Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Copying Error and the Cultural Evolution of “Additive” vs. “Reductive” Material Traditions: An Experimental Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kerstin Schillinger
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, United Kingdom (ks391@kent.ac.uk)
Alex Mesoudi
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom
Stephen J. Lycett
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, United Kingdom
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Copying errors that occur during the manufacture of artifactual traditions are potentially a major source of variation. It has been proposed that material items produced via “additive” processes (e.g., pottery) will possess less variation than traditions produced via “reductive” processes (e.g., stone knapping). The logic of this premise is that “additive” production methods more readily allow for the reversal of copying errors compared to strictly “reductive-only” processes. Here, we tested this hypothesis in shape data using an experimental framework in which we generated and statistically analyzed morphometry (size-adjusted) shape data under controlled and replicable conditions. Participants engaged in one of two alternative conditions: an irreversible (“reductive-only”) manufacturing process or a reversible (“additive-reductive”) process. With a number of factors held constant, participants were required to copy the shape of a “target form” as accurately as possible using a standardized block of plasticine and a steel table knife. Results demonstrated statistically greater levels of shape-copying errors in the replicas produced in the reductive-only condition. This indicates that “mutation rates” in the shape attributes of artifactual traditions produced via reductive processes are inherently greater than those produced via alternative means. Several implications for the study of variation in artifactual traditions are discussed.

Resumen

Resumen

Los errores de copiado que ocurren durante tradiciones de la manufactura de artefactos constituyen potencialmente una fuente importante de variación. Se ha sugerido que los objetos producidos mediante procesos “aditivos” (p.ej. cerámica) variarían menos que aquéllos producidos mediante procesos “reductivos” (p.ej. tallado depiedra) debido a que, a diferencia de los procesos estrictamente reductivos, los métodos aditivos de producción facilitarían la correción de errores de copiado. Aquí pusi-mos a prueba esta hipótesis en un marco experimental en el que generamos y analizamos estadisticamente datos morfométricos (ajustados al tamaño) en condiciones controladas y reproducibles. Los participantes tomaron parte en una de dos situaciones: en un proceso de manufactura irreversible (“sólo reductivo”) o en unproceso reversible (“aditivo-reductivo”). Se pidíó a los participantes copiar la forma de un “objeto modelo“ con la mayor precisión posible utilizando un bloque estandarizado de plastilina y un cuchillo metálico. Los resultados demostraron estadísticamente un mayor número de errores de copiado en las réplicas producidas en la situación “sólo reductiva”. Esto indica que la “tasa de mutacion” en artefactos producidos mediante procesos reductivos es inherentemente mayor que en aquéllos producidos mediante otros procesos. Se discuten algunas implicaciones para el estudio de variaciones en artefactos tradiciones.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Allen, Garland E. 1978 Life Science in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ashburner, Michael, Golic, Kent, and Scott Hawley, R. 2005 Drosophila: A Laboratory Handbook. 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York.
Ashburner, Michael, and Novitski, Edward (editors) 1976 The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Vol. 1a. Academic Press, New York.
Baumler, Mark F. 1995 Principles and Properties of Lithic Core Reduction: Implications for Levallois Technology. In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by Harold L. Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 1123. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Bello, Silvia M., Parfitt, Simon A., and Stringer, Chris 2009 Quantitative Micromorphological Analyses of Cut Marks Produced by Ancient and Modern Handaxes. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:18691880.Google Scholar
Bentley, R. Alexander, Hahn, Matthew W., and Shennan, Stephen J. 2004 Random Drift and Culture Change. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271:14431450.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L., and Eerkens, Jelmer 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231242.Google Scholar
Beyene, Yonas, Katoh, Shigehiro, WoldeGabriel, Giday, Hart, William K., Uto, Kozo, Sudo, Masafumi, Kondo, Megumi, Hyodo, Masayuki, Renne, Paul R., Suwa, Gen, and Asfaw, Berhane 2013 The Characteristics and Chronology of the Earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110:15841591.Google Scholar
Bookstein, Fred L. 1989 “Size and Shape”: A Comment on Semantics. Systematic Zoology 38:173180.Google Scholar
Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J. 1985 Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Buchanan, Briggs, and Collard, Mark 2007 Investigating the Peopling of North America through Cladistic Analyses of Early Paleoindian Projectile Points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:366393.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Briggs, and Collard, Mark 2010a An Assessment of the Impact of Resharpening on Palaeoindian Projectile Point Blade Shape Using Geometric Morphometric Techniques. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies, edited by Stephen J. Lycett and Parth R. Chauhan, pp. 255773. Springer, New York.
Buchanan, Briggs, and Collard, Mark 2010b A Geometric Morphometrics-Based Assessment of Blade Shape Differences among Paleoindian Projectile Point Types from Western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:350359.Google Scholar
Byrne, Richard W., and Russon, Anne E. 1998 Learning by Imitation: A Hierarchical Approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21:667684.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Christine, and Millen, Ailsa E. 2008 Studying Cumulative Cultural Evolution in the Laboratory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:35293539.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Christine A., Schillinger, Kerstin, Evans, Cara L., and Hopper, Lydia M. 2012 End State Copying by Humans (Homo sapiens): Implications for a Comparative Perspective on Cumulative Culture. Journal of Comparative Psychology 126:161169.Google Scholar
Callow, Paul 1976 The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Britain and Adjacent Areas of Europe. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, and Feldman, Marcus W. 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Clark, John D. 1994 The Acheulian Industrial Complex in Africa and Elsewhere. In Integrative Paths to the Past, edited by Robert S. Corruccini and Russel L. Ciochon, pp. 451469. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Clarke, David L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.
Costa, August G. 2010 A Geometric Morphometric Assessment of Plan Shape in Bone and Stone Acheulean Bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene Site of Castel di Guildo, Latium, Italy. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies, edited by Stephen J. Lycett and Parth R. Chauhan, pp. 2341. Springer, New York.
Darwin, Charles 1859 On the Origin of Species. John Murray, London.
Deetz, James 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.
Domínguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, Serrallonga, Jordi, Juan-Tresserras, Jordi, Alcala, Luis, and Luque, Luis 2001 Woodworking Activities by Early Humans: A Plant Residue Analysis on Acheulian Stone Tools from Peninj (Tanzania). Journal of Human Evolution 40:289299.Google Scholar
Edwards, Stephen W. 2001 A Modern Knapperߣs Assessment of the Technical Skills of the Late Acheulean Biface Workers at Kalambo Falls. In Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site, Vol. III, edited by John D. Clark, pp. 605611. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Eerkens, Jelmer W. 2000 Practice Makes within 5% of Perfect: Visual Perception, Motor Skills, and Memory in Artifact Variation. Current Anthropologist 41:663667.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Bettinger, Robert L. 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66:493504.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Lipo, Carl P. 2005 Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:316334.Google Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Lipo, Carl P. 2007 Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24:316334.Google Scholar
Evans, John 1875 Coinage of the Ancient Britons and Natural Selection. Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain 7:476487.Google Scholar
Falsetti, Anthony B., Jungers, William L., and Cole, Theodore M. III 1993 Morphometrics of the Callitrichid Forelimb: A Case Study in Size and Shape. International Journal of Primatology 14:551572.Google Scholar
Gowlett, John A.J. 2006 The Elements of Design Form in Acheulian Bifaces: Modes, Modalities, Rules and Language. In Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard, edited by Naama Goren-Inbar and Ganon Sharon, pp. 203221. Equinox, London.
Gowlett, John A.J. 2009 Artefacts of Apes, Humans, and Others: Towards Comparative Assessment and Analysis. Journal of Human Evolution 57:401410.Google Scholar
Gowlett, John A.J. 2011 The Empire of the Acheulean Strikes Back. In Casting the Net Wide: Papers in Honor of Glynn Isaac and His Approach to Human Origins Research, edited by David Pilbeam, Jeanne Sept, and Christian Vogel, pp. 93114. American School of Prehistoric Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Greenspan, Ralph J. 2004 Fly Pushing: The Theory and Practice of Drosophila Genetics. 2nd ed. Cold Springer Harbor Laboratory Press, New York.
Halpern, Diane F. 2000 Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities. 3rd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Hamilton, Marcus J., and Buchanan, Briggs 2009 The Accumulation of Stochastic Copying Errors Causes Drift in Culturally Transmitted Technologies: Quantifying Clovis Evolutionary Dynamics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:5569.Google Scholar
Hammer, Øyvind, Harper, David A. T., and Ryan, Paul D. 2001 PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4:19.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph 2004 Demography and Cultural Evolution: How Adaptive Cultural Processes Can Produce Maladaptive Losses: The Tasmanian Case. American Antiquity 69:19721.Google Scholar
Isaac, Glynn L. 1977 Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Jones, Peter R. 1980 Experimental Butchery with Modern Stone Tools and Its Relevance for Palaeolithic Archaeology. World Archaeology 12:153165.Google Scholar
Jordan, Peter, and Shennan, Stephen 2003 Cultural Transmission, Language, and Basketry Traditions amongst the California Indians. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22:4274.Google Scholar
Jungers, William L., Falsetti, Anthony B., and Wall, Christine E. 1995 Shape, Relative Size, and Size-Adjustments in Morphometrics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 38:137161.Google Scholar
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kempe, Marius, Lycett, Stephen J., and Mesoudi, Alex 2012 An Experimental Test of the Accumulated Copying Error Model of Cultural Mutation for Acheulean Handaxe Size. PLoS ONE 7(e48333): 114.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., VanBuskirk, Stephanie, and Ruscavage-Barz, Samantha 2004 Vessels and Villages: Evidence for Conformist Transmission in Early Village Aggregations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:100118.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 2004 Evolutionary Perspectives on Technology and Technological Change. World Archaeology 36:561570.Google Scholar
Lepre, Christopher J., Roche, Hélène, Kent, Dennis V., Harmand, Soma, Quinn, Rhonda L., Brugal, Jean-Philippe, Texier, Pierre-Jean, Lenoble, Arnaud, and Feibel, Craig S. 2011 An Earlier Origin of the Acheulean. Nature 477:8285.Google Scholar
Linn, Marcia C., and Petersen, Anne C. 1986 A Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Spatial Ability. In The Psychology of Gender: Advances through Meta-Analysis, edited by Janet Shibley Hyde and Marcia C. Linn, pp. 67101. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lipo, Carl P., O’Brien, Michael J., Collard, Mark, and Shennan, Stephen J. (editors) 2006 Mapping Our Ancestors: Phylogenetic Approaches in Anthropology and Prehistory. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Lycett, Stephen J. 2008 Acheulean Variation and Selection: Does Handaxe Symmetry Fit Neutral Expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science 35:26402648.Google Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J. 2009 Are Victoria West Cores “Proto-Levallois”? A Phylogenetic Assessment. Journal of Human Evolution 56:175191.Google Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J. 2011 “Most Beautiful and Most Wonderful”: Those Endless Stone Tool Forms. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 9:143171.Google Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J., and von Cramon-Taubadel, Noreen 2008 Acheulean Variability and Hominin Dispersals: A Model-Bound Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:553562.Google Scholar
Lycett, Stephen J., von Cramon-Taubadel, Noreen, and Foley, Robert A. 2006 A Crossbeam Co-Ordinate Caliper for the Morphometric Analysis of Lithic Nuclei: A Description, Test and Empirical Examples of an Application. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:847861.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2000 Measuring and Explaining Change in Artefact Variation Width Clade-Diversity Diagrams. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:3974.Google Scholar
Marwick, Ben 2012 A Cladistic Evaluation of Ancient Thai Bronze Buddha Images: Six Tests for a Phylogenetic Signal in the Gris-wold Collection. In Connecting Empires, edited by Dominik Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke, and Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz, pp. 159176. National University of Singapore Press, Singapore.
Mesoudi, Alex 2007 Biological and Cultural Evolution: Similar but Different. Biological Theory 2:119123.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex 2008 Foresight in Cultural Evolution. Biology and Philosophy 23:243255.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex 2011 Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mesoudi, Alex, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2008a The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile Point Technology I: An Experimental Simulation. American Antiquity 73:328.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2008b The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile Point Technology II: An Agent-Based Computer Simulation. American Antiquity 73: 627644.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex, and O’Brien, Michael J. 2009 Placing Archaeology within a Unified Science of Cultural Evolution. In Patterns and Processes in Cultural Evolution, edited by Stephen J. Shennan, pp. 2132. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Mesoudi, Alex, Whiten, Andrew, and Laland, Kevin N. 2004 Is Human Cultural Evolution Darwinian? Evidence Reviewed from the Perspective of The Origin of Species. Evolution 58:111.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex, Whiten, Andrew, and Laland, Kevin N. 2006 Towards a Unified Science of Cultural Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29:329346.Google Scholar
Monnier, Gilliane F., and McNulty, Kieran P. 2010 Questioning the Link between Stone Tool Standardization and Behavioral Modernity. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies, edited by Stephen J. Lycett and Parth R. Chauhan, pp. 2341. Springer, New York.
Neiman, Fraser D. 1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity 60:736.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., and Lee Lyman, R. 2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.
O’Brien, Michael J., and Lee Lyman, R. 2003 Cladistics and Archaeology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
O’Brien, Michael J., Darwent, John, and Lee Lyman, R. 2001 Cladistics is Useful for Reconstructing Archaeological Phylogenies: Palaeoindian Points from the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:11151136.Google Scholar
Patten, Bob 2005 Peoples of the Flute: A Study in Anthropolithic Forensics. Stone Dagger Publications, Denver, Colorado.
Patten, Bob 2012 Explaining Temporal Change in Artifacts by the Use of Process Controls. Lithic Technology 37:2534.Google Scholar
Perreault, Charles 2012 The Pace of Cultural Evolution. PLoS ONE 7(e45150):18.Google Scholar
Platnick, Norman I., and Don Cameron, H. 1977 Cladistic Methods in Textual, Linguistic, and Phylogenetic Analysis. Systematic Biology 26:380385.Google Scholar
Premo, Luke S. 2012 Local Extinction, Connectedness, and Cultural Evolution in Structured Populations. Advances in Complex Systems 15:118.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark 2004 Evolution. 3rd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
Robert, Michèle, and Chevrier, Eliane 2003 Does Men’s Advantage in Mental Rotation Persist When Real Three-Dimensional Objects Are Either Felt or Seen? Memory & Cognition 31:11361145.Google Scholar
Roberts, David B. (editor) 1986 Drosophila: A Practical Approach. Information Printing, Oxford.
Roberts, Mark B., and Parfitt, Simon A. 1999 Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London.
Roche, Hélène 2005 From Simple Flaking to Shaping: Stone-Knapping Evolution among Early Hominins. In Stone Knapping: The Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour, edited by Valentine Roux and Blandine Bril, pp. 3548. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge.
Roe, Derek 1976 Typology and the Trouble with Handaxes. In: Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, edited by Gale de Giberne Sieveking, Ian H. Longworth, and Kenneth E. Wilson, pp. 6170. Duckworth, London.
Rogers, Deborah S., Feldman, Marcus W., and Ehrlich, Paul R. 2009 Inferring Population Histories Using Cultural Data. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 276:38353843.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. James 2010 TpsDig2 v2.16. Stony Brook, N.Y.: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York. Electronic document, http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/, accessed March 4, 2012.
Schick, Kathy D., and Toth, Nicholas 1993 Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of Human Technology. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
Shea, John J. 2011 Homo Sapiens Is as Homo Sapiens Was: Behavioral Variability versus “Behavioral Modernity” in Paleolithic Archaeology. Current Anthropology 52:135.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J. 2001 Demography and Cultural Innovation: A Model and Its Implications for the Emergence of Modern Human Culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:516.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J. 2011 Descent with Modification and the Archaeological Record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366:10701079.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J., and Wilkinson, James R. 2001 Ceramic Style Change and Neutral Evolution: A Case Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66:577593.Google Scholar
Simão, Jorge 2002 Tools Evolve: The Artificial Selection and Evolution of Paleolithic Stone Tools. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25:419.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R., and James Rohlf, F. 1995 Biometry. 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman, New York.
Stout, Dietrich 2002 Skill and Cognition in Stone Tool Production: An Ethnographic Case Study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43:693722.Google Scholar
Tehrani, Jamshid, and Collard, Mark 2002 Investigating Cultural Evolution through Biological Phylogenetic Analyses of Turkmen Textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:443463.Google Scholar
Toth, Nicholas 1985 The Oldowan Reassessed: A Close Look at Early Stone Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:101120.Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Voyer, Daniel, Voyer, Susan and Bryden, Mark P. 1995 Magnitude of Sex Differences in Spatial Abilities: A Meta-Analysis and Consideration of Critical Variables. Psychological Bulletin 117:250270.Google Scholar
Whiten, Andrew, Horner, Victoria, Litchfield, Carla A., and Marshall-Pescini, Sarah 2004 How Do Apes Ape? Learning & Behavior 32:3652.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Wynn, Thomas 2002 Archaeology and Cognitive Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25:389402.Google Scholar
Wynn, Thomas G., Tierson, Forrest D., and Palmer, Craig T. 1996 Evolution of Sex Differences in Spatial Cognition. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 39: 1142.Google Scholar
Yravedra, José, Domínguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, Santonja, Manuel, Pérez-González, Alfredo, Panera, Joaquín, Rubio-Jara, Susana, and Baquedano, Enrique 2010 Cut marks on the Middle Pleistocene Elephant Carcass of Áridos 2 (Madrid, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 37:24692476.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 78 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 16th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-cctwg Total loading time: 0.339 Render date: 2021-01-16T09:09:31.340Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Jan 16 2021 08:52:54 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Copying Error and the Cultural Evolution of “Additive” vs. “Reductive” Material Traditions: An Experimental Assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Copying Error and the Cultural Evolution of “Additive” vs. “Reductive” Material Traditions: An Experimental Assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Copying Error and the Cultural Evolution of “Additive” vs. “Reductive” Material Traditions: An Experimental Assessment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *