of Milano Bicocca.
  3. COMPARING RATES OF CULTURAL CHANGE ACROSS TREES – DO SOME TRAITS EVOLVE FASTER THAN OTHERS?, Ruth Mace and Tom Currie, London, OXFORDSHIRE
  4. PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC APPROACHES TO TRACING HUMAN CULTURAL ANCESTRY, Quentin Douglas Atkinson, University of Auckland
  5. UNITS, LEVELS AND MECHANISMS OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION, AN APPLIED EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGICAL ACCOUNT, Nathalie Gontier, Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab, Centre for Philosophy of Science, University of Lisbon
  6. MOSAIC EVOLUTION IN CULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS: DYNAMICS VARY WITH SCALE, Anna Marie Prentiss and Matthew Joseph Walsh, University of Montana
  7. USING CLADISTICS TO INTERPRET ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES: THE SLATE TOOL TRADITION AT BRIDGE RIVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Matthew Joseph Walsh and Anna Marie Prentiss, The University of Montana
  8. PLEISTOCENE NETWORK INTERACTIONS AND THE ORIGINS OF VISUAL ART, Larissa Mendoza Straffon, Leiden University
  9. THE ECONOMICS OF CULTURAL TRANSMISSION, Alberto Bisin, New York University

ABSTRACTS

THE ‘GLOBAL PHYLOGENY’ AND ITS HISTORY: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A UNIFIEDTHEORY OF HUMAN BIOLOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC CO-EVOLUTION
Frank Kressing, Ulm University
Starting in the late 20th century, “new” approaches claiming a direct link between the evolution of linguistic and biological diversity in humans received broad attention in the sciences and the general public. Based on an extensive literature review, we claim that, contrary to its supposedly innovative character, the post 1980 ‘new synthesis’ of genetic, linguistic, and archaeological data was based on a well-established western tradition dating back at least until the 18th century. Special emphasis will be put on the importance of interdisciplinary reticulations between scholars in the sciences (such as biology and comparative anatomy) and the humanities (such as linguistics). In our overview, it shall be argued that interdisciplinary contact between these two fields resulted in the construction of links between the classification of languages and the classification of human populations. Furthermore, it shall be stressed that the theory of human biological and linguistic co-evolution was developed in the 18th and 19th century within the framework of anthropology, since this academic discipline evolved as an all-encompassing, integrative science dealing with human nature in its physical and cultural aspects. Finally, 20th-century attempts at the ‘genomization’ of human cultural, ethnic, and linguistic affiliations will be critically analysed, highlighting the fact that theroots of the so-called global phylogeny are ‘once again’ to be found in interdisciplinary scholarly networks transgressing the borders between the sciences and the humanities.

THE CHALLENGE OF TREE-THINKING AND NETWORK-THINKING: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES ACROSS BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL DOMAINS
Emanuele Serrelli, University of Milano Bicocca
This talk gives a reflexive outlook on the employment of tree and network thinking to conceptualize and model vertical descent and horizontal transmission of cultural traits. In biology, evolutionary trees are more than tools for researchers across disciplines: they are the main framework within which evidence for evolution is evaluated (Baum et al. 2005). However, several biologists have recognized “tree thinking” as a challenge for students (Gregory 2008, Meisel 2010), lay people (Baum, cit.), and scientists alike (O’Hara 1992), going against our spontaneous cognitive tendencies, e.g., reading along the tips, locating evolution only at nodes, projecting living species backwards to internal nodes. Moreover, common descent, represented by trees, is not the only way in which biological traits are shared: the ubiquity of phenomena like lateral gene transfer is increasing the need for network-based analyses, introducing the conceptual challenge of “network thinking” (Proulx et al. 2005), and the further complexity of conceiving trees and networks together. I focus on which strategies, used and developed in biology, can be implemented in anthropology to address cultural relatedness and common ancestry relationships. Baum DA et al. (2005). The tree-thinking challenge. Science 310(5750):979-980. Gregory TR (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution: Education and Outreach 1(2):121-137. Meisel RP (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach 3(4):621-628. O’Hara RJ (1992). Telling the tree: Narrative representation and the study of evolutionary history. Biology and Philosophy 7(2):p.135–160. Proulx SR et al. (2005). Network thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(6):345-53.

COMPARING RATES OF CULTURAL CHANGE ACROSS TREES – DO SOME TRAITS EVOLVE FASTER THAN OTHERS?
Ruth Mace and Tom Currie, London, OXFORDSHIRE
Ruth Mace and Tom Currie examine the rate of evolution of cultural traits across different phylogenetic trees, to see if cultural traits themselves share any particular properties regarding the rate of change on a tree, or whether traits are simply change according to local ecological conditions or some other factors that are not shared across trees. We use recent phylogenetic methods to estimate rates of change in a range of traits common to most societies.

PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC APPROACHES TO TRACING HUMAN CULTURAL ANCESTRY
Quentin Douglas Atkinson, University of Auckland
Recent work on cultural evolution has successfully applied phylogenetic methods from biology to comparative cultural and linguistic data to test hypotheses about cultural ancestry, chronology and sequences of change. However, relatively little attention has focussed on explicitly modelling large-scale spatial processes of cultural change. Here I report results from collaborative research that uses tools from population genetics and phylogeography to analyze spatial information derived from comparative cultural data. This work identifies clear spatial signal in the data that can be used to shed light on the origins of cultural groups.

UNITS, LEVELS AND MECHANISMS OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION, AN APPLIED EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGICAL ACCOUNT
Nathalie Gontier, Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab, Centre for Philosophy of Science, University of Lisbon
Tree and network models of cultural micro- and macroevolution demonstrate the current scientific need to recognize that a multiplicity of units, levels and mechanisms underlie the evolution of culture. This demand also necessitates a scientific investigation into how these different sociocultural units, levels and mechanisms alternate and interact hierarchically, and together bring forth the phenomenon of evolution. From within an applied evolutionary epistemological approach, I will talk on how theories on the units (replicators, interactors, culturgenes, memes) and levels of evolution can be implemented into micro- and macroevolutionary sociocultural theories; and which evolutionary mechanisms are best able to explain horizontal and vertical transmission.

MOSAIC EVOLUTION IN CULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS: DYNAMICS VARY WITH SCALE
Anna Marie Prentiss and Matthew Joseph Walsh, University of Montana
There has been significant debate in paleoanthropology and more recently, archaeology, over the concept of mosaic evolution. Essentially, proponents of the concept argue that different aspects of organisms evolve separately while others argue that organisms evolve as integrated entities. Similarly, archaeologists debate the relevance of cultural evolution as a complex multi-scalar process. In this paper we conduct cladistic and network analyses of cultural phenomena ranging in scale from single artifact classes to more complexly integrated cultural packages to examine variability in the evolutionary process. We argue that cultural evolution is simultaneously multi-scalar and that dynamics can vary significantly with different degrees of integration.

USING CLADISTICS TO INTERPRET ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES: THE SLATE TOOL TRADITION AT BRIDGE RIVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Matthew Joseph Walsh and Anna Marie Prentiss, The University of Montana
In recent years phylogenetic studies have offered a wide range of contributions to explanation of complex evolutionary phenomena in the archaeological record. In this study we apply cladistic and network methods to assess the evolution of slate tools at the Bridge River site in British Columbia. We examine relationships between artifact assemblages from several housepits at the site in order to determine if heritable continuity can be established on an inter- and intra-household basis. This allows us to examine variability in the role of descent with modification manifested in branching versus a range of potential tokogenetic processes. We argue that while distinct household-specific traditions of tool manufacture existed, the data are made complicated by extensive borrowing of ideas and functional differentiation in tool design.

PLEISTOCENE NETWORK INTERACTIONS AND THE ORIGINS OF VISUAL ART
Larissa Mendoza Straffon, Leiden University
In recent years scholars have come to the realisation that models which account for the emergence of behavioural traits, such as visual art, simply in terms of increasing human cognition are not viable. The so-called cognitive models cannot generate falsifiable predictions about the conditions under which such traits would have developed. Equally problematic are evolutionary scenarios of art that put forward some possible adaptive function as cause of its origin (e.g. visual art evolved for mate choice, for ritual, etc.). When contrasted against current evidence from the archaeological record, these postulates generally do not hold. This paper presents an hypothesis for the origins of visual art which incorporates up-to-date archaeological data into a testable evolutionary explanation. This model is based upon specific aspects of Pleistocene human groups, such as group size and social organisation. It is suggested that visual art arose as a signal of identity and an index of reputation under selective pressures towards increasing cooperation and intensified network interactions in the Late Pleistocene. Recognition through style in visual art would have conveyed adaptive benefits by making social interactions more predictable thus reducing risks of conflict and aggression, in turn allowing large-scale reciprocity systems to flourish. In this sense, visual art may be conceived of as a communication signal manifested in stylistic variation in material culture. Finally, the paper shows that this hypothesis is consistent with the archaeological record of visual art.

THE ECONOMICS OF CULTURAL TRANSMISSION
Alberto Bisin, New York University
This paper surveys the recent theoretical and empirical studies on the economics of cultural transmission. The aim of the survey is to emphasize both similarities and differences in the economic analysis of this topic with respect to the literatures in evolutionary biology, anthropology, and sociology.