scholarly journals Adaptation and niche construction in human prehistory: a case study from the southern Scandinavian Late Glacial

2011 ◽  
Vol 366 (1566) ◽  
pp. 793-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Riede
Keyword(s):  
Material Culture ◽  
Social Evolution ◽  
Rangifer Tarandus ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Late Glacial ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Human Niche Construction ◽  
Southern Scandinavia ◽  
Construction Model ◽  
Late Palaeolithic

The niche construction model postulates that human bio-social evolution is composed of three inheritance domains, genetic, cultural and ecological, linked by feedback selection. This paper argues that many kinds of archaeological data can serve as proxies for human niche construction processes, and presents a method for investigating specific niche construction hypotheses. To illustrate this method, the repeated emergence of specialized reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ) hunting/herding economies during the Late Palaeolithic ( ca 14.7–11.5 kyr BP) in southern Scandinavia is analysed from a niche construction/triple-inheritance perspective. This economic relationship resulted in the eventual domestication of Rangifer . The hypothesis of whether domestication was achieved as early as the Late Palaeolithic, and whether this required the use of domesticated dogs ( Canis familiaris ) as hunting, herding or transport aids, is tested via a comparative analysis using material culture-based phylogenies and ecological datasets in relation to demographic/genetic proxies. Only weak evidence for sustained niche construction behaviours by prehistoric hunter–gatherer in southern Scandinavia is found, but this study nonetheless provides interesting insights into the likely processes of dog and reindeer domestication, and into processes of adaptation in Late Glacial foragers.

scholarly journals Human niche construction in interdisciplinary focus

2011 ◽  
Vol 366 (1566) ◽  
pp. 785-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Kendal ◽  
Jamshid J. Tehrani ◽  
John Odling-Smee
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Material Culture ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Cultural Knowledge ◽  
Causal Process ◽  
Genetic Inheritance ◽  
Selection Pressures ◽  
Ecological Inheritance ◽  
Human Niche Construction ◽  
The Social

Niche construction is an endogenous causal process in evolution, reciprocal to the causal process of natural selection. It works by adding ecological inheritance , comprising the inheritance of natural selection pressures previously modified by niche construction, to genetic inheritance in evolution. Human niche construction modifies selection pressures in environments in ways that affect both human evolution, and the evolution of other species. Human ecological inheritance is exceptionally potent because it includes the social transmission and inheritance of cultural knowledge, and material culture. Human genetic inheritance in combination with human cultural inheritance thus provides a basis for gene–culture coevolution, and multivariate dynamics in cultural evolution. Niche construction theory potentially integrates the biological and social aspects of the human sciences. We elaborate on these processes, and provide brief introductions to each of the papers published in this theme issue.

scholarly journals Historical Ecology of Scandinavian Infield Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 817
Author(s):  
Ove Eriksson ◽  
Matilda Arnell ◽  
Karl-Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Iron Age ◽  
Historical Ecology ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Livestock Grazing ◽  
Land Reforms ◽  
Hay Meadows ◽  
Human Niche Construction ◽  
Major Transition ◽  
The 19Th Century

Infield systems originated during the early Iron Age and existed until the 19th century, although passing many transitions and changes. The core features of infield systems were enclosed infields with hay-meadows and crop fields, and unenclosed outland mainly used for livestock grazing. We examine the transitions and changes of domesticated landscapes with infield systems using the framework of human niche construction, focusing on reciprocal causation affecting change in both culture and environment. A first major transition occurred during the early Middle Ages, as a combined effect of a growing elite society and an increased availability of iron promoted expansion of villages with partly communal infields. A second major transition occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries, due to a then recognized inefficiency of agricultural production, leading to land reforms. In outlands, there was a continuous expansion of management throughout the whole period. Even though external factors had significant impacts as well, human niche construction affected a range of cultural and environmental features regarding the management and structure of domesticated landscapes with infield systems. Thus, niche construction theory is a useful framework for understanding the historical ecology of infield systems.

scholarly journals Human impacts on the environment and wildlife in California’s past: Lessons from California archaeology

2021 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-319
Author(s):  
Julia Renee Prince-Buitenhuys ◽  
Colleen M. Cheverko ◽  
Eric J. Bartelink ◽  
Veronica Wunderlich ◽  
Kristina Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Human Health ◽  
Wildlife Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Niche Construction ◽  
Human Impacts ◽  
Natural Habitats ◽  
Central California ◽  
European Contact ◽  
Human Niche Construction ◽  
Ecological Baselines

The long history of human-animal interactions in California prior to European contact is frequently not considered when setting ecological baselines and, by consequence, when planning conservation and management expectations and strategies for native species. This article reviews archaeological perspectives that explore the relationship between human niche construction, plant and wildlife populations, and human health in pre-European contact Central California, with an emphasis on the Central Valley and Delta, the surrounding foothills, and the San Francisco Bay Area. A summary of the archaeological record for Central California is provided, along with how niche construction and related evolutionary based models have been used in prehistoric California. Examples of the influences of human niche construction on flora, fauna, and human health from the archaeological and ethnographic record are then discussed. This information is tied to modern wildlife research and management practices that would serve contemporary fish and wildlife management given that human influences on species “natural” habitats and ecological baselines extends much further into the past than current ecological baselines and wildlife management strategies traditionally recognize.

Mistrust traditions, consider innovations? The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in southern Scandinavia

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Larsson
Keyword(s):  
Material Culture ◽  
Physical Environment ◽  
Future Research ◽  
New Techniques ◽  
Neolithic Transition ◽  
Prime Concern ◽  
Southern Scandinavia ◽  
The World ◽  
New Material ◽  
Ways Of Thinking

For the individuals participating in the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition, one question must have recurrently emerged as a prime concern: ‘Should I mistrust traditions and consider innovations’? This concern encompassed the introduction of new material culture and new techniques of obtaining food. It also involved new ways of conceiving the world and people's place in it. And it was affected by important – sometimes catastrophic – changes in the physical environment. It must be emphasized that the question of whether to mistrust traditions and consider innovations is not only a matter of concern for prehistoric actors. It is also important for those who are making prehistory today. As is presented in this chapter, the facts presented for south Scandinavia have been variously interpreted as indicating the rapid introduction of a ‘Neolithic’ package with new ways of thinking and acting, as well as reflecting a mixture of traditions and gradually incorporated innovations. Future research into the transition should focus on combining new problem-oriented excavation with fresh ideas about how the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic occurred.

Regional identities Angles and Saxons?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Rippon
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Material Culture ◽  
Eighth Century ◽  
Fifth Century ◽  
Archaeological Record ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
The West ◽  
East Anglia ◽  
Southern Scandinavia ◽  
Burial Rites

Writing in the early eighth century, Bede described how three separate peoples— the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes—had settled in Britain some three hundred years earlier, and ever since the genesis of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ scholarship in the nineteenth century archaeologists have sought to identify discrete areas of Anglian, Saxon, and Jutish settlement (e.g. Leeds 1912; 1936; 1945; Fox 1923, 284–95). The identification of these peoples was based upon different artefact styles and burial rites, with most attention being paid to brooches. The degree of variation in the composition of brooch assemblages across eastern England is shown in Table 9.1. Cruciform brooches with cast side knobs, for example, were thought to have been ‘Anglian’, and saucer brooches ‘Saxon’ (although even in the early twentieth century Leeds (1912) had started to doubt the attribution of applied brooches to the West Saxons). In recent years, however, this traditional ‘culturehistorical’ approach towards interpreting the archaeological record has been questioned, as it is now recognized that, rather than being imported from mainland Europe during the early to mid fifth century, regional differences in artefact assemblages emerged over the course of the late fifth to late sixth centuries (e.g. Hines 1984; 1999; Hilund Nielsen 1995; Lucy 2000; Owen- Crocker 2004; 2011; Penn and Brugmann 2007; Walton Rogers 2007; Brugmann 2011; Dickinson 2011; Hills 2011). In early to mid fifth-century England, in contrast, it now appears that Germanic material culture was in fact relatively homogeneous, with objects typical of ‘Saxon’ areas on the continent being found in so-called ‘Anglian’ areas of England, and vice versa. The earliest material from East Anglia, for example—equal-arm, supporting-arm, and early cruciform brooches—are most closely paralleled in the Lower Elbe region of Saxony, with the distinctive ‘Anglian’ identity of EastAnglia onlyemerging through later contact with southern Scandinavia (Hines 1984; Carver 1989, 147, 152; Hills and Lucy 2013, 38–9). Indeed, many elements of the classic suite of early Anglo-Saxon material culture actually developed within Britain as opposed to having been created on the continent (Hills 2003, 104–7; Owen-Crocker 2004, 13), with new identities beingmade in Britain rather than being imported frommainland Europe (Hills 2011, 10).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document