Human Evolution

, Volume 20, Issue 2–3, pp 123–135 | Cite as

The genetic implications of biological and cultural structuring processes during hominid evolution

  • Read D. W. 
Article

Abstract

Human populations are genetically structured through biological reproduction but reproduction is socially structured through culturally expressed systems of marriage, hence the need to take into account the cultural dimension of human societies when considering the genetic structure of modern human populations. The interplay between these two structuring processes is examined through the implications of a biologically based primate form of social organization versus a culturally based foraging form of social organization for an anomaly between the genetic differentiation implied by micro-evolutionary genetic models versus the species-wide pattern of morphological change implied by hominid fossil evidence. Simulation is used to derive the pattern for genetic differentiation at the level of the living group for both forms of social organization and a competition model is added to the genetic model as a way to resolve the anomaly. The importance of the competition model for the transition from a biologically based to a culturally based form of social organization is discussed.

Keywords

simulation genetic structure cultural rules hominid evolution primates foraging societies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bean L.J. 1974.Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  2. Cavalli-Sforza L.L. and Bodmer W.F. 1971The Genetics of Human Populations. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.Google Scholar
  3. Gould S.J. 1982. The Meaning of Punctual Equilibrium and Its Role in Validating a Hierarchical Approach to Measure Evolution. InPerspectives on Evolution, R. Milkman, ed. Sinauer Associates, Pub., Sunderland, Mass. Pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
  4. Gould S.J. and Lewontin R. 1978. The Spandrels of San Marcos and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Paradigm.Proceeding of the Royal Society of London 205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Levins R. 1966. The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology.American Scientist 54: 421–431.Google Scholar
  6. Levi-Strauss C. 1969.The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Beacon Press, 80ston.Google Scholar
  7. Lewontin R. 1974.The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Lewontin R. 1980. Adaptation. FromThe Encyclopedia Einardi. Milan.Google Scholar
  9. Maderson P.F.A., Alberch P., Goodwin B.C., Gould S.J., Hoffman A., Murray J.D., Raup D.M., de Rieqles A., Seilacher A., Wagner G.P. and Wake D.B. 1982. The Role of Development in Macroevolutionary Change: Group Report. InEvolution and Development, J. T. Bonner, ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Pp. 279–312.Google Scholar
  10. Pielou E.C. 1969.An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Read D. 1975. Hominid Teeth and Their Relationship to Hominid Phylogeny.AJPA 42: 105–125.Google Scholar
  12. Read D. 1984. From Multivariate Statistics to Natural Selection: A Reanalysis of the Plio/Pleistocene Hominid Dental Material. InMultivariate Statistical Methods in Physical Anthropology, G. N. van Vark and W. W. Howells, eds. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Amsterdam. Pp. 377–413.Google Scholar
  13. Read D. 1987. Foraging society organization: A simple model of a complex transition.European Journal of Operational Research 30: 320–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wright S. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.Journal of Heredity 21: 349–356.Google Scholar
  15. Wright S. 1969.The Theory of Gene Frequencies: Volume 2. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  16. Wright S. 1982. The Shifting Balance Theory and Macroevolution.Ann. Rev. Genet. 16: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for the Study of Man 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Read D. W. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and Department of StatisticsUCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations