Old Man's Culture

By Razib Khan | August 3, 2011 12:51 am


A few readers reminded me of the recent Rachel Caspari article in Scientific American, The Evolution of Grandparents. It’s actually based on her earlier research, published in PNAS in 2004, Older age becomes common late in human evolution. I was already pointed to this paper by Milford Wolpoff, who seems to be of the opinion this is a very underappreciated dynamic in our species’ history (note: he’s married to Caspari). And Wolpoff sent me a copy of the Scientific American article too, so it’s been in my “to read” folder for a bit.

Honestly it’s a lot more persuasive than the scientific paper because it’s so non-technical. It really makes me appreciate the power of science communication. I don’t know anything about the analysis of dental remains, so I really hummed along through a lot of the paper with minimal comprehension. With the article Caspari could present her results and interpretation more cleanly.

The major finding in the PNAS finding, which is reported in the Scientific American article, is the ratio of parents to grandparents in a total sample of ~750 remains separated by population class varies a great deal. Parents here means those who are 15-30 years old in age, and grandparents are those who are 30+ years in age. The major qualifier here is obviously potential, but that’s a side issue. What the authors found in their sample was quite striking: notice the huge qualitative shift when you move to a population set of Upper Paleolithic behaviorally modern humans (less than 50,000 years before the present). In contrast, the European Neandertals much more resemble the larger collection of archaic Homo (most of which would presumably have been termed “archaic H. sapiens” in the past because they span 50 to 150,000 years B.P.). This still leaves the question of whether this is nature or nurture is left hanging.

But in the Scientific American article Caspari reports a further set of results from another sample: West Asian anatomically modern humans and Neandertals (this sample spans 40 to 110,000 years B.P.) The major finding is that both populations tended to cluster together in their ratios, which were lower than Upper Paleolithic Europeans. The implication that Caspari draws is that the change was not one of biology, because West Asian and European Neandertals would presumably form a monophyletic clade against West Asian and European anatomically modern humans (the tree would have four branches, with two sets of two). And yet on this particular trait behaviorally modern humans are particularly distinctive, and the two West Asian populations are next in line. The authors’ ascribe this to the milder climate of Western Asia, but as a Malthusian I think we need to be careful of this sort of conclusion. It may be that environmental variables are the biggest factors in long term population structure, but just as often intra-specific competition driven by scramble for scarce resources is also a major factor. Did the peasants of the lower Yangtze live a richer and easier life than the nomads of Mongolia? Because the density was so much greater in the lower Yangtze the reality is that there wasn’t that much variance on the margin of subsistence.

Personally I am not that convinced that these results confirm a cultural origin for the change in ratios. They are certainly consistent with it. But one could suggest that a gene of rather large effect swept across human populations, introgressing across distinct lineages. Ultimately this is where genomics may have some utility. Once we have some solid biology around the grandmother hypothesis we may be able to compare the genetic architecture of hominin lineages which we know from ancient DNA.

Overall Rachel Caspari presents to me a entirely reasonable case for a series of positive feedback loops being triggered by a change in the age ratio structure of human populations. But I think it is just as likely that the change in ratio was an effect of some other cultural or biological innovation. This change was what resulted in various knock-on effects, which might include the rise of elder wisdom, the ratchet-process of rapid cultural evolution, and accumulation of skills.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Anthroplogy, Culture, Human Evolution

Comments (6)

  1. Nador

    Shouldn’t the label of the figure be ratio of 30+ to 15-30 year old? Or is it just my poor English?

  2. Rick

    Nador is the high quality reader of Discover that I imagine reads this magazine. Also, I appreciate his humble (not- Cocky) attitude. Makes me proud to be a member of the Discover family. I wish I had access to such smart people in my “regular” life! Thank you for responding.

  3. Bonnie Bowman

    A few years ago a scientist wrote an article stating that women of menopausal age were of little or no use to a the group. I guess this proves that all wrong. Regardless of which theory proves correct for this radical change-nature or nuture- it was necessary for us to continue to become even more cohesive family and tribe groups. Young women of child bering age would have had the highest mortality and a woman to survive to 30 would have made her a person with a lot of stored memories; the same as an elder male hunter or tool maker.

  4. Nerf Herder

    A couple minor grammar errors early on detracted from this (IMO, not everybody is a grammar nazi I realize). It’s a “to read” folder, not “too read”. And it’s “hummed along through a lot of the paper”, instead of “to”. And near the end, the term “knock-on” was used, where I think “add-on” would be better, perhaps confused with “knock-off” in this case. Otherwise this is a fine blog.

  5. James Barter, MD

    If, in early hominid populations, women bore children at a much younger age isn’t it possible that grandmothers would also be younger. A 14 yo has a child, her mother had her at age 14 so at age 28 she is a grandmother. I think the results merely show that as human populations grew larger and had more resources they lived longer hence more bones of older people who may or may not have been grandparents.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com


See More


RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar