ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023
Can models of evolutionary transition clarify the debates over the Neolithic Revolution?
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Birds may represent a useful animal model for studying human mental disorders.Acta neuropsychiatrica · 2025Review
- Can sociality facilitate learning of complex tasks? Lessons from bees and flowers.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Human socio-cultural evolution in light of evolutionary transitions: introduction to the theme issue.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Scaffolding individuality: coordination, cooperation, collaboration and community.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
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
The 'Neolithic Revolution,' sometimes referred to as the emergence of agriculture at its earliest in the southern Levant, is the most significant shift in human history, shaping the world we live in today. Yet, after 100 years of study, its major cause, tempo (gradual or revolutionary), and impact of human intentionality remain disputed. Here, we examine the research potential of an evolutionary transition in individuality (ETI) to clarify this dramatic shift. Applying an ETI research perspective reveals how different causes and conditions lead to the same result, enabling a holistic view rather than a reduction of 'Neolithic' to 'agriculture,' or to one major climatic condition, inheritance system or standard evolutionary model, thus allowing us to clarify and bypass some of these heated, unresolved disputes. Additionally, unlike current archaeological emphasis on 'where,' 'when,' 'why' and 'how' questions, the ETI perspective offers a productive path for resolving a fundamental preliminary anomaly: why and how could the Neolithic lifeway evolve at all, given the selfish interest of individuals in a hunter-gatherer group? We do not intend to solve the shift to Neolithic lifeways, only to offer a fresh lens for examining it, emphasizing the relevance of tracking within and between group differences. This article is part of the theme issue 'Human socio-cultural evolution in light of evolutionary transitions'.
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.