On the absence of a correlation between population size and ‘toolkit size’ in ethnographic hunter–gatherers

Abstract

In apparent contradiction to the theoretically predicted effect of population size on the quality/quantity of material culture, statistical analyses on ethnographic hunter–gatherers have shown an absence of correlation between population size and toolkit size. This has sparked a heated, if sometimes tangential, debate as to the usefulness of the theoretical models and as to what modes of cultural transmission humans are capable of and hunter–gatherers rely on. I review the directly relevant theoretical literature and argue that much of the confusion is caused by a mismatch between the theoretical variable and the empirical observable. I then confirm that a model incorporating the appropriate variable does predict a positive association between population size and toolkit size for random oblique, vertical, best-of-K, conformist, anticonformist, success bias and one-to-many cultural transmission, with the caveat that for all populations sampled, the population size has remained constant and toolkit size has reached the equilibrium for this population size. Finally, I suggest three theoretical scenarios, two of them involving variable population size, that would attenuate or eliminate this association and hence help to explain the empirical absence of correlation.