Human Adaptation and Cultural Evolution
As an undergrad, I was captivated by the reconstructions of our human history that came from archaeologists and cultural anthropologists like Leslie White, Julian Stewart, Marvin Harris, and Robert Carneiro. I accepted the proposed evolutionary trajectory of culture types: bands, to tribes, to chiefdoms, to states—functional theory of transformation that invoked technological progress, population pressure, class conflict, and other notions, or as Harris would say, the demo-techno-econo-environmental infrastructure. Anthropology and archaeology are the creators and interpreters of an incredible database – the data of humanity around the world and throughout our time on the earth. In academia, it was only anthropology and archaeology that were therefore asking the big questions of humanity, who are we, where did we come from, and why are we as we are?
When I returned to graduate school in the late 1980s, things had changed. Poststructuralism and postmodernism had shaken the foundations. But in America, much of the tradition of cultural evolution was still alive. I was introduced to Johnson and Earle’s The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State (1987) by Marvin Harris who was now one of my professors at the University of Florida. That book was more sophisticated than the earlier evolution treatments in both theory and structure. It began with a graphic causal model of the evolution of levels of sociocultural integration (family groups, local groups, and regional polities - improved processual versions of the early culture typologies). It then explored each level with detailed case studies from the anthropological or archaeological literature. (For additional approaches to this topic, see the grad student class Evolution and Culture, and some of the ppts of famous cultural evolutionists in the History and Theory graduate class.)
Over the years, two things have led me to expand this class. A book by the archaeologist Ian Morris, Why the West Rules, For Now. And the New Cultural Evolution coming from the Neo-Darwinists in anthropology and psychology. Morris’s book proves that there is still great interest in reconstructing the evolutionary trajectory of humanity into what have traditionally been called stage theories of cultural evolution. His approach is traditional top-down, with causality from the material, energetic, geographic, and ecological context of humanity down to the evidence of archaeologists and anthropologists. The work of the Neo-Darwinists, on the other hand, is bottom-up causality, attempting to explain humanity from the nexus of genes and cultural traits that have evolved for millions and thousands of years, respectively. Each lecture was expanded in later years to add bottom-up to the original top-down causal explanations.
What I have done here is possibly original and theoretically important. The bottom-up new cultural evolutionists rarely conceive of their reconstructions of human past within the context of the stages conceived by the traditional cultural evolutionists. The design of this class, which will step through the recognized stages of cultural evolution (beginning with Foragers below), will require the new cultural evolutionists to fit their models within each stage. You will see that this creates some requirements for the new cultural evolutionists that are unusual. You will also see that the stage theories of the traditional cultural evolutionists are much improved by the requirement to simultaneously theorize bottom-up processes. This was kind of a ‘rough draft’ of doing this, within the limits of existing class lectures. If I ever decide to turn it into a paper, I will be more thorough.
These weekly classes were accompanied by ethnographic films. No anthropology student should pass through a program without a good dose of the amazing ethnographic films that have been produced over the years (listed below).
Lectures
Foundations
Introduction to Human Adaptation and Cultural Evolution
I had fun making this ppt. As I say above in the introduction, I always felt that the subject matter of this class is extremely interesting, captivating, incredible, amazing—the history and prehistory of humanity around the world as it has been reconstructed by archaeologists and anthropologists. For this first week of class, I wanted to do more than just preach that to the students. I wondered how I would introduce this class in America, and pictured many American students just rolling their eyes. “Oh god, this guy’s a true believer.” So I created this ‘cartoon’ lecture of exactly that, a parody or spoof of me introducing this course to an American class of students. Taiwan students are quiet in class, so I played up the loud, interrupting American student stereotype that they probably knew about. I wanted to see if my students could get the humor. I ‘performed’ the ppt with exaggeration, and sometimes infilling with explanation. By the end, what I hoped was that I had gotten their attention and maybe created some curiosity about the course for the weeks to come. The cartoon ‘me’ reappears in a few coming lectures.
Humans in the Holocene, Part 1
Much of this course, beginning with week 6, explores the sequences of culture types / subsistence strategies that form the (top-down) theoretical framework of human adaptation and cultural evolution. Before that begins, however, these next two lectures present a prehistory and history of the entire Holocene period of the last 12,000 years. Most Taiwan students know the stories of the Chinese dynasties, but they may not know the stories of western Eurasia, Africa, or the Americas. If the students do know something of that history, do they know how those timelines line up with Chinese timelines, and why? And last, if they know that history, do they know that in the preceding 8000 years, once domestication began, humans lived as foraging and small farming peoples in family-level groups, local groups, or chiefdoms? This first lecture will set that stage.
