Population size predicts technological complexity in Oceania

Michelle A. Kline, Robert Boyd

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

198 Scopus citations

Abstract

Much human adaptation depends on the gradual accumulation of culturally transmitted knowledge and technology. Recent models of this process predict that large, well-connected populations will have more diverse and complex tool kits than small, isolated populations. While several examples of the loss of technology in small populations are consistent with this prediction, it found no support in two systematic quantitative tests. Both studies were based on data from continental populations in which contact rates were not available, and therefore these studies do not provide a test of the models. Here, we show that in Oceania, around the time of early European contact, islands with small populations had less complicated marine foraging technology. This finding suggests that explanations of existing cultural variation based on optimality models alone are incomplete because demography plays an important role in generating cumulative cultural adaptation. It also indicates that hominin populations with similar cognitive abilities may leave very different archaeological records, a conclusion that has important implications for our understanding of the origin of anatomically modern humans and their evolved psychology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2559-2564
Number of pages6
JournalProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Volume277
Issue number1693
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 22 2010
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Cultural evolution
  • Demography
  • Technological complexity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Immunology and Microbiology(all)
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Population size predicts technological complexity in Oceania'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this