Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37588545›Full record

ReviewEvolutionary human sciences2021

Veiled agency? Children, innovation and the archaeological record.

Kim Sterelny

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evolutionary human sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Archaeological evidence for thinking about possibilities in hominin evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kim SterelnySchool of Philosophy, ANU, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3159-6698

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children and subadults were obviously part of ancient human communities, and almost certainly, in important ways their activities were distinctive; they did not routinely act like scaled down adults. Yet their presence was quite cryptic, but not entirely hidden. Their lives and acts did leave traces, although these tend to be be fragile, ambiguous and fast-fading. In addition to pursuing the methodological issues posed by the detection of subadult lives, this special issue raises important questions about the role of children, and their willingness to experiment and play, on innovation. It is true that ethnographically known forager children are almost certainly more autonomous, experimental and adventurous than WEIRD children, and this was probably true of the young foragers of the early Holocene and late Pleistocene too. Their greater willingness to experiment probably fuelled a supply of variation, and perhaps occasionally adaptation as well, especially finding new uses for existing materials. Much more certainly, innovations tend to be noted, taken up and spread by adolescents. They were vectors of change, even if perhaps only rarely initiators of change.

Indexed as

archaeology of childrenchildren and innovationForager childhoodforager innovationforager social learning

Identifiers

PMID37588545
PMCPMC10427270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.