Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the Evolution of Ceramic Traditions Through a Phylogenetic Analysis of the Chaînes Opératoires: the European Bronze Age as a Case Study

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The chaînes opératoires underlying the manufacture of objects are good proxies for studying social groups and how cultural traits are transmitted and modified through the learning process. With the rise of evolutionary archaeology, the evolution of ceramic vessels can be modeled by using cladistics to elaborate kinship relationships between different taxa on the basis of shared derived character states. Here the modeling applies to ceramic fashioning from the European Middle Bronze Age (France and the United Kingdom). The aim is to assess the nature of the evolution and the relationships between three main cultures—in southern England, Normandy, and in the center-west of France. The cladistics analysis highlights that the ceramic traditions largely result from a process of phylogenesis—a result of descent with modification from an ancestral assemblage—rooted in the Early Bronze Age, suggesting a common origin for the Trevisker/Deverel-Rimbury and French Atlantic technical traditions. On the other hand, the Norman appears to be related to the Duffaits tradition, but to the exclusion of the Trevisker/Deverel-Rimbury traditions. This study supports the theoretical premise that some technical sequences are more stable than others. The evolution of sequences requiring motor habits, such as shaping, stabilized fairly quickly, unlike the finishing operations that continued to diverge throughout the Bronze Age. This study suggests that cladistics based on the description of the ceramic material in terms of chaînes opératoires is a useful tool for studying cultural change.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first polytomy (trichotomous) branching produces the clade comprising CO63 + CO62 + CO59 + CO61 + CO60, the clade comprising CO25 + CO24 + CO19 + CO23 + CO22 + CO21 + CO20, and the clade comprising CO57 + CO56 + CO49 + CO51 + CO50 + CO55 + CO54 + CO53 + CO52 + CO41 + CO40 + CO39 + CO38 + CO37 + CO30 + CO26 + CO27 + CO29 + CO28 + CO36 + CO35 + CO34 + CO33 + CO32 + CO31 + CO46 + CO48 + CO47 + CO42 + CO45 + CO44 + CO43. The second polytomy (quadrichotomous) branching produces the clade comprising CO41 + CO40 + CO39 + CO38 + CO37; the clade comprising CO30 + CO26 + CO27 + CO29 + CO28; the clade comprising CO36, CO35, CO34, CO33, CO32, and CO31; and the clade comprising CO46 + CO48 + CO47 + CO42 + CO45 + CO44 + CO43. The third and the last polytomy (trichotomous) branching produces CO30 and CO26 and the clade comprising CO27 + CO29 + CO28.

  2. Characters group 1 (char. 2; char. 269; char. 7; char. 12; char. 17). Characters group 2 (char. 54; char. 57; char. 59; char. 60; char. 62; char. 65; char. 70; char. 73; char. 75; char. 78; char. 81; char. 82; char. 83). Characters group 3 (char. 108; char. 112; char. 113; char. 114; char. 118; char. 128). Characters group 4 (char. 152; char. 153; char. 266; char. 269). Reversion for char. 17 and char. 152.

  3. Character 202 (CI = 1/RI = 1): external smoothing, internal base–body–neck smoothing of modeled base with the body–neck shaped by coiling and discontinuous finger pressures.

  4. Character 200, CI = 1/RI = 1; character 261, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  5. Character 199, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  6. Character 195, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  7. Character 191, CI = 1/RI = 1; character 260 CI = 1/RI = 1; character 266, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.88.

  8. Character 137, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 271, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  9. Character 73, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; character 78, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; character 81, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; character 113, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; character 128, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; character 139, CI = 1/RI = 1; character 148, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  10. Char. 2, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 12, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 25, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 34, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 57, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 60, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 65, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 70, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 83, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 96, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 105, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  11. Char. 5, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 9, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 14, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 21, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 29, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 40, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 41, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 47, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 52, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 93, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 100, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 104, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  12. Character 1, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 6, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 13, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 17, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.9; char. 19, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 26, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 37, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 71, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 72, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 74, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 76, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 79, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 80, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 107, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 109, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 114, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.85; char. 115, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 118, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.85; char. 124, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 143, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 151, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 247, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  13. Character 4, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 8, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 16, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 44, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 46, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 50, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 54, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.88; char. 56, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 58, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 59, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.88; char. 62, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.88; char. 64, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 89, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 92, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 99, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 102, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 108, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.88; char. 150, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 255, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  14. Character 179, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  15. Character 73, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; char. 78, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; char. 81, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; char. 113, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; char. 120, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 128, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.75; char. 133, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 146, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 257, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  16. Character 2, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 12, CI = 0.5/RI = 1; char. 24, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 31, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 57, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 60, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 65, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 70, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 83, CI = 0.5/RI = 0.92; char. 95, CI = 1/RI = 1; char. 103, CI = 1/RI = 1.

  17. CO63 + CO62 + CO59 + CO61 + CO60 + CO25 + CO24 + CO19 + CO23 + CO22 + CO21 + CO20 + CO57 + CO56 + CO49 + CO51 + CO50 + CO55 + CO54 + CO53 + CO52 + CO41 + CO40 + CO39 + CO38 + CO37 + CO30 + CO26 + CO27 + CO29 + CO28 + CO36 + CO35 + CO33 + CO32 + CO31 + CO46 + CO48 + CO47 + CO42 + CO45 + CO44 + CO43.

  18. The disappearance of the base fashioned with assembled elements (char. 49) and more particularly with the coil technique (char. 42) and the corresponding pressures (char. 45). In terms of method, it is also the disappearance of assembled elements as the only one type of elementary volume in the whole chaîne opératoire (char. 36), and particularly by coiling (char. 18). It generates particularly a “discontinued” method between base and body (char. 90; char 97; char. 101). A last innovation is present here: the appearance of elementary volume by mass of clay (char. 268).

  19. For example, the clade including CO59 + CO61 + C060 is supported by 23 innovations and its ancestral clade (CO63 + CO62 + CO59 + CO61 + C060) is supported also by a lot of changes (19 innovations). At the opposite, the clade including CO25 + CO24 + CO19 + CO23 + CO22 + CO21 + CO20 is supported by less change (8 innovations) than its subclade (CO19 + CO23 + CO22 + CO21 + CO20) with 21 changes.

  20. The sister clades (CO25 + CO24) and (CO19 + CO23 + CO22 + CO21 + CO20) are respectively supported by 5 and 21 changes.

References

  • Apsimon, A. M., & Greenfield, E. (1972). The excavations of Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements at Trevisker, St Eval, Cornwall. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 38, 302–381.

  • Balfet, H., Fauvet-Berthelot, M. F., & Monzon, S. (1983). Pour la normalisation de la description des poteries. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

  • Bourgeois, J., & Talon, M. (Ed.) (2005). L'âge du Bronze du nord de la France dans son contexte européen. 125e actes des congrès nationaux des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Lilles (Vol. 2000). Paris: CTHS.

  • Bourgeois, J., & Talon, M. (2009). From Picardy to Flanders: transmanche connections in the Bronze Age. In P. Clark (Ed.), Bronze Age connections. Cultural contact in Prehistoric Europe (pp. 38–59). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowser, B. J. (2000). From pottery to politics: an ethnoarchaeological study of political factionalism, ethnicity, and domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(3), 219–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowser, B. J., & Patton, J. Q. (2008). Learning and transmission of pottery style. In M. T. Stark, B. J. Bowser, & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural transmission and material culture. Breaking down boundaries (pp. 105–129). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. (2007). The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P. J., & Perreault, C. (2010). Detecting the effects of selection and stochastic forces in archaeological assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(12), 3211–3225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bril, B. (2002a). Apprentissage et contexte. Intellectica, 2(35), 251–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bril, B. (2002b). L'apprentissage de gestes techniques : ordre de contraintes et variations culturelles. In B. Bril & V. Roux (Eds.), Le geste technique : réflexions méthodologiques et anthropologiques (pp. 113–150). Ramoville Saint-Agne: Editions Erès (Technologie/Idéologie/Pratiques. Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brück, J. (1999). Houses, life cycles and deposition on Middle Bronze Age settlements in Southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 65, 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brück, J. (Ed.). (2001). Bronze Age landscapes: tradition and transformation. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B., & Collard, M. (2007). Investigating the peopling of North America through cladistics analyses of Early Paleoindian projectile points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26(3), 366–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B., & Collard, M. (2008). Phenetics, cladistics, and the search for the Alaskan ancestors of the Paleoindians: a reassessment of relationships among the Clovis, Nenana, and Denali archaeological complexes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(6), 1683–1694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B., O’Brien, M., & Collard, M. (2014). Continent-wide or region-specific? A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of variation in Clovis point shape. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 6(2), 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, C. (1980). The age of Stonehenge. London: Dent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadot, R., Giraud, C., & Large, J.-M. (1999). Prospection au Bois Neuf (Commune de Marsac). Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles et Archéologiques de la Creuse, 47(1), 54–58.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Feldman, M. W., Chen, K. H., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1982). Theory and observation in cultural transmission. Science, 218(4567), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chancerel, A., Marcigny, C., & Ghesquière, E. (2006). Le plateau de Mondeville (Calvados) du Néolithique à l'âge du Bronze (Vol. document d'archéologie française n°99). Paris: Editions de la maison des sciences de l'Homme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, M. F., Crew, P., Rehren, T., & Shennan, S. (2010). Explaining the evolution of ironmaking recipes: an example from northwest Wales. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 29(3), 352–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P. (Ed.). (2009). Bronze Age connections. Cultural contact in Prehistoric Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, E. E. (2008). Migration and cultural transmission: investigating human movement as an explanation for Fijian ceramic change. In M. J. O’Brien (Ed.), Cultural transmission in archaeology: issues and case studies (pp. 132–145). Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology

  • Cochrane, E. E. (2013). Quantitative phylogenetic analyses of Lapita decoration in near and remote Oceania. In G. R. Summerhayes & H. Buckley (Eds.), Pacific archaeology: documenting the past 50,000 years (Vol. 25, pp. 17–42). Dunedin: University of Otago Studies in Archaeology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, E. E. (2015). Phylogenetic analysis of Polynesian ritual architecture suggests extensive cultural sharing and innovation. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 124(1), 7–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, E. E., & Lipo, C. P. (2010). Phylogenetic analyses of Lapita decoration do not support branching evolution or regional population structure during colonization of remote Oceania. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365(1559), 3889–3902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, E. E., Rieth, T. M., & Dickinson, W. R. (2013). Plainware ceramics from Samoa: insights into ceramic chronology, cultural transmission, and selection among colonizing populations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32(4), 499–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard, M., & Shennan, S. (2000). Processes of cultural change in Prehistory: a case study from the European Neolithic. In C. Renfrew & K. Boyle (Eds.), Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population Prehistory of Europe (pp. 89–97). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard, M., & Shennan, S. (2008). Patterns, processes, and parsimony: studying cultural evolution with analytical techniques from evolutionary biology. In M. T. Stark, B. J. Bowser, & L. Horne (Eds.), Cultural transmission and material culture. Breaking down boundaries (pp. 17–33). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard, M., & Tehrani, J. J. (2005). Phylogenesis versus ethnogenesis in Turkmen cultural evolution. In R. Mace, C. J. Holden, & S. Shennan (Eds.), The evolution of cultural diversity: a phylogenetic approach (pp. 109–132). London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard, M., Shennan, S., & Tehrani, J. J. (2006a). Branching versus blending in macroscale cultural evolution: a comparative study. In C. P. Lipo, M. O’Brien, M. Collard, & S. Shennan (Eds.), Mapping our ancestors. Phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory (pp. 53–63). AldineTransaction: New Brunswick (USA) & London (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard, M., Shennan, S., & Tehrani, J. J. (2006b). Branching, blending, and the evolution of cultural similarities and differences among human populations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(3), 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collective (Ed.) (1989). Dynamique du Bronze moyen en Europe. Actes du 113e Congrès national des Sociétés savantes, Strasbourg (Vol. 1988). Paris: CTHS

  • Courty, M.-A., & Roux, V. (1995). Identification of the wheel throwing technique on the basis of ceramic surface features and microfabrics. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22(1), 17–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crema, E., Edinborough, K., & Shennan, S. (2014a). An approximate Bayesian computation approach for inferring patterns of cultural evolutionary change. Journal of Archaeological Science, 50, 160–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crema, E., Kerig, T., & Shennan, S. (2014b). Culture, space, and metapopulation: a simulation-based study for evaluating signals of blending and branching. Journal of Archaeological Science, 43, 289–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswel, R. (1976). Techniques et culture, les bases d'un programme de travail. Technique et Culture, 1, 7–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crown, P. L. (2001). Learning to make pottery in the Prehispanic American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research, 57(4), 451–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacre, M., & Ellison, A. (1981). A Bronze Age urn cemetery at Kimpton, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 47, 147–203.

  • Darlu, P., Tassy, P., d’Haese, C., & Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. (2019). La reconstruction phylogénétique. Concepts et méthodes. Paris: Editions Matériologiques.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwent, J., & O’Brien, M. J. (2006). Using cladistics to construct lineages of projectile points from northeastern Missouri. In C. P. Lipo, M. J. O’Brien, M. Collard, & S. Shennan (Eds.), Mapping our ancestors. Phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory (pp. 185–208). AldineTransaction: New Brunswick (USA) & London (UK).

  • 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: John Murray.

  • Davis, E., Grove, J., Heathcote, J., Johns, C., & Nowakowski, J. (1994). A30 Project: archive report on the archaeological excavations at Penhale Round, Fraddon, Cornwall 1993. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit.

  • Desfossés, Y., Masson, B., & Vallin, L. (1992). Deux sites de l'Âge du Bronze sur l'emprise du T.G.V. Nord dans le Pas-de-Calais. Présentation préliminaire. In C. Mordant & A. Richard (Eds.), L'habitat et l'occupation du sol à l'Âge du Bronze en Europe (pp. 89–92). Paris: CTHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1980). Evolutionary theory and archaeology. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol. 3 (pp. 35–99). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, A. (1987). The Bronze Age settlement at Thorny Down: pots, post-holes and patterning. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 53, 385–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1970). Methods for computing Wagners trees. Systematic Zoology, 19(1), 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1989a). The retention index and homoplasy excess. Systematic Zoology, 38(4), 406–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. (1989b). The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics, 5(4), 527–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein, J. (1985). Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution, 39(4), 783–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein, J., & Kishino, H. (1993). Is there something wrong with the bootstrap on phylogenies? A reply to Hillis and Bull. Systematic Biology, 42(2), 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, A. (1988). The Dartmoor Reaves. Investigating Prehistoric land divisions. London: B.T. Batsford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fokkens, H., & Harding, A. F. (Eds.). (2013a). The Oxford handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fokkens, H., & Harding, A. F. (2013b). Introduction: the Bronze Age of Europe. In H. Fokkens & A. F. Harding (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the European Bronze Age (pp. 1–11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, P. J. (1981). The farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallay, A. (2011). Pour une ethnoarchéologie théorique. Mérites et limites de l’analogie ethnographique. Paris: Editions Errance.

    Google Scholar 

  • García Rivero, D., & O’Brien, M. (2014). Phylogenetic analysis shows that Neolithic slate plaques from the Southwestern Iberian Peninsula are not genealogical recording systems. PLoS One, 9, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelbert, A. (2003). Traditions céramiques et emprunts techniques dans la vallée du fleuve Sénégal. Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Editions Epistèmes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, A. (2002). Prehistoric pottery in Britain and Ireland. Stroud: Tempus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goloboff, P., Farris, J., & Nixon, K. (2003). T.N.T.: tree analysis using new technology. Program and documentation, available from the authors, and at http://www.zmuc.dk/public/phylogeny.

  • Goloboff, P., Farris, J., & Nixon, K. (2008). TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics, 24(5), 774–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goloboff, P. A., Catalano, S. A., Mirande, J. M., Szumik, C. A., Arias, J. S., Källersjo, M., & Farris, J. S. (2009). Phylogenetic analysis of 73 060 taxa corroborates major eukaryotic groups. Cladistics, 25(3), 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez de Soto, J. (1971). Céramiques de l'Âge du Bronze découvertes à Civaux (Vienne). Mémoire de la Société Archéologique et Historique de la Charente, Actes du XXVIe Congrès des Sociétés Savantes du Centre-Ouest, 277–285.

  • Gomez de Soto, J. (1973). La grotte sépulcrale des Duffaits (La Rochette, Charente). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 70(1), 401–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez de Soto, J. (1978). La stratigraphie chalcolithique et protohistorique de la grotte du Quéroy à Chazelles, Charente. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 75(10), 394–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez de Soto, J. (1995). Le Bronze moyen en Occident. La Culture des Duffaits et la Civilisation des Tumulus. Paris: Picard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez de Soto, J. (1996). Grotte des Perrats à Agris (Charente), 1981-1994. Etude préliminaire. Chauvigny: Edition A.P.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosselain, O. (2000). Materialising identities: an African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(3), 187–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosselain, O. (2002). Poteries du Cameroun méridional. Styles techniques et rapports à l'identité (Vol. 26). Paris: Editions du CNRS, CRA monographie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, A. F. (2000). European societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. L., & Corriveau, K. H. (2011). Young children’s selective trust in informants. Phylosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1567), 1179–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, J. P., & Terrell, J. E. (Eds.). (2002). Darwin and archaeology. A handbook of key concepts. Westport & London: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2007). Dual inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. In R. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 555–570). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillis, D. M., & Bull, J. J. (1993). An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology, 42(2), 182–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, T. A., & Waters, M. R. (2014). Pre-Clovis lithic technology at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas: comparisons to Clovis through site-level behavior, technological trait-list, and cladistic analyses. American Antiquity, 79(1), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (1999). The excavation of a Later Bronze Age structure at Callestick. Cornish Archaeology, 38, 1–55.

  • Jones, A., Jones, A., Nowakowski, J., & Thorpe, C. (1994). Archive report on the excavation of Penhale Moor Middle Bronze Age site, Fraddon, Cornwall. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit.

  • Jordan, P. (2009). Linking pattern to process in cultural evolution: investigating material culture diversity among the Northern Khanty of northwest Siberia. In S. Shennan (Ed.), Pattern and process in cultural evolution (pp. 61–84). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, P. (2015). Technology as human social tradition: cultural transmission among hunter-gatherers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, P., & Mace, T. (2006). Tracking culture-historical lineages: can “descent with modification” be linked to “association by descent”? In C. P. Lipo, M. O’Brien, M. Collard, & S. Shennan (Eds.), Mapping our ancestor: phylogenetic approaches in anthropology and prehistory (pp. 149–167). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, P., & O’Neil, S. (2011). Untangling cultural inheritance: language diversity and long-house architecture on the Pacific Northwest coast. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365(1559), 3875–3888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, P., & Shennan, S. (2003). Cultural transmission, language, and basketry traditions amongst the California Indians. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 22(1), 42–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, P., & Shennan, S. (2009). Diversity in hunter-gatherer technological traditions: mapping trajectories of cultural ‘descent with modification’ in northeast California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28, 342–365.

  • Joussaume, R., & Pautreau, J.-P. (1990). La Préhistoire du Poitou. Rennes: Editions du Ouest-France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joussaume, R., Fouere, P., & Credot, R. (2002). Dolmens des Quatre Routes et de Bois Neuf III à Marsac (Creuse). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 99(1), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitching, I. J., Forey, P. L., Humphries, C. J., & Williams, D. M. (1998). Cladistics: the theory and practice of parsimony analysis. Oxford: Oxford University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G., & Farris, J. S. (1969). Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Systematic Zoology, 18(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristiansen, K., & Larsson, T. B. (2005). The rise of Bronze Age society. Travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuntner, M., Coddington, J. A., & Hormiga, G. (2008). Phylogeny of extant nephilid orb-weaving spiders (Araneae, Nephilidae): testing morphological and ethological homologies. Cladistics, 24(2), 147–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, G., & Roulière-Lambert, M.-J. (1985). Les vestiges protohistoriques du château de Crozant de l'Âge du Bronze ancien à la fin du premier Âge du Fer. In Collective (Ed.), Crozant. Etudes archéologiques (pp. 87–131). Guéret: Editions Verso (Document d'archéologie creusoise).

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, A. W. (2011). Evolution of Polynesian bark cloth and factors influencing cultural change. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 30(2), 116–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripherical participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lemey, P., Salemi, M., & Vandamme, A.-M. (2009). The Phylogenetic Handbook: a Practical Approach to Phylogenetic Analysis and Hypothesis Testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Livingstone Smith, A. (2001). Chaîne opératoire de la poterie : références ethnographiques, analyses et reconstruction. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2007). Why is there a lack of Mode 3 Levallois technologies in East Asia? A phylogenetic test of the Movius–Schick hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26(4), 541–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2009a). Are Victoria West cores “proto-Levallois”? A phylogenetic assessment. Journal of Human Evolution, 56(2), 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2009b). Understanding ancient hominin dispersals using artefactual data: a phylogeographic analysis of Acheulean handaxes. PLoS ONE, 4(10), e7404.

  • Lycett, S. J. (2015). Cultural evolutionary approaches to artifact variation over time and space: basis, progress, and prospects. Journal of Archaeological Science, 56, 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J., & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2015). Toward a “quantitative genetic” approach to lithic variation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 22(2), 646–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J., Collard, M., & McGrew, W. C. (2007). Phylogenetic analyses of behavior support existence of culture among wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(45), 17588–17592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, R. L., & O’Brien, M. (1997). The concept of evolution in early twentieth-century Americanist archaeology. In C. M. Barton & G. A. Clark (Eds.), Rediscovering Darwin: evolutionary theory and archaeological explanation (pp. 21–48). Arlington: American Anthropological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison, W. P., & Maddison, D. R. (2011). Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.75. http://mesquiteproject.org

  • Maddison, W. P., Donoghue, M. J., & Maddison, D. R. (1984). Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Systematic Zoology, 33(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manem, S. (2008). Etude des fondements technologiques de la culture des Duffaits (Âge du Bronze moyen). Nanterre: Unpublished PhD, laboratoire Préhistorie et Technologie, UMR 7055, Université de Paris Nanterre.

  • Manem, S. (2010). Des habitats aux sites de rassemblement à vocation rituelle : l'âge du Bronze selon le concept de "chaîne opératoire". Les Nouvelles de l'Archéologie, 119, 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manem, S. (2012a). The Bronze Age use of caves in France: reinterpreting their function and the spatial logic of their deposits through the Chaîne Opératoire concept. In K. A. Bergsvisk & R. Skeates (Eds.), Caves in context. The cultural signification of caves and rockshelters in Europe (pp. 138–152). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manem, S. (2012b). Les lieux naturels atypiques, source du paysage rituel : le karst de La Rochefoucauld et la Culture des Duffaits (Charente, France). In D. Béranger, J. Bourgeois, M. Talon, & S. Wirth (Eds.), Paysages funéraires de l'âge du Bronze (pp. 573–574). Darmstadt: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manem, S. (2017). Bronze Age ceramic traditions and the impact of the natural barrier: complex links between decoration, technique and social groups around the Channel. In A. Lehoerff & M. Talon (Eds.), Movement, exchange and identity in Europe in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC (pp. 227–240). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manem, S., Marcigny, C., & Talon, M. (2013). Vivre, produire et transmettre autour de la Manche. Regards sur les comportements des hommes entre Deverel Rimbury et post Deverel Rimbury en Normandie et dans le sud de l'Angleterre. In W. Leclercq & E. Warmenbol (Eds.), Echanges de bons procédés. La céramique du Bronze final dans le nord-ouest de l'Europe (pp. 245–265). Bruxelles: CReA-Patrimoine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcigny, C., & Ghesquière, E. (2003). L'île de Tatihou (Manche) à l'âge du Bronze. Habitats et occupation du sol. Paris: Editions de la maison des sciences de l'Homme ( Documents d'Archéologie Française, 96).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcigny, C., Ghesquière, E., Clement-Sauleau, S., & Verney, A. (2005). L'Âge du Bronze en Basse-Normandie : définition par le mobilier céramique, une première tentative. In J. Bourgeois & M. Talon (Eds.), L'Âge du Bronze du nord de la France dans son contexte européen (pp. 303–332). Paris: CTHS Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcigny, C., Ghesquière, E., & Kinnes, I. (2007). Bronze Age cross-channel relations. The Lower-Normandy (France) example: ceramic chronology and first reflections. In C. Burgess, P. Topping, & F. Lynch (Eds.), Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess (pp. 255–267). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martineau, R. (2000). Poterie, techniques et sociétés. Etudes analytiques et expérimentales à Chalain et Clairvaux (Jura), entre 3200 et 2900 av. J.-C. Dijon: Unpublished PhD, Université de Franche-Compté.

  • Marwick, B. (2012). A cladistics evaluation of ancient Thai bronze Buddha images: six tests for a phylogenetic signal in the Griswold collection. In D. Bonatz, A. Reinecke, & M. A. Tjoa-Bonatz (Eds.), Connecting empires (pp. 159–176). Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A. (2016). Cultural evolution: a review of theory, findings and controversies. Evolutionary Biology, 43(4), 481–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A., & O'Brien, M. J. (2008). The cultural transmission of Great Basin Projectile-Point Technology I: an agent-based computer simulation. American Antiquity, 73(4), 627–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2004). Is human cultural evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the perspective of The Origin of Species. Evolution, 58(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli, A. (1993). Biological systematics: the state of the art. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mordant, C., & Gaiffe, O. (Eds.). (1996). Cultures et sociétés du Bronze ancien en Europe. Actes du 117e Congrès national des Sociétés Savantes (Clermont-Ferrand, 1992). Paris: CTHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham, S. (1996). Chronology and periodisation in the British Bronze Age. Acta Archaeologica, 67, 121-140.

  • Nixon, K. C., & Carpenter, J. M. (1993). On outgroups. Cladistics, 9, 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norell, M. A. (1992). Taxic origin and temporal diversity: the effect of phylogeny. In M. J. Novacek & Q. D. Wheeler (Eds.), Extinction and phylogeny (pp. 89–118). New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Norell, M. A. (1993). Tree-based approaches to understanding history: comments on ranks, rules, and the quality of the fossil record. American Journal of Science, 293(A), 407–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norell, M. A. (1996). Ghost taxa, ancestors and assumptions: a comment on Wagner. Paleobiology, 22(3), 453–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowakowski, J. (1989). Gwithian: an assessment of the Bronze Age excavations 1954-1961. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit.

  • Nowakowski, J. (1991). Trethellan Farm, newquay: the excavation of a lowland Bronze Age settlement and Iron Age cemetery. Cornish Archaeology, 30, 5–242.

  • Nunn, C. L., Arnold, C., Matthews, L., & Mulder, M. (2010). Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 365(1559), 3807–3819.

  • O’Brien, M., & Lyman, R. L. (2000). Applying evolutionary archaeology: a systematic approach. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., Darwent, J., & Lyman, R. L. (2001). Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies: Palaeoindian points from the southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28(10), 1115–1136.

  • O’Brien, M. J., Buchanan, B., Collard, M., & Boulanger, M. T. (2012). Cultural cladistics and the Early Prehistory of North America. In P. Pontarotti (Ed.), Evolutionary biology: mechanisms and trends (pp. 23–42). Berlin: Springer.

  • O’Brien, M., Boulanger, M. T., Buchanan, B., Collard, M., Lyman, R. L., & Darwent, J. (2014). Innovation and cultural transmission in the American Paleolithic: phylogenetic analysis of eastern Paleoindian projectile-point classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 34, 100–119.

  • Parker Pearson, M. (1990). The production and distribution of Bronze Age pottery in south-west Britain. Cornish Archaeology, 32, 146–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlès, C. (2012). Quand diffusion ne veut pas dire "interaction". In M. Borrell, F. Borrell, J. Bosch, X. Clop, & M. Molist (Eds.), Actes del Congrés Internacional Xarxes al Neolític. Circulació I intercanvi de matèries, productes I idees a la Mediterrània occidental (VII-III millenni aC) (Vol. 5, pp. 585–589). Gavà: Museu de Gavà, Rubricatum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piggott, C. M. (1938). A middle Bronze Age barrow and Deverel-Rimbury urnfield at Latch Farm, Christchurch, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 4, 169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentiss, A. M., Chatters, J. C., Walsh, M. J., & Skelton, R. R. (2014). Cultural macroevolution in the Pacific Northwest: a phylogenetic test of the diversification and decimation model. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quicke, D. J. (1993). Principles and techniques of contemporary taxonomy. Glasgow: Blackie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, E. S., & Bril, B. (1996). The primacy of action in development. A commentary of N. Bernstein. In M. L. Latash, M. T. Turvey, & N. A. Bernstein (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 431–451). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendall, D., & Di Fiore, A. (2007). Homoplasy, homology, and the perceived special status of behavior in evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 52(5), 504–521.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Riede, F. (2009). Tangled trees. Modeling material culture evolution as host-associate cospeciation. In S. Shennan (Ed.), Pattern and process in cultural evolution (pp. 85–98). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riede, F. (2011). Adaptation and niche construction in human prehistory: a case study from the southern Scandinavian Late Glacial. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1566), 793–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf, F. J. (1982). Consensus indices for comparing classifications. Mathematical Biosciences, 59(1), 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorabaugh, A. N. (2014). Impacts of drift and population bottlenecks of the cultural transmission of a neutral continuous trait: an agent based model. Journal of Archaeological Science, 49, 255–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roux, V. (2015). Standardization of ceramic assemblages: transmission mechanisms and diffusion of morpho-functional traits across social boundaries. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 40, 1–9.

  • Roux, V. (2019). Ceramics and society. A technological approach to archaeological assemblages. Springer International Publishing.

  • Roux, V., & Courty, M.-A. (1998). Identification of wheel-fashioning methods: technological analysis of 4th-3rd millennium BC oriental ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 747–763.

  • Roux, V., Bril, B., Cauliez, J., Goujon, A.-L., Lara, C., de Saulieu, G., & Zangato, E. (2017). Persisting technological boundaries: social interactions, cognitive correlations and polarization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 48, 320–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rye, O. S. (1981). Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. (Vol. 4, Manuals on archaeology). Washington D.C.: Taraxacum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, M. J., & Donoghue, M. J. (1989). Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution, 43(8), 1781–1795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, M. J., & Hufford, L. (1996). Homoplasy. The recurrence of similarity in evolution. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B., Skibo, J. M., Boelke, T. C., Neupert, M. A., & Aronson, M. (1994). New perspectives on experimental archaeology: surface treatments and thermal response of the clay cooking pot. American Antiquity, 59(2), 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillinger, K., Mesoudi, A., & Lycett, S. J. (2014). Copying error and the cultural evolution of “additive” vs. “reductive” material traditions: an experimental assessment. American Antiquity, 79(1), 128–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillinger, K., Mesoudi, A., & Lycett, S. J. (2016). Coyping error, evolution, and phylogenetic signal in artifactual traditions: an experimental approach using “model artifacts”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 70, 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillinger, K., Mesoudi, A., & Lycett, S. J. (2017). Differences in manufacturing traditions and assemblage-level patterns: the origins of cultural differences in archaeological data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(2), 640–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuh, R. T. (2000). Biological systematics: principles and applications. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2002a). Genes, memes and human history. Darwinian archaeology and cultural evolution. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2002b). Learning. In J. P. Hart & J. E. Terrell (Eds.), Darwin and archaeology (pp. 183–200). Westport & London: A handbok of key concepts. Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2008). Evolution in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37(1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2011). Descent with modification and the archaeological record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1567), 1070–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2013). Lineages of cultural transmission. In R. Ellen, S. J. Lycett, & S. E. Johns (Eds.), Understanding cultural transmission in anthropology: a critical synthesis (pp. 346–360). New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S., & Wilkinson, J. R. (2001). Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: a case study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity, 66(4), 557–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skibo, J. M. (1994). The Kalinga cooking pot: an ethnoarchaeological and experimental study of technological change. In W. A. Longacre & J. M. Skibo (Eds.), Kalinga ethnoarchaeoogy: expanding archaeological method and theory (pp. 113–126). Smithsonian University Press: Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, M. T. (Ed.). (1998). The archaeology of social boundaries. Washington D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, M. T. (2003). Current issues in ceramic ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 11(3), 193–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice. How evolution made humans unique. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. F. S. (1941). The Deverel-Rimbury settlement on Thorny Down, Winterbourne Gunner, S. Wilts. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 7, 114–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straffon, M. (Ed.). (2016). Cultural phylogenetics. Concepts and applications in archaeology. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, D. L. (1998). PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4.0 Beta. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tehrani, J. J. (2011). Patterns of evolution in Iranian tribal textiles. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(3), 390–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tehrani, J. J., & Collard, M. (2002). Investigating cultural evolution through biological phylogenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 21(4), 443–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tehrani, J. J., & Collard, M. (2009a). The evolution of material culture diversity among Iranian Tribal populations. In S. Shennan (Ed.), Pattern and process in cultural evolution (pp. 99–111). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tehrani, J. J., & Collard, M. (2009b). On the relationship between interindividual cultural transmission and population-level cultural diversity: a case study of weaving in Iranian tribal populations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(4), 286–300.e2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tehrani, J. J., Collard, M., & Shennan, S. (2010). The cophylogeny of populations and cultures: reconstructing the evolution of Iranian tribal craft traditions using trees and jungles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365(1559), 3865–3874.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Voogt, A., Dunn-Vaturi, A. E., & Eerkens, J. W. (2013). Cultural transmission in the ancient Near East: twenty squares and fifty-eight holes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 1715–1730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, P. J. (1998). Phylogenetic analyses and the quality of the fossil record. In S. K. Donovan & C. R. C. Paul (Eds.), The adequacy of the fossil record (pp. 165–187). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. P. (2014). Homology, genes, and evolutionary innovation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D. B. (1999). Homoplasy, homology and the problem of ‘sameness’ in biology. In Homology. Novartis Foundation Symposium (Vol. 222, pp. 24–46). New York: Wiley.

  • Wenzel, J. W. (1992). Behavioral homology and phylogeny. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 361–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O., & Liederman, B. S. (2011). Phylogenetics: the theory of phylogenetic systematics. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O., Siegel-Causey, J., Brooks, D. R., & Funk, V. A. (1991). The compleat cladist: a primer of phylogenetic procedures. Lawrence: University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkin, N., & Vander Linden, M. (2015). What was and what would never be: changing patterns of interaction and archaeological visibility across north-west Europe from 2,500 to 1,500 cal BC. In H. Anderson-Whymark, D. Garrow, & F. Sturt (Eds.), Continental connections: exploring cross-channel relationships from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age (pp. 99–121). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirkner, C. S., & Richter, S. (2010). Evolutionary morphology of the circulatory system in Peracarida (Malacostraca; Crustacea). Cladistics, 26(2), 143–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, A. (2008). Bronze Age pottery and settlements in southern England. Bronze Age Review, 1, 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Stephen Shennan (UCL), who supervised my work, as well as my training in evolutionary archaeology. I am grateful to Valentine Roux (CNRS), Stephen Shennan, Mike O’Brien (Texas A&M University), Anthony Harding (University of Exeter), François Pujos (CONICET, Mendoza), Marc Vander Linden (University of Cambridge), Claude Mordant (Université de Bourgogne), and Cyril Marcigny (INRAP) for their help, their comments on the different versions of the manuscript, or in the field of cladistics, and simply in the essential support provided throughout this Marie Curie project. A special thanks to Valentine Roux for her precious help for so many years. Thanks to all colleagues from the UCL Institute of Archaeology for the particularly warm welcome, as well as my colleagues from the team UMR 7055 CNRS/Université Paris Nanterre. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their significant work, the detailed comments and constructive suggestions, which improved the manuscript considerably.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant Marie Curie Actions (European Commission; Intra-European Marie Curie fellowship for career development; grant agreement ID: 274395; FP7-People-2010-IEF-Bronze Age) and hosted by the University College London Institute of Archaeology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMR 7055 Préhistoire et technologie, CNRS / Université Paris Nanterre, Maison Archéologie & Ethnologie René-Ginouvès, 21, allée de l’Université, 92023, Nanterre Cedex, France

    Sébastien Manem

Authors
  1. Sébastien Manem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sébastien Manem.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 167 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 83 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 380 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manem, S. Modeling the Evolution of Ceramic Traditions Through a Phylogenetic Analysis of the Chaînes Opératoires: the European Bronze Age as a Case Study. J Archaeol Method Theory 27, 992–1039 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09434-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-019-09434-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation