Biology and Behaviour in Human Evolution

Abstract

Of the diverse approaches to understanding patterns and processes in human evolution, a focus on the biology of behaviour using principles derived from the non-human primates may have some utility for archaeologists. This article seeks to outline some biologically-based areas that could prove fruitful in exploring the origins of human behaviour within the archaeological record. It attempts to initiate a dialogue between biologists, even with their limited understanding of the problems facing those working with human origins, and archaeologists, in the hope that this dialogue will move beyond a simple reductionist approach towards the goal of integrating behaviour into a more sophisticated biological perspective.

The Darwinian Resurgence and the Cultural Virus Critique

“…Here, like Ingold (1986; and indeed Mithen him-self, I reject any notion of culture being separate from biology, and I would happily fall in line behind the well-established critique of Cartesian philosophers like Sartre (1957), which boasts such names as Heidegger and Foucault (Miller 1993,50). Yet I would nonetheless maintain a very different distinction between genetic and cultural modes of reproduction, within a larger, all-encompassing 'biology' category, as stated elsewhere (Cullen 1991, 219; and see also Lee 1991, 222 for a similar view).…”

“…This is still more common in Sociobiology. Lee (1991), for example, asserts that cultural phenomena can only 'evolve' and are only 'biological' to the extent to which they affect organismic fitness. They are not considered biological phenomena in their own right, evolving in a manner that affects their own cultural fitness.…”

“…This is part of a wider trend in cultural fields of enquiry toward increasing involvement in post-modernist discourse, and the increasing use of neo-Marxist, hermeneutic, critical theory and post-structuralist principles. Over the same time period, however, there has also been a somewhat more gradual resurgence in the use of neo-Darwinian principles in archaeological discourse (Clegg 1978;Cullen 1990;1993a;Dunnell 1980;Fletcher 1977;Foley 1987;Lee 1991;Leonard & Jones 1987;Mithen 1989;O'Brien & Holland 1992;Rindos 1985;Shennan 1989;. This also is part of a wider trend within anthropology and sociology, and in psychology, psychobiology, philosophy and ethology.…”

Living artefact, personal ecosystem, biocultural schizophrenia: a novel synthesis of processual and post-processual thinking

“…The 'living scar' metaphor encapsulates the nature of the hereditary material of culturally reproduced phenomena, the physical changes which occur in the central nervous system each time a religious idea, technological concept, or unconcious habit is learnt. In this sense the notion of viral phenomena effectively removes the biology/culture dichotomy, as authors such as Goldschmidt (1993, 342), Hinde (1991), Ingold (1990) and Lee (1991) have advocated, but without any threat of reducing culture to biology as we know itwithout reducing culture to genes. Artefacts produced from the living neuronal structures which represent technological concepts are not alive in the same literal sense.…”

“…Yet reservations are often expressed about these dichotomies -and by commentators on both sides of the debate. Concern has been expressed about the validity of the 'Post-processualism' label (Renfrew 1993,248;1994, 3); about an overly narrow positivism (Whitley 1992, 58); about the viability of extreme Relativism (Shanks 1992, 33); about the validity of the idea of an objective cognitive archaeology (Hodder 1993, 257); and within anthropology more generally, about the distinction between biology and culture (Goldschmidt 1993, 342;Hinde 1991;Ingold 1990;Lee 1991). Despite such expressions of concern, distinctions of this kind remain in general use in archaeological theory.…”