Genealogy as Analytical Framework of Cultural Evolution of Tribes, Communities, and Societies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI generally do not submit reviews in narrative form, but instead list issues that should be addressed to improve the presentation and arguments prior to publication. However, in this case, my concerns are overarching all of that: the authors begin their article with a fascinating and challenging assertion that "Genealogy serves as a powerful analytical framework for understanding the cultural evolution of tribes, communities, and societies" (Abstract, p. 1). Section 1 promises to present "comparative case studies and theoretical analysis" (p. 3, lines 97-98) and the author/s refer to the article as a "study" throughout. My enthusiasm waned with Section 2 Theoretical Foundations as the author/s take the reader through three major theoretical perspectives and fail to adequately explain and synthesize how these perspectives relate to the paper. Do the author/s approach genealogy through one of these theoretical lenses--they never say.
Next, we have a section labeled Applications and Critiques which sometimes repeats without further explanation claims made earlier in the paper (e.g., "tribal communities often depend on oral genealogies to maintain social cohesion, regulate marriage alliances, and legitimize leadership" (p. 4, lines 180-182) re Strauss' argument presented on p. 1-2 "kinship systems function as foundational structures that regulate marriage, inheritance, and social alliances, thereby maintaining societal cohesion." This section deepened my disappointment with the paper, replete with claims made but left unexplained or even exemplified (e.g., "rising sea levels threaten Pacific Islander genealogies tied to specific islands" (p. 6, lines 244-245 and again in the final section p. 10, lines 452-454).
Section 4 complicates the picture further, and we still do not know the "story" that the author/s are telling us. This section is replete with brief and relatively superficial statements (claims?) about different nations, cultures, dynasties, geographical locations--none of which are actually explained further beyond a brief claim such as the entire paragraph entitled "Genealogy as a Tool of Imperial Control" (p. 6, lines 286-287 and p. 7, lines 288-291). The paper carries on with more claims about Early Islam, Hindu Caste Systems, Chinese Mandates of Heaven, and claims such as "Agrarian and feudal societies transformed genealogy from a kinship tool into an instrument of civilizational governance" (p. 7, lines 328-329): without any further explanation or example, this sentence feels superficial and dominated by jargon, the meaning of which escapes the reader. I may be missing something, but if I am having difficulty interpreting throughout the paper, I might be forgiven for believing our readers could feel the same?
Section 5 Modern Nationalist Genealogies muddies the water even more. How exactly has "nationalism democratized ancestry by making it a mass phenomenon" (p. 8, lines 348-349)? Paragraph 5.1 fails, it seems to me, to even address the fact that there are often challenges to nation states with reference to competing ethnic identities within (created) nation states. The next paragraph 5.2 simply tries to cover far too much territory, dealing very briefly with German history and then switching to the Celts in Ireland. In section 5.3, the author/s claim "DNA studies are now weaponized in debates over Aryan migration, showing how science reshapes genealogical politics" (p. 8, lines 377-378). Frankly, without some explanation, this claim remains unsupported. In Section 5.4, the author/s link in one sentence the search for tribal ancestry by (slave descendant) African Americans to the interest in genealogy by white supremacists--this may offend?
Suggestions for future research lack cohesion and do not necessarily follow from this paper. Why/how should future research "look into how genetic essentialism and digital archives will transform nationalist imagination" (p. 9, lines 406-408)--what does this even mean? Then in the final section Living Framework of Genealogy, it is suggested that future research should explore three frontiers. It is not clear to this reviewer how the author/s have framed their claims and examination of genealogy such that they lead to these future directions for research. I must also take issue with the statement on p. 9, line 410, that this work has "demonstrated" how genealogy functions as a dynamic analytical framework...." Many claims are made throughout the work (which I cannot really characterize as a "study") that re simply unsubstantiated and presented without explanation.
The final paragraph is confusing. Genealogy is a scientific tool: as such, it is indeed "neutral." But just as any theoretical or research approach can be distorted to fit biases and prejudices, genealogy can be so used.
If the author/s are able to take the initial promise of this article and focus on telling a story that is supported by theory, explanation, and examples rather than simply stated as claims, this paper has the potential to make an important contribution. I urge the author/s to focus and tell a succinct