ArticleRoyal Society open science2017
The evolution of an ancient technology.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrasting modes of cultural evolution: Kra-Dai languages and weaving technologies.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025Article
- Cultural evolution: Where we have been and where we are going (maybe).Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- A macroevolutionary analysis of European Late Upper Palaeolithic stone tool shape using a Bayesian phylodynamic framework.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Global musical diversity is largely independent of linguistic and genetic histories.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Pathways to cultural adaptation: the coevolution of cumulative culture and social networks.Evolutionary human sciences · 2023Article
- No universals in the cultural evolution of kinship terminology.Evolutionary human sciences · 2020Article
- The human life history is adapted to exploit the adaptive advantages of culture.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate pattern and process in the transmission of traditional weaving cultures in East and Southeast Asia. Our investigation covers a range of scales, from the experiences of individual weavers ('micro') to the broad-scale patterns of loom technologies across the region ('macro'). Using published sources, we build an empirical model of cultural transmission (encompassing individual weavers, the household and the community), focussing on where cultural information resides and how it is replicated and how transmission errors are detected and eliminated. We compare this model with macro-level outcomes in the form of a new dataset of weaving loom technologies across a broad area of East and Southeast Asia. The lineages of technologies that we have uncovered display evidence for branching, hybridization (reticulation), stasis in some lineages, rapid change in others and the coexistence of both simple and complex forms. There are some striking parallels with biological evolution and information theory. There is sufficient detail and resolution in our findings to enable us to begin to critique theoretical models and assumptions that have been produced during the last few decades to describe the evolution of culture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.