Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Homology and Phylogenetic Inference in Biological and Material Cultural Evolution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Understanding Cultural Traits

Abstract

Different aspects of human culture are being increasingly used as traits for historical reconstruction using phylogenetic approaches. Languages, texts, artifacts, and even ideas are decomposed into discrete characters that are configured into character state matrices and subjected to formal similarity analyses based on an explicit optimality criterion or a particular clustering algorithm. While much of the discussion concerned patterns of relatedness revealed by these studies, relatively little attention was paid to the very foundational theoretical assumptions at the core of any phylogenetic inference. Given the increasing popularity and success of phylogenetic approaches to human sociocultural evolution, it is imperative to revisit the fundamental concepts of character and homology—both derived from the study of organic evolution—to raise the question of whether an ever-increasing scope of cultural data types is amenable to a unified phylogenetic methodology or it is better accommodated by an epistemologically pluralistic framework. The first view implies that idiosyncrasies in evolutionary processes in biology and human culture are not substantial, so that simple models are a good way to approaching complex real world phenomena. The alternative perspective accents differences in the modes of cultural and biological information transmission, and suggests that these differences need to be accounted for by both theory and practice of historical reconstruction. Focusing on material cultural evolution, the present contribution explores whether ontological differences in the notions of character and homology between the natural and cultural realms are of any practical concern for cultural phylogenetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Connection: Chap. 18 tells the story of how linguists, in the nineteenth century and earlier, were precursors of tree thinking and of many other aspects of evolutionary theory.

  2. 2.

    Connection: For cultural anthropology, see Chaps. 2 and 3. For social sciences, see Chaps. 12 and 13. For archaeology, see Chaps. 15 and 17.

  3. 3.

    Connection: See Chap. 11 for a presentation and commentary of the theory of Cavalli Sforza and Feldman. For further links, see, the Connection in Sect. 11.3.

  4. 4.

    Connection: The relevance of this observation is explained in the introduction of Chap. 3 (and Connection therein).

  5. 5.

    Connection: The reader can refer to Sect. 18.3.5 to have an example of how phylogenetic analysis is applied to the study of language.

  6. 6.

    Connection: Foucault’s ‘genealogical’ analysis of deep and pervasive ideas and theories is also referred to in Chaps. 5 and 10.

  7. 7.

    Connection: The relationship between Darwin and the character notion is also referred to in Sect. 11.2. Darwin’s thoughts, as expressed in his writings, are protagonist also of Sects. 13.3, 18.2, 20.3, and 20.4.

  8. 8.

    Connection: See Chap. 15 for a more comprehensive analysis.

  9. 9.

    Connection: There are, however, ‘bodies of theory’ sensu Chap. 11.

  10. 10.

    Connection: See Chap. 7 for some neuroscientific evidence concerning the evocation of ‘cultural syndromes’. Chapters 2, 20, and 21 problematize the relationship between brain and culture.

  11. 11.

    Connection: The reader can see Sect. 12.4 to have an idea of how this issue is treated in the specific field of economics, or to Sect. 17.5 to see how this perspective is used for the analysis of technological changes.

  12. 12.

    Connection: Some of the implications of this complexity for archeological methodology are presented in Chap. 15.

  13. 13.

    Connection: For more reflections on the concept of style see Chaps. 10 and 19.

  14. 14.

    Connection: Sect. 10.2 articulates, from a philosophical point of view, the non-separability of cultural objects from the cultural spaces and power relations that are the source of their value. In Chap. 3 we also learn that artifacts can be involved in cultural processes of identity production.

  15. 15.

    Connection: Compare with the evolutionary perspective on technological change illustrated in Chap. 17.

  16. 16.

    Connection: Chap. 11 comments on Richerson and Boyd’s approach.