Videos: Out of East Africa (5:34, linked), What Happened Before History (10 min, linked)
Humans in the Holocene, Part 2
This second Holocene lecture focuses on the emergence of the archaic states of the world (including the Chinese dynasties). It discusses the features of states, and it distinguishes low-end states from high-end states. It then attempts to answer two very meaningful questions for Asian students of history and prehistory. Why did the methods of empirical science appear in Europe rather than in the more ‘advanced’ societies of the Middle East or China? And second, why were Europeans able to develop powerful tools, weapons, and science that allowed them to dominate the rest of the world? You can download the two world timelines that I created for the class: Full Holocene, and the Last Five Thousand Years.
Video: Crash Course World History: The Agricultural Revolution (11 min, linked)
When I first produced this class I emphasized the top-down causality from the cultural materialists (like Marvin Harris), evolutionists (like Johnson and Earle), and systems ecologists (like HT Odum). In other words, I tried to explain the stage of cultural evolution by looking at the top-down variables in the left column of the diagram below-right (based on Johnson and Earle 2000), population density, environment, technology, settlement, etc. However, influenced by the new cultural evolutionists, I felt the need for a second model of causality, the bottom-up variables of causality in the diagram below-left. These begin with human basic needs and drives. I created my own list of four basic needs—nurturance, security, food, and sex (other anthropologists have proposed their own lists). Each of the stage lectures below, beginning with Foragers, will therefore include both top-down and bottom-up causality. Be aware that the bottom-up causality of the new cultural evolutionists is a complex set of theoretical approaches that I will not explore in this class with much rigor. The New Cultural Evolution class provides a detailed exploration of their bottom-up theorizing.
In this ppt, I explain how bottom-up causality shapes human behavior. According to the new cultural evolutionists, the ‘basic needs’ of any organism are related to ‘reproductive fitness’. Some specific innate mental abilities have been proposed (kin recognition, folk mechanics, etc). But I prefer to look at general innate mental abilities that facilitate reproductive fitness that can be called ‘propensities’, of which there are three, ‘attention’, ‘memory’, and ‘learning’. Evolutionary psychologists explore ‘what we attend to’, ‘what we learn’, and ‘what we remember’, and then ask how those contribute to basic needs and reproductive fitness.
The second focus in the bottom-up diagram bottom-left is the hierarchy of cultural models that we learn in order to meet those basic needs. In the diagram below, the cultural models are explicit knowledge, while the middle schemas and master motives are implicit. This is my model that encodes principles of ‘hierarchy’. There is much more discussion in the class, New Cultural Evolution.
Video: Cree Hunters (58 min)
In this ppt, I explain how top-down causality shapes human societies. I use many systems diagrams to describe the human-environmental systems of aggregate variables mentioned above like population density, environment, technology, etc. Archaeologists and cultural anthropologists have explained how aggregate variables differ in each of the stages of sociocultural evolution listed across the top of the top-down causality diagram below, Family-level Society, Local Group, and Regional Polity. In the weeks of the class below I break Local Groups into Horticulture and Pastoral systems of production, and I break Regional Polities into Chiefdoms, Trade-Based Polities, and Archaic States. I use systems diagrams to decompose sociocultural systems into functional units, artifacts, people, structural units, and communication objects. The energy sources that support each type of sociocultural system are also depicted.
Video: Guns, Germs, and Steel, P1 (60 min)
Foragers, Farmers, and Pastoralists
In this ppt, foragers and family-level groups are described in terms of top-down and bottom-up causality. In short, what we find, looking at the top-down diagram below, is that foragers or family groups typically live in low-densities, in environments with scattered, meager, and unpredictable resources, with technologies for individual procurement of wild foods, living in camps of family and bilateral networks, in territory that is not rigidly divided, in societies without formal warfare but with controlled aggression, with few but important ceremonies for family rituals or ad hoc ceremonies, and without formal leaders.
Bottom-up features of forager lifeways begin with group living. Humans live in groups in which cooperation such as food-sharing is essential (nutrition). Gestural communication and later language evolution would have benefited group living in many ways, including improved defense against predators (security). Forager groups are typically monogamous, which reduces competition for mates (sex). Gift-giving creates prestige, also beneficial in same-sex competition for mates. Gift-giving can also create ties that improves food security (nutrition). Menopause and alloparenting improve child-care (nurturance).
Case studies are the Ju/’hoansi of the Kalahari and the Inuit Eskimo of the Artic Circle.
Video: Hunting with Hadza (21:57)
Video: An Inuit Eskimo Family in 1959 (16:17)
In this ppt, horticultural local groups are described in terms of top-down and bottom-up causality. In short, what we find, looking at the top-down diagram below, is that local groups of horticulturalists and pastoralists typically live in somewhat more dense populations than foragers, in environments of seasonally concentrated resources, using domesticated plants and animals and technologies for capital improvements such as felling trees or building pens for animals, living in more permanent villages, forming corporate kin groups with rights to property, territory that is defended by social groups, exhibiting group aggression such as raiding, defining rights and obligations with group and intergroup ceremonies, and exhibiting incipient leadership.
Bottom-up features of horticulturalists include some polygyny, which may lead to raiding of neighbors to capture additional wives or demonstrate fierceness. Polygyny results in fierce male competition for mates (sex). Fierce male hunter-warriors improve defense (security). Horticulturalists are small farmers with simple tools and family-owned plots (nutrition). Charismatic village leaders who compete in intergroup competitions may gain extra mates (sex).
Case study is the Yanomamo of the Amazon. The old videos below by Chagnon are excellent.
Videos: Yanomamo (25 min)
The Arrow Game
Collecting Firewood
Tapir Distribution
Climbing a Peach Palm
In this ppt, nomadic pastoralism is described in terms of top-down and bottom-up causality. See discussion of Horticulture for both. Other top-down features include nomadic movement of herders and animals. Large complex kinship organizations define rights and privileges (social norms) for property ownership and mating behavior (sex).
Case studies are the Nuer of the Sudan and the Ariaal of Northern Kenya.
Video: The Nuer (12:14)
Video: Crash Course: The Mongols (11:31)
Chiefdoms and Trade-Based Polities
In this ppt, chiefdoms are described in terms of top-down and bottom-up causality. In short, what we find, looking at the top-down diagram below, is that regional polities like chiefdoms, trade-based polities, and archaic states live in much more dense societies, have access to concentrated, and controllable resources and/or trade opportunities, possess major capital technologies such as irrigation systems or harbor facilities, live in a hierarchy of settlements, possess regional institutions and severe inequality, have private ownership of property guaranteed by chiefs or kings, use conquest warfare by military specialists, use ceremonies of legitimization of social hierarchy, and possess hereditary elites, institutionalized leadership, and status rivalry.
Bottom-up features of chiefdoms include prestige goods, warfare, and polygymy, which all impact mating systems (sex) (see Horticulture above). Food production is typically high but unequally shared, with chiefs’ lineages or warriors gaining excess food (nutrition).
Video: Tree of Iron (56 minutes)
This ppt contains the several detailed case studies from around the world. They include the Trobriand Islanders, El Paraiso and Aspero of the North Central Coast of ancient Peru, the Holland Coast of 1500 BP, the Maori of New Zealand, and the Hawaiian Islanders.
Video: Lost World of the Pacific (45:12)
In this ppt, trade-based polities are described in terms of top-down and bottom-up causality. Trade-based polities is an evolutionary stage that is only newly recognized in stage theories by anthropologists in which trade is viewed as a distinct subsistence strategy. This is an important category for Taiwan, SE Asia, and Pacifica in which trade was often a critical component of subsistence.
Case studies are the Srivijaya of Sumatra, and the Ancient polities of the Philippines (in the Appendix).
Video: The Silk Road and Ancient Trade (10:30)
The Cultural Evolution of Taiwan
In this ppt, Taiwan’s prehistory is described in terms of top-down and bottom-up causality. This detailed ppt offers many fascinating top-down causal models related to geography, weather, and food production. As local groups or small chiefdoms, the Taiwan groups had raiding for mates (sex) and for slaves. The story of ancient Taiwan is fascinating, see the long and detailed ppt. This ppt is essentially an outline for my Three Body Problem paper in the Taiwan Prehistory research page.
Video: Traditional Culture of Taiwan (15 mins)
Archaic States with Intensive Agriculture
Intensive Agriculture and Archaic States
In this ppt, archaic states are described in terms of top-down and bottom-up causality. Intensive cereal agriculture is a common top-down theme observed in the early states of the world. Other top-down properties are described above under chiefdoms.
Bottom-up features of archaic states included extreme inequality and competition for mates (sex), unequal distribution of food (nutrition), conquest warfare and a warrior class for expansion and defense (security), state prestige goods for status (sex)
The case study was the Inka State of the Andes.
Video: Mesopotamia (Messages from the Past, 50 minutes)
