Routes to Language
Larger
Social Groups
|
Precursors: Meaningful Signals Machiavellian Intelligence |
Likely Emergence: Australopithecus About 3 million years ago |
Products: Extended
Childhood |
|
References and other reading |
|
Aiello, L. and Dunbar,
R., 1993. Neocortex Size, Group Size, and the Evolution of
Language. Current
Anthropology, 34(2), pp.184- |
|
Byrne, R., 2000.
Evolution of Primate Cognition. Cognitive
Science, 24(3), pp.543- |
|
Dávid- |
|
Grove, M., 2011.
Space, time, and group size: a model of constraints on primate social
foraging. Animal
Behaviour, 83(2), pp.411- |
|
Hammel, E., 2005.
Kinship- |
|
Lehmann, J., Korstjens, A. and
Dunbar, R., 2007. Group size, grooming and social cohesion in
primates. Animal
Behaviour, 74(6), pp.1617- |
|
Pagel, M., 2011.
How Language Transformed Humanity. [https://www.ted.com/talks/mark_pagel_how_language_transformed_humanity,
Accessed Mar. 2020.] |
|
Discussion |
|
'Larger Social Groups' refers to the phenomenon
of a number of primate species, including the Australopithecus, living and
socialising in groups with an increasingly large number of individuals. More
specifically, Aiello & Dunbar (1993) maintain that the upper limit of
individuals that can exist in an average hunter-gatherer Australopithecine
group is about 66. After this, it becomes likely that members will not
be able to budget enough time to maintain social bonds and it is necessary
for the group to split up into subgroups. (Lehmann, Korstkjens & Dunbar,
2007). E.A. Hammel (2005) refers to this as a process of fission and fusion
which demonstrates a 'Malthusian effect'. Simply, this means that large
social groups may no longer be efficient for species beyond a point. Research using simulated models of human behaviour
have shown that "increases in the kinds of information processed allow
organisms to break through glass ceilings that otherwise limit social
groups". (David-Barrett, 2013, p.1). This is due to what David-Barrett
identifies as the Social Complexity Hypothesis, where the kinds of
information which can be processed in the brain limit group size. Therefore,
a higher demand for communicative complexity leads to more sophisticated
cognitive strategies, which is turn facilitate larger groups. Larger groups
demand more complex communication, as all members must be co-ordinated when
grooming, scavenging and surviving predation. This leads to increased
encephalisation and specifically, a larger neocortex in mammal brains.
(David-Barrett, op cit). Consequently, this creates a bidirectional
relationship between group size and neocortex ratio. However, recent literature has identified other variables
limiting group size. Grove (2011) argues that group size is largely
determined by the group's ability to forage for food (Ecological Constraint
Hypothesis) and also by Dunbar's theory of time constraints. (Aiello &
Dunbar, op cit). Grove concludes that group size will inevitably be affected
by one of these variables, or there is a risk of group fission. Therefore, it
would appear that larger groups can be costly and evolve differently
depending on the species. Nevertheless, Aiello & Dunbar (Ibid) found
group size and neocortex ratio to increase linearly from Australopithecus,
across early homo species. This coincided with the development of
communicative readiness in archaic Homo Sapiens, such as a low larynx and
Machiavellian Intelligence. (Byrne, 2000). This likely resulted in the
ability for Homo Sapiens to produce meaningful signals, which evolutionary
biologist Mark Pagel (2011) refers to as "the most powerful, dangerous
and subversive trait that natural selection has ever devised". While there is current debate surrounding other
species' abilities to use language, it appears likely that further research
on changes in group sizes across other mammals over time would be
enlightening. Christina Sharpless, 2020 |