References

  • Adams, W. Y., & Adams, E. W. (1991). Archaeological typology and practical reality: A dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity, 28, 217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1965). Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American Antiquity, 31, 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, M. (2000). A well-disposed social anthropologist’s problem with memes. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science (pp. 189–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blute, M. (2010). Darwinian sociocultural evolution: Solutions to dilemmas in cultural and social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, W. J. (1973). Philosophical foundations of classical evolutionary classification. Systematic Biology, 22, 375–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, W. J. (1977). Foundations and methods in evolutionary classification. In M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody, & B. M. Hecht (Eds.), Major patterns in vertebrate evolution (pp. 851–895). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., Borgerhoff Mulder, W. M., & Durham, W. H. (1997). Are cultural phylogenies possible? In P. Weingart, P. J. Richerson, S. D. Mitchell, & S. Maasen (Eds.), Human by nature, between biology and the social sciences (pp. 355–386). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reprinted in R. Boyd & P. J. Richerson. (2005). The origin and evolution of cultures (pp. 310–336). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, A. V. Z. (2000). Evolution is not a necessary assumption of cladistics. Cladistics, 16, 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower, A. V. Z., & Schawaroch, V. (1996). Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics, 12, 265–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. C. (1967). Major aspects of the interrelationship of archaeology and ethnology. Current Anthropology, 8, 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, E. E. (2001). Style, function, and systematic empiricism: The conflation of process and pattern. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: Conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 183–202). Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colless, D. H. (1985). On “character” and related terms. Systematic Zoology, 34, 229–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J. (1981). The use of functional and adaptive criteria in phylogenetic systematics. American Zoologist, 21, 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pinna, M. C. C. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics, 7, 367–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity, 43, 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. (2002). Hierarchy: Theory and praxis in evolutionary biology. In R. E. Auxier & L. E. Hahn (Eds.), The philosophy of Marjorie Grene. With reply by Marjorie Grene (pp. 315–334). Peru: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. (2006). Foreword. In C. P. Lipo, M. J. O’Brien, M. Collard, & S. J. Shennan (Eds.), Mapping our ancestors: Phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory (pp. xiii–xvi). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. (2009). Material cultural macroevolution. In A. M. Prentiss, I. Kuijt, & J. C. Chatters (Eds.), Macroevolution in human prehistory: Evolutionary theory and processual archaeology (pp. 297–316). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N., & Cracraft, J. (1980). Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process: Method and theory in comparative biology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N., & Grene, M. (1992). Interactions: The biological context of social systems. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N., & Salthe, S. N. (1984). Hierarchy and evolution. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 1, 184–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1967). The meaning of relationship and taxonomic procedure. Systematic Zoology, 16, 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1970). Methods for computing Wagner trees. Systematic Zoology, 19, 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S., Kluge, A. G., & Eckardt, M. J. (1970). A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Zoology, 19, 172–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. M. (1971). Toward defining the course of evolution: Minimum change for a specific tree topology. Systematic Biology, 20, 406–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Paris: Editions Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenstein, J. V., Pickett, K. M., Simmons, M. P., & Wenzel, J. W. (2003). From basepairs to birdsongs: Phylogenetic data in the age of genomics. Cladistics, 19, 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D., & Kluge, A. G. (1994). A consideration of epistemology in systematic biology, with special reference to species. Cladistics, 10, 259–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, J. C. (1960). The type-variety method of ceramic classification as an indicator of cultural phenomena. American Antiquity, 25, 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, P. Z., & DeSalle, R. (2000). Phylogenetic species, nested hierarchies, and character fixation. Cladistics, 16, 364–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorodtsov, V. A. (1908). Pervobytnaya arkheologiya: kurs lektsij. Moskva: Pechatnya Snegerevskoj.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorodtsov, V. A. (1927). Tipologichesky metod v arkheologii. Ryazan: Obschestvo Issledovatelej Ryazanskogo Kraya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, T., & Kluge, A. G. (2004). Transformation series as an ideographic character concept. Cladistics, 20, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. D., Greenhill, S. J., & Ross, R. M. (2007). The pleasures and perils of darwinizing culture (with phylogenies). Biological Theory, 2, 360–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1965). Phylogenetic systematics. Annual Review of Entomology, 10, 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C. J., & Windram, H. F. (2011). Phylomemetics-evolutionary analysis beyond the gene. PLoS Biology, 9, e1001069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurt, T. D., & Rakita, G. F. M. (Eds.). (2001). Style and function: Conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology. Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurt, T. D., VanPool, T. L., Rakita, G. F. M., & Leonard, R. D. (2001). Explaining the co-occurrence of traits in the archaeological record: A further consideration of replicative success. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: Conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 51–67). Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek, A. J. (1976). Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. In C. E. Cleland (Ed.), Cultural change and continuity. Essays in honor of James Bennett Griffin (pp. 19–34). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klejn, L. S. (1991). Archeologicheskaya tipologiya. Leningrad: Akademiya Nauk SSSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G. (2003a). On the deduction of species relationships: A précis. Cladistics, 19, 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G. (2003b). The repugnant and the mature: Atemporal similarity and historical identity in phylogenetic inference. Cladistics, 19, 356–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L. (1909). Archaeology of California. In F. Boas (Ed.), Putnam anniversary volume: Anthropological essays presented to Frederic Ward Putnam in honor of his seventieth birthday, April 16, 1909, by his friends and associates (pp. 1–42). New York: G.E. Stechert & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L. (1919). On the principle of order in civilization as exemplified by changes of fashion. American Anthropologist, 21, 235–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L. (1931). Historical reconstruction of culture growths and organic evolution. American Anthropologist, 33, 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L. (1943). Structure, function and pattern in biology and anthropology. The Scientific Monthly, 56, 105–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L. (1957). Style and civilizations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankester, E. R. (1870a). II.—On the use of the term homology in modern zoology, and the distinction between homogenetic and homoplastic agreements. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6, 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankester, E. R. (1870b). XXXII.—On the use of the term “Homology”. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6, 342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebedev, G. S. (1979). Arkheologichesky tip kak sistema priznakov. In L. S. Klejn (Ed.), Tipy v kulture: metodologicheskiye problemy klassifikatsii, tipologii i sistematiki (pp. 74–88). Leningrad: Leningradsky Gosudarstvenny Universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss, C. (1952). Race and history. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipo, C. P. (2006). The resolution of cultural phylogenies using graphs. In C. P. Lipo, M. J. O’Brien, M. Collard, & S. J. Shennan (Eds.), Mapping our ancestors: Phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory (pp. 89–107). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipo, C. P., & Madsen, M. (2001). Neutrality, “‘Style’”, and drift: Building methods for studying cultural transmission in the archaeological record. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: Conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 91–118). Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (2005). Genes, mind, and culture: The coevolutionary process (25 anniversaryth ed.). Hackensack: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, R. L. (2001). Culture historical and biological approaches to identifying homologous traits. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: Conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 69–89). Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, R., & Holden, C. J. (2005). A phylogenetic approach to cultural evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 116–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmer, M. P. (1962). Jungneolithische Studien. Bonn: R. Habelt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, B. D. (2005). The logic of the data matrix in phylogenetic analysis. In V. A. Albert (Ed.), Parsimony, phylogeny, and genomics (pp. 57–70). Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moberg, C. (1970). Comments on analytical archaeology: Archaeograms and historical entities. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 3, 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, N. A. (1986). A rational basis for a priori character weighting. Systematic Zoology, 35, 110–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, H. (2001). Differential persistence of what? The scale of selection issue in evolutionary archaeology. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: Conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 25–40). Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G. J., & Platnick, N. I. (1981). Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neustupný, E. (1958). Evolution in archaeology. Epitymbion Roman Haken (pp. 4–8). Prague: Societas Archaeologica Bohemoslovenica.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., & Leonard, R. D. (2001). Style and function: An introduction. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: Conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 1–23). Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Glover, D. S., & Darwent, J. (2003). Cladistics and archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., & Leonard, R. D. (1998). Basic incompatibilities between evolutionary and behavioral archaeology. American Antiquity, 63, 485–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, R. J. (1988). Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology, 37, 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R. (1843). Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons. London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C. (1982). Morphological characters and homology. In K. A. Joysey & A. E. Friday (Eds.), Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction (pp. 21–74). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C. (1988). Homology in classical and molecular biology. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 5, 603–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platnick, N. I. (1978). Classifications, historical narratives, and hypotheses. Systematic Zoology, 27, 365–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platnick, N. I. (1979). Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Systematic Biology, 28, 537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocklington, R. (2006). What is a culturally transmitted unit, and how do we find one? In C. P. Lipo, M. J. O’Brien, M. Collard, & S. J. Shennan (Eds.), Mapping our ancestors: Phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory (pp. 19–31). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendini, L. (2001). Species or supraspecific taxa as terminals in cladistic analysis? Groundplans versus exemplars revisited. Systematic Biology, 50, 290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahkonen, C. (1989). The kantele traditions of Finland. Bloomington: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remane, A. (1952). Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichendenAnatomie und der Phylogenetik. Leipzig: Geest & Portig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, I. (1960). The classification of artifacts in archaeology. American Antiquity, 25, 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, I. (1972). Introduction to prehistory: A systematic approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1973). Style, function and artifact variability in palaeolithic assemblages. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The explanation of culture change: Models in prehistory (pp. 317–325). London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salthe, S. N. (1985). Evolving hierarchical systems: Their structure and representation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, S. K. (2007). Evolutionism and its critics: Deconstructing and reconstructing an evolutionary interpretation of human society. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankoff, D., & Rousseau, P. (1975). Locating the vertices of a Steiner tree in arbitrary space. Mathematical Programming, 9, 240–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Ram, N. R. (1990). Transformed cladistics, taxonomy, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sher, Y. A. (1970). Intuitsiya i logika v arkheologicheskom issledovanii (f formalizatsii tipologicheskogo metoda arkheologii). In B. A. Kolchin & Y. A. Sher (Eds.), Statistiko-kombinatornye metody v arkheologii (pp. 8–24). Moskva: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. M. (1967). Biological similarities and homologies. Systematic Zoology, 16, 101–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. C. (1953). [Review of James A. Ford’s] “Measurements of some prehistoric design developments in the Southeastern States”. American Anthropologist, 55, 588–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, A. C. (1960). The dimensions of archaeology. In G. E. Dole & R. L. Carneiro (Eds.), Essays in the science of culture in honor of Leslie A. White: In celebration of his sixtieth birthday and his thirtieth year of teaching at the University of Michigan (pp. 437–456). New York: Crowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, J., Jordan, P., & Cochrane, E. (2010). Evolutionary approaches to cultural and linguistic diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 3781–3785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steward, J. H. (1929). Diffusion and independent invention: A critique of logic. American Anthropologist, 31, 491–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tëmkin, I. (2004). Evolution of the Baltic psaltery: A case for phyloorganology? The Galpin Society Journal, 57, 219–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tëmkin, I., & Eldredge, N. (2007). Phylogenetics and material cultural evolution. Current Anthropology, 48, 146–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tëmkin, I., & Eldredge, N. (2015). Networks and hierarchies: Approaching complexity in evolutionary theory. In E. Serrelli & N. Gontier (Eds.), Macroevolution: Explanation, interpretation and evidence (pp. 183–226). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tõnurist, I. V. (1977). Gde vo gusli zvonili? (Opyt kartografirovaniya narodnykh muzykalnykh instrumentov) [Ethnographical studies of northwestern USSR: traditions and culture of the village]. Etnograficheskie issledovaniya Severo-Zapada SSSR: traditsii i kul’tura sel’skogo naselenija. Leningrad, pp. 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vansina, J. (1990). Paths in the rainforests: Toward a history of political tradition in equatorial Africa. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veloz, T., Tëmkin, I., & Gabora, L. (2012). A conceptual network-based approach to inferring cultural phylogenies. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2487–2492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. P. (1999). A research programme for testing the biological homology concept. In G. R. Bock & G. Cardew (Eds.), Homology (pp. 125–134). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. P. (Ed.). (2001). The character concept in evolutionary biology. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. P., & Stadler, P. F. (2003). Quasi-independence, homology and the unity of type: A topological theory of characters. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 220, 505–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S. A., & Redman, C. L. (1971). Explanation in archeology: An explicitly scientific approach. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O. (1975). Karl R. Popper, systematics and classification: A reply to Walter Bock and other evolutionary taxonomists. Systematic Zoology, 24, 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willey, G. R. (1953). Archaeological theories and interpretation: New world. In A. L. Kroeber (Ed.), Anthropology today (pp. 361–385). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA

    Ilya Tëmkin

  2. Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale, VA, USA

    Ilya Tëmkin

Authors
  1. Ilya Tëmkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilya Tëmkin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Paris School of Economics, Paris, France

    Fabrizio Panebianco

  2. CISEPS-CenterforInterdisciplinaryStudies, University of Milano - Bicocca, Milano, Italy

    Emanuele Serrelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tëmkin, I. (2016). Homology and Phylogenetic Inference in Biological and Material Cultural Evolution. In: Panebianco, F., Serrelli, E. (eds) Understanding Cultural Traits. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24349-8_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24349-8_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24347-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24349-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation