A Productive Friction? The Interaction between Data & Theory in the Study of Cultural Transmission, Innovation, & Cultural Evolution in the Paleolithic

Gilbert Tostevin
Department of Anthropology,
University of Minnesota

Transcript

1. A Productive Friction? The Interaction between Data & Theory in the Study of Cultural Transmission, Innovation, & Cultural Evolution in the Paleolithic Gilbert Tostevin D f A h l Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, toste003@umn.edu @ New data –old theories: the future of theorizing about innovation in complex adaptive systems in complex adaptive systems. At INSITE & ECLT, Venice, Italy May 5-8, 2014
2. P l Polymerase Chain Reaction
3. Th The Radiocarbon ad oca bo Revolution Libby, W., E. C. Anderson, & J. R. Arnold 1949 Age determination b 1949 Age determination by radiocarbon content: Worldwide assay of natural radiocarbon. Science 109: 227-228.
4. The The Luminescence Dating Revolution Revolution Age = Paleodose as TL Annual dose rate Annual dose rate
5. Too much slippage between newly excavated data and old theory to produce a scientific ratchet effect produce a scientific ratchet effect
6. Approaches to cultural interaction through stone tools Typology of Typology of yp gy retouched tools: Index fossils Typology of technology (reduction sequence or chaîne ? sequence or chaîne opératoire) ? ? ? Distribution of raw materials Quantitative typology of 6 raw materials yp gy retouched tools ?
7. The Epistemological Problem of Problem of Typological S t ti Systematics
8. The Epistemological Problem of Problem of Typological S t ti Systematics VS VS.
9. In: François Bordes et la Préhistoire, ed. F. Delpech, J.Jaubert, 2011
12. 73 types among 73 types among 342 assemblages from 52 sites
13. The Wine Analogy The Wine Analogy 80% M l t 95% M l t 85% Cabernet 80% Merlot 15% Cabernet franc 5% Cabernet 95% Merlot 5% Cabernet franc sauvignon 10% Cabernet franc sauvignon franc 5% Merlot
15. “I don’t have much faith in stone tool phylogenies. Stone tools do not have genes ” Stone tools do not have genes. A famous and influential physical anthropologist, t th P l th l S i t M ti at the Paleoanthropology Society Meetings, Honolulu, April 1-2, 2013.
17. Let the process determine the units of transmission. T d thi To do this, we need an evolutionary developmental approach to th h l f lt l t i i the archaeology of cultural transmission
18. Behavioral i ibili Visibility in the i Knapping Process
24. Platform Thickness [i.e., “platform depth” of Dibble & P l i (1995)] Pelcin (1995)]
26. Platform Thickness
27. Platform Thickness Pl tf Platform Thickness
28. Platform Thickness Pl tf Platform Thickness Exterior Exterior Platform Angle
29. Platform Preparation
34. The The Materiality y of the T h l Technology 1 t d li • <1 sec to deliver a blow • Crack propagation • Crack propagation =1000-2000 m/sec.
35. But only the knapper h h f ll b di d has the full-bodied, emic experience of delivering the blow delivering the blow in a coordinated split-second action p Etic perspective Emic perspective p p
36. Emic choices are Emic choices are lost to the observer as well as the archaeologist. Eti lt Etic results are measurable by the archaeologist and archaeologist and can serve as proxies for what the observer saw.
37. This is one locus where variation can enter the process. Invention?
38. And repeat… And repeat… And repeat… And repeat… Across the population of flakes he produces as he learns from other role models role models… …with whatever pedagogical scaffolding exists within the society…
39. Across the population of p p knappers who contribute to the palimpsest…
40. The Behavioral Approach to Cultural Transmission (BACT) to all material cultures: (BACT) to all material cultures: A Two-Part Approach 1 Observational Learning of Knapping Choices: 1. Observational Learning of Knapping Choices: − Which emic choices of the artisan are visible as etic observations by the learner? − Which observations of the learner are also etically observable by the archaeologist? 2. How does dual inheritance work in foraging societies?: 2. How does dual inheritance work in foraging societies?: − Where and when are foragers enculturated? − Where and when do they witness technological performances that affect their adoption of performances that affect their adoption of technological choices? − What is the structure by which individuals encounter their Inclusive Inheritance (in NCT terms)?
41. Contact events in the pathways of the landscape = contact at a social distance landscape = contact at a social distance without much cultural transmission AnthroPhoto
42. Foragers experience most of their enculturating environment in contexts of enculturating environment in contexts of social intimacy AnthroPhoto
43. Differential access = Differential Knowledge Differential access Differential Knowledge AnthroPhoto
45. TASKSCAPE VISIBILITY The amount of lithic technological knowledge technological knowledge learnable by each party depends upon where contact occurs relative to where lithic operational sequences are d enacted.
47. Analytical Proxies for Four Domains of Blank Production Choices at the Assemblage Blank Production Choices at the Assemblage Level • Platform Maintenance: Platform Treatment E terior Platform Angle Tactical choices for each flake Exterior Platform Angle Platform Thickness • Dorsal Surface Convexity: L th/ idth ti L it di l t t f th f d Tactical choices for each flake Strategic choices for each core Length/width ratio: Longitudinal extent of the surface removed Width/thickness ratio: Vertical convexity of the mass removed Lateral edge type: Longitudinal shape of the surface C i b f d l id d fi i h i Cross-section type: Number of dorsal ridges defining the convexity Profile type: Curvature of the core surface removed • Core Modification: Core Orientation: extant core morphology Core Convexity Management: refits, diagnostic reparations. • Direction of Core Exploitation: (the only true “sequence model” aspect) Early Exploitation: Dorsal scar patterns of debitage vs. blank length. Late Exploitation: Dorsal scar patterns of debitage vs. blank length.
48. Analytical Proxies for Tool Kit Morphology Visible on each tool Visible at the assemblage level • Laminarity (length/width ratio) of tools. • Vertical Convexity (width/thickness). L l Ed T • Lateral Edge Type • Distal Terminus Type • Profile Type • Profile Type • Unique Retouch Type(s) • Tool Types: MP or UP dominated yp Importance of comparability given intensity of Importance of comparability given intensity of core reduction and tool exhaustion.
50. Pair-wise comparisons comparisons between 18 assemblages dating between 60-30 kya in 3 regions: g Levant, Central Europe, Eastern Europe Eastern Europe
51. Nesting Dual Inheritance Processes according to the distinction between Blank Production & Tool Kit Morphology Tostevin 2012
52. Claes Andersson (yesterday): “It is easier to exchange peripheral elements than core elements” peripheral elements than core elements Tostevin 2012
53. Bohunician Behavioral Behavioral Package (BBP) assemblages
54. Škrdla, P., 2003. Comparison of Boker Tachtit and Stránská skála MP/UP Transitional Industries. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33:33-69.
55. Spread of the Bohunician Behavioral Package in Greenland Interstadial 14-12 (52-48 ka calBP) in Greenland Interstadial 14-12 (52-48 ka calBP). Korolevo II-II Brno-Bohunice Stránská skála III, Stránská skála IIIa 4 Stránská skála IIIa-4, Stránská skála IIIc Temnata VI, TD-2 ? Boker Tachtit 1 & 2 Taramsan?
56. The African “Revolution That Wasn’t” indicates that critical H s s adaptations and thus their demic critical H. s. s. adaptations, and thus their demic expansions, could have occurred piecemeal.
57. The “One Great Wave” analogy vs. lti l f i i t iti multiple waves of various intensities for Out of Africa 2
58. Bohunician Behavioral Package as a cultural i i d i G l d di l transmission event during Greenland Interstadial 14-12 (52-48ka calBP). A weak wave of Levantine hominins (modern or Neanderthal) before the Early Aurignacian & Proto-Aurignacian
59. Direct Bias or Frequency biased transmission due to direct d ti b fit f th t it What caused the spread of the Bohunician adaptive benefit of the trait of the Bohunician Behavioral Package? Recognition in g specific regions Indirect biased transmission due to coattail effect on the pro effect on the proxy
60. Preserved Material Culture Non-preserved/invisible Material Culture Time 1 Existing Artifact form Existing Artifact/Trait indirect biased transmission “A” “X” transmission New neutral Adaptive New neutral Artifact form “B” carried by il ff Time 2 Adaptive Benefit of new if / i indirect biased transmission coattail effect from Y Artifact/Trait “Y”
62. “Manual” TCSA Measurements on 3D Models
63. Morphological space of Blanks produced during core reduction Morphological space of Blanks chosen for of Blanks chosen for the toolkit
64. Generative Entrenchment Adapted and redrawn from Wimsatt & Schank (2004: Fig.1). Generative Entrenchment, Modularity and Evolvability: When Genic Selection meets the Whole Organism. In, G. Schlosser and G Wagner, eds., Modularity in Development and Evolution, 2004, Chicago: U Chicago Press, pp. 359-394.
65. Morphological space of Blanks produced during core reduction Application of retouch (particularly backing & microburin) accesses microburin) accesses novel morphospace Morphological space of Blanks chosen for of Blanks chosen for the toolkit
66. Instead of “New Data-Old Theories”, Paleolithic Archaeology needs: Paleolithic Archaeology needs: New Middle Range Theory New Middle-Range Theory → N D New Data (although from old artifacts) → New High-level Theory g y to replace Old Theory
67. A Bright Future but for A Bright Future but for The Problem of the Three-Legged Dog
68. My Thanks To: My Thanks To: All of you for your attention! Cl A d Ch l U i i f T h l Claes Andersson, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden William Wimsatt University of Chicago USA William Wimsatt, University of Chicago, USA. Gilliane Monnier, University of Minnesota, USA. Kimberlee Newman & Mark Moore, University of New Kimberlee Newman & Mark Moore, University of New England, Australia Petr Škrdla, Institute of Archaeology, Czech Republic Daniel Richter, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany