"But the initial rise was unusually sharp. We see nothing like it in the cognitive evolution of East Asia after the advent of farming. There is just a gradual increase until 1,500 years ago.
Does Europe show an initial surge simply because early farmers were adapting to the demands of farming? Or were they intermixing with a population of higher cognitive ability as they moved farther north into Europe?"
But does this not suggest a possible cart-before-the-horse scenario? In other words, an increase in intelligence prompted the change from hunting to farming.
"After the turn of the millennium, it lost further ground as evidence mounted for recent cognitive evolution at temperate or even subtropical latitudes, among such groups as Ashkenazi Jews,4 the Chinese,5 and the English from the late Middle Ages onward."
This does not negate the possibility that there are a number of reasons humans gain intelligence.
Bottom line, as you seem to suggest, the pressure for selection of intelligence is rather nuanced and not so well understood.
Yes, this is what I suggest. Cognitive ability is not a product of a single selection pressure. It has been shaped by a different mix of selection pressures at different times and in different places.
"But does this not suggest a possible cart-before-the-horse scenario? In other words, an increase in intelligence prompted the change from hunting to farming."
I don't see how. Between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago (and thereafter as well), the ancient DNA is overwhelmingly from Neolithic farming sites.
"I don't see how. Between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago (and thereafter as well), the ancient DNA is overwhelmingly from Neolithic farming sites."
Maybe I didn't word it right. What I meant was that perhaps an increase in intelligence among some hunters led to a shift toward farming, which in turn continued the increase in intelligence. Since hunting is a rather nomadic endeavor, maybe the reason for ancient DNA being overwhelmingly from Neolithic farming sites is that.
Piffer and Kirkegaard looked at cognitive evolution in Europe before 9,000 years ago in their 2024 paper: "Evolutionary Trends of Polygenic Scores in European Populations From the Paleolithic to Modern Times."
It's difficult to say anything definitive because the sample sizes are small. Two findings relate to your question:
- Cognitive ability began to increase around 20,000 years ago. This was well before the time of farming.
- Hunter-gatherer ancestry, especially ancestry from Western Hunter Gatherers, was negatively associated with cognitive ability (EA3, EA4, and IQ).
These two findings seem to be contradictory. One problem is that this study provides no information on Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers (Most studies divide European hunter-gatherers into three groups: Western, Eastern, and Scandinavian). I suspect there was a positive association between cognitive ability and Scandinavian hunter-gatherer ancestry, but this group was either excluded from analysis or included in the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (who may have shown a weak positive association with cognitive ability).
I would have to dig deeper into their paper to find out.
Quote: "Women had few opportunities for food gathering most of the year, so they specialized in tasks like weaving, pottery, needlework, garment making, leatherworking, shelter building, and ornamentation. For these tasks, they invented new tools, like hand-powered rotary drills to make ornamental objects and perhaps fire. They also built kilns heated to between 500 and 800 degrees C. and made a wide range of woven goods: ropes for rafts and nets, knotted netting, plaited wicker-style basketry, and textiles."
Interesting. When you add cooking and the development of agriculture to that list, it would appear that women were responsible for most if not all ot the major technological developments prior to the rise of civilization. Were they also smarter and better looking?
It’s hard to say which sex is smarter. Men are better at navigating in all four dimensions of space and time. Women are better at identifying small items against a complex background.
These differences originate in the different cognitive demands of hunting versus gathering, and they have helped both sexes develop abilities for other tasks.
"But the initial rise was unusually sharp. We see nothing like it in the cognitive evolution of East Asia after the advent of farming. There is just a gradual increase until 1,500 years ago.
Does Europe show an initial surge simply because early farmers were adapting to the demands of farming? Or were they intermixing with a population of higher cognitive ability as they moved farther north into Europe?"
But does this not suggest a possible cart-before-the-horse scenario? In other words, an increase in intelligence prompted the change from hunting to farming.
"After the turn of the millennium, it lost further ground as evidence mounted for recent cognitive evolution at temperate or even subtropical latitudes, among such groups as Ashkenazi Jews,4 the Chinese,5 and the English from the late Middle Ages onward."
This does not negate the possibility that there are a number of reasons humans gain intelligence.
Bottom line, as you seem to suggest, the pressure for selection of intelligence is rather nuanced and not so well understood.
Yes, this is what I suggest. Cognitive ability is not a product of a single selection pressure. It has been shaped by a different mix of selection pressures at different times and in different places.
"But does this not suggest a possible cart-before-the-horse scenario? In other words, an increase in intelligence prompted the change from hunting to farming."
I don't see how. Between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago (and thereafter as well), the ancient DNA is overwhelmingly from Neolithic farming sites.
"I don't see how. Between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago (and thereafter as well), the ancient DNA is overwhelmingly from Neolithic farming sites."
Maybe I didn't word it right. What I meant was that perhaps an increase in intelligence among some hunters led to a shift toward farming, which in turn continued the increase in intelligence. Since hunting is a rather nomadic endeavor, maybe the reason for ancient DNA being overwhelmingly from Neolithic farming sites is that.
Piffer and Kirkegaard looked at cognitive evolution in Europe before 9,000 years ago in their 2024 paper: "Evolutionary Trends of Polygenic Scores in European Populations From the Paleolithic to Modern Times."
It's difficult to say anything definitive because the sample sizes are small. Two findings relate to your question:
- Cognitive ability began to increase around 20,000 years ago. This was well before the time of farming.
- Hunter-gatherer ancestry, especially ancestry from Western Hunter Gatherers, was negatively associated with cognitive ability (EA3, EA4, and IQ).
These two findings seem to be contradictory. One problem is that this study provides no information on Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers (Most studies divide European hunter-gatherers into three groups: Western, Eastern, and Scandinavian). I suspect there was a positive association between cognitive ability and Scandinavian hunter-gatherer ancestry, but this group was either excluded from analysis or included in the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (who may have shown a weak positive association with cognitive ability).
I would have to dig deeper into their paper to find out.
Thanks, that is informative.
Quote: "Women had few opportunities for food gathering most of the year, so they specialized in tasks like weaving, pottery, needlework, garment making, leatherworking, shelter building, and ornamentation. For these tasks, they invented new tools, like hand-powered rotary drills to make ornamental objects and perhaps fire. They also built kilns heated to between 500 and 800 degrees C. and made a wide range of woven goods: ropes for rafts and nets, knotted netting, plaited wicker-style basketry, and textiles."
Interesting. When you add cooking and the development of agriculture to that list, it would appear that women were responsible for most if not all ot the major technological developments prior to the rise of civilization. Were they also smarter and better looking?
It’s hard to say which sex is smarter. Men are better at navigating in all four dimensions of space and time. Women are better at identifying small items against a complex background.
These differences originate in the different cognitive demands of hunting versus gathering, and they have helped both sexes develop abilities for other tasks.