Population size predicts technological complexity in Oceania

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.

What drives the evolution of hunter–gatherer subsistence technology? A reanalysis of the risk hypothesis with data from the Pacific Northwest

“…In such situations, other factors may be equally, if not more, important. The results of a recent study by Kline & Boyd [32] are consistent with this idea. Kline & Boyd used data from Polynesian fisher -farmer populations to test the hypothesis that population size influences cultural evolution.…”

“…If risk of resource failure was not the main influence, what was? Based on the findings of Henrich [14] and Kline & Boyd [32], population size is an obvious possibility to investigate. The study reported by Rendell et al [34] suggests that degree of reliance on copying may also be worth considering.…”

‘Captivity bias’ in animal tool use and its implications for the evolution of hominin technology

“…These topics are non-exclusive and non-exhaustive, and they are intended to provide an initially broad set of targets for identifying external influences on tool use. In recent years, researchers have explored the relevance of the number of interacting individuals to the maintenance of traditions, showing that an increase in social contacts can allow for new ideas and techniques to be retained and spread more readily in a population [39][40][41][42]. The principle is not restricted to the human lineage [43], and wild orangutans and chimpanzees have been found to display increased complexity, success and frequency in tool use in increasingly social and higher population density settings [44][45][46].…”

Innovation: an emerging focus from cells to societies

“…-Innovations and population growth are expected to be mutually reinforcing. Features of a population including its size, social interactions and established standards [102,105,106] influence the probability of innovation. Innovation may foster ecological opportunity, which in turn promotes population expansion and adaptive radiation [14,107].…”