ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018
Current and potential roles of archaeology in the development of cultural evolutionary theory.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pre-agricultural intensification of plant use in Pleistocene Sri Lankan rainforests.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Statistical signals of copying are robust to time- and space-averaging.Evolutionary human sciences · 2023Article
- Reconstructing social networks of Late Glacial and Holocene hunter-gatherers to understand cultural evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Settlement, environment, and climate change in SW Anatolia: Dynamics of regional variation and the end of Antiquity.PloS one · 2022Article
- A multilevel analytical framework for studying cultural evolution in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2020Review
- Bridging cultural gaps: interdisciplinary studies in human cultural evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Archaeology has much to contribute to the study of cultural evolution. Empirical data at archaeological timescales are uniquely well suited to tracking rates of cultural change, detecting phylogenetic signals among groups of artefacts, and recognizing long-run effects of distinct cultural transmission mechanisms. Nonetheless, these are still relatively infrequent subjects of archaeological analysis and archaeology's potential to help advance our understanding of cultural evolution has thus far been largely unrealized. Cultural evolutionary models developed in other fields have been used to interpret patterns identified in archaeological records, which in turn provides independent tests of these models' predictions, as demonstrated here through a study of late Prehistoric stone projectile points from the US Southwest. These tests may not be straightforward, though, because archaeological data are complex, often representing events aggregated over many years (or centuries or millennia), while processes thought to drive cultural evolution (e.g. biased learning) operate on much shorter timescales. To fulfil archaeology's potential, we should continue to develop models specifically tailored to archaeological circumstances, and explore ways to incorporate the rich contextual data produced by archaeological research.This article is part of the theme issue 'Bridging cultural gaps: interdisciplinary studies in human cultural evolution'.
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.