Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Study integrates cultural evolution with technological choice analysis of Neolithic tools, indicating community-level learning influence.
How can the gap between cultural evolutionary theory and the analysis of how tools were made by prehistoric artisans be effectively bridged? In a study of chipped stone el-Khiam points from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A in the Levant, we integrate concepts of technological choice with approaches from cultural evolution to explore prehistoric learning environments and pathways of cultural transmission. The results of an attribute analysis of points were applied in a cultural phylogenetics approach using individual points as taxa, providing a granular level of analysis. These analyses show the community specific preservation of distinctive patterns of manufacture over many generations. The subtle and inconspicuous differences in the way points were made between sites are interpreted as the result of specific community level patterns of technological choice, shedding light on early Neolithic learning environments. These specific and enduring technological choices existed within a much wider group of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A communities who shared the overall design concept, or typology, of the el-Khiam point. The results indicate the role of communal learning contexts in this preservation of attributes, driven by how the learning of manufacturing steps is embedded and reproduced in a social context. This is contrasted with the spread and diversification of the typology of the point through horizontal transmission, showing the influence of cognitive biases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gorrie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: