Garnder, A., Lake, M. and Sommer, U. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory, 2014
Studying human evolution means getting to grips with the fundamental question of what it actually... more Studying human evolution means getting to grips with the fundamental question of what it actually means to be ‘human’. Is humanity best defined by our genes, our physical biology, or our behaviour, or some combination of all three? Multiple lines of evidence are available from a range of disciplines, including archaeogenetics, biological anthropology, and archaeology, but each also has its weaknesses, and different disciplines often work from very different definitions of ‘human’ which are inevitably informed by—and impact on—broader cultural ideas about human nature and origins. This chapter discusses the ways in which archaeologists and anthropologists can integrate these often conflicting perspectives on what humans and our ancestors are, what we do and why, into a coherent account of how and why we ‘became human’.
Uploads
Papers by Fiona Coward
The correlates of large brains include not only altered subsistence and life-history strategies to meet associated energetic costs, but also on macro- and micro-scale structural adaptations required to meet increased processing costs which mean that larger brains are of necessity more highly interconnected brains, with higher degrees of folding o the neocortex (gyrification) and higher ratios of myelinated connections between neurons (white matter) to neurons themselves (grey matter). Here we argue that the combination of these evolutionary trends underpins the complexity of human behaviour, as the neural circuits involved in cognitive mechanisms such as the mirror neuron system (the system governing motor emulation and imitation) and theory of mind (fundamental in social cognition) mature only slowly, and require considerable socially-scaffolded experience to develop to their full potential. These abilities are likely to be fundamental in characteristically human behaviours such as the cultural transmission of complex forms of tool manufacture and use attested to in the archaeological record, and their elaborated modern human forms, we argue, are possible only in the context of the evolution of relatively slower trajectories of brain growth and hence longer periods during which the growing brain can be influenced by experience among modern humans relative to other primates.
Here we review some of the differences in ontogenetic brain development between humans and other primates, and compare the rates and trajectories of neural development between ourselves and our closest living relatives the chimpanzees to
2
suggest that the human pattern of expanded periods of growth coupled with slower trajectories of neural development is likely to have been of huge significance during hominin evolution. In addition, we discuss fossil and archaeological proxies which might allow the reconstruction of evolutionary patterns of development, suggesting that it is only post-Homo erectus and specifically among Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis populations that developmental patterns approximate those of modern humans, arguing for a similar – but not identical – role for socially-scaffolded learning of complex technical skills as among modern groups in these species.
Paleolithic, particularly on the changing morphology of stone tools. However, this is only one result of a constellation
of innovative processes that occur both between and within hominin groups evolving towards the unique
modern human lifeway. The adaptations scaffolding such innovative processes include not only the cognitive
mechanisms and biological and skeletal adaptations that underpin technological innovation and cultural transmission,
but also the behavioral strategies pursued by hominin groups and individuals. In this paper, we draw
from a Social Brain approach to argue that it is hominins’ innovative social and group-oriented behavioral strategies
that drive technological developments and distinguish us from other primates. A variety of models and methodologies
developed to investigate the interrelationships between the crucial ecological, social, and behavioral
variables are reviewed here for an archaeological audience in order to stimulate research to test and refine these
models with archaeological data.
human groups relationships persist over much greater temporal and spatial scales, often inthe physical absence of one or other of the individuals themselves. This paper asks how
such individual, face-to-face social interactions were ‘scaled up’ during human evolution to the regional and global networks characteristic of our modern societies. One recentsuggestion has been that a radical change in human sociality occurred with the shift to sedentary and agricultural societies in the early Neolithic. This paper presents the results of a focused study of the long term development of regional social networks in the Near
East, using the distribution of different forms of material culture as a proxy for the social relationships that underpinned processes of trade, exchange and the dissemination of
material culture practices. Long-term developments in social networks in the Near East are assessed in robust quantitative terms and their implications for the evolution of largescale
human societies discussed.
embodiment precedes language in the archaeological record. While arguments continue as to both the cognitive abilities that underpin symbolism and the necessary and sufficient
evidence for the identification of symbolic material culture in the archaeological record, a symbolic approach will inevitably restrict the available data to sapiens or even to literate
societies. However, a focus on material culture as material metaphor allows consideration of the ways in which even the very earliest archaeological record reflects hominins’ embodied, distributed relationships with heterogeneous forms of agent, as will be demonstrated by two case studies.
The correlates of large brains include not only altered subsistence and life-history strategies to meet associated energetic costs, but also on macro- and micro-scale structural adaptations required to meet increased processing costs which mean that larger brains are of necessity more highly interconnected brains, with higher degrees of folding o the neocortex (gyrification) and higher ratios of myelinated connections between neurons (white matter) to neurons themselves (grey matter). Here we argue that the combination of these evolutionary trends underpins the complexity of human behaviour, as the neural circuits involved in cognitive mechanisms such as the mirror neuron system (the system governing motor emulation and imitation) and theory of mind (fundamental in social cognition) mature only slowly, and require considerable socially-scaffolded experience to develop to their full potential. These abilities are likely to be fundamental in characteristically human behaviours such as the cultural transmission of complex forms of tool manufacture and use attested to in the archaeological record, and their elaborated modern human forms, we argue, are possible only in the context of the evolution of relatively slower trajectories of brain growth and hence longer periods during which the growing brain can be influenced by experience among modern humans relative to other primates.
Here we review some of the differences in ontogenetic brain development between humans and other primates, and compare the rates and trajectories of neural development between ourselves and our closest living relatives the chimpanzees to
2
suggest that the human pattern of expanded periods of growth coupled with slower trajectories of neural development is likely to have been of huge significance during hominin evolution. In addition, we discuss fossil and archaeological proxies which might allow the reconstruction of evolutionary patterns of development, suggesting that it is only post-Homo erectus and specifically among Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis populations that developmental patterns approximate those of modern humans, arguing for a similar – but not identical – role for socially-scaffolded learning of complex technical skills as among modern groups in these species.
Paleolithic, particularly on the changing morphology of stone tools. However, this is only one result of a constellation
of innovative processes that occur both between and within hominin groups evolving towards the unique
modern human lifeway. The adaptations scaffolding such innovative processes include not only the cognitive
mechanisms and biological and skeletal adaptations that underpin technological innovation and cultural transmission,
but also the behavioral strategies pursued by hominin groups and individuals. In this paper, we draw
from a Social Brain approach to argue that it is hominins’ innovative social and group-oriented behavioral strategies
that drive technological developments and distinguish us from other primates. A variety of models and methodologies
developed to investigate the interrelationships between the crucial ecological, social, and behavioral
variables are reviewed here for an archaeological audience in order to stimulate research to test and refine these
models with archaeological data.
human groups relationships persist over much greater temporal and spatial scales, often inthe physical absence of one or other of the individuals themselves. This paper asks how
such individual, face-to-face social interactions were ‘scaled up’ during human evolution to the regional and global networks characteristic of our modern societies. One recentsuggestion has been that a radical change in human sociality occurred with the shift to sedentary and agricultural societies in the early Neolithic. This paper presents the results of a focused study of the long term development of regional social networks in the Near
East, using the distribution of different forms of material culture as a proxy for the social relationships that underpinned processes of trade, exchange and the dissemination of
material culture practices. Long-term developments in social networks in the Near East are assessed in robust quantitative terms and their implications for the evolution of largescale
human societies discussed.
embodiment precedes language in the archaeological record. While arguments continue as to both the cognitive abilities that underpin symbolism and the necessary and sufficient
evidence for the identification of symbolic material culture in the archaeological record, a symbolic approach will inevitably restrict the available data to sapiens or even to literate
societies. However, a focus on material culture as material metaphor allows consideration of the ways in which even the very earliest archaeological record reflects hominins’ embodied, distributed relationships with heterogeneous forms of agent, as will be demonstrated by two case studies.
Practical Networks Workshop, August 22nd-23rd 2017
Deadline call for papers: May 21st 2017
Notification of acceptance: May 29th 2017
Five years have passed since the first Connected Past conference (Southampton 2012) brought together scholars working in archaeology, history, physics, mathematics and computer science to discuss how network methods, models and thinking might be used to enhance our understanding of the human past. Much has happened in these intervening years: applications of network analysis have expanded rapidly; a number of collected volumes dealing explicitly with network analysis of the past have been published (e.g. The Connected Past, OUP 2016; Special Issue of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2015; Network Analysis in Archaeology, OUP 2013); and several dedicated groups of scholars are thriving, including the Connected Past itself which hosted conferences in Paris and London, but also the Historical Network Research group, Res-Hist and others. The Connected Past 2017 will provide an opportunity to take stock of the developments of the past five years and to discuss the future of network research in archaeology and history. How will new network models, methods and thinking shape the ways we study the past?
We welcome submissions of abstracts that address the challenges posed by the use of or apply network approaches in historical/archaeological research contexts, welcoming case studies drawn from all periods and places. Topics might include, but are not limited to:
● Missing and incomplete data in archaeological and historical networks
● Networks, space and place
● Network change over time
● What kinds of data can archaeologists and historians use to reconstruct past networks and what kinds of issues ensue?
● Categories in the past vs categories in our analysis: etic or emic, pre-determined or emergent?
● Formal network analysis vs qualitative network approaches: pros, cons, potential, limitations
Please submit your abstract limited to 250 words before midnight (GMT) of May 21st 2017 to [email protected]
NB. If there is sufficient demand, we will endeavour to organise a crêche for delegates’ children (under 3). An extra fee may be payable for this, although fee-waivers may be available in certain circumstances. Further details would be provided in due course. In order to allow us to assess demand, please let us know in advance if this would be useful for you.
The often large and complex datasets common in archaeology and history have stimulated the use of various techniques from network analysis as a tool for exploring these data, and such applications are already proving to be innovative and fruitful approaches to topics such as the transmission of ideas and technologies, the movements of people, objects and belief systems, interregional interactions and maritime connectivity. This growing interest is reflected in the increasing number of conferences on network analysis we have seen in these disciplines, including ‘Networks in the Greek World’ in Rethymnon, Crete (2006), ‘Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World’ held in Dublin (2009), a session at the Society for American Archaeology (2010), and a session at Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) Beijing (2011).
These meetings have resulted in original archaeological and historical applications of network analysis published in collected volumes and journal papers, and clearly attest to its potential. However, the adoption of network techniques within archaeology and history remains surprisingly limited. Existing applications have not yet tapped into the full potential of a network perspective. The nature of historical and archaeological data as indirect and fundamentally fragmentary reflections of past dynamic processes certainly presents network analysts with a challenge, but one that promises to allow archaeologists and historians to make valuable contributions to the “new” science of networks, especially as regards the exploration of temporal change in networks over supra-generational and potentially evolutionary timeframes.
This conference will provide a platform for pioneering, multidisciplinary collaborative work in the field of network science. It aims to bring together the disparate international community of scholars working to develop network-based approaches and their application to the past and to provide a forum for the discussion of the most recent applications of the techniques, in order to ask what has been successful or unsuccessful, to foster cross-disciplinary collaborations and cooperation, and to stimulate debate about the application of network science within the disciplines of archaeology and history in particular, but also more broadly across the entire field.
and history has been the adoption of new perspectives which
see human societies in the past—as in the present—as made up of networks of interlinked individuals. This view of people as always connected through physical and conceptual networks along which resources, information, and disease flow, requires archaeologists and historians to use new methods to understand how these networks form, function, and change over time. The Connected Past provides a constructive methodological and theoretical critique of the growth in research applying network perspectives in archaeology and
history, and considers the unique challenges presented by datasets in these disciplines, including the fragmentary and material nature of such data and the functioning and change of social processes over long timespans. An international and multidisciplinary range of scholars debate both the rationale and practicalities of applying network methodologies, addressing the merits and drawbacks of specific techniques of analysis for a range of datasets and research questions, and demonstrating their approaches with concrete case studies and detailed illustrations. As well as revealing the valuable contributions archaeologists and historians can make to network science, the volume represents a crucial step towards the development of best practice in the field, especially in exploring the interactions between social and material elements of networks, and long-term network evolution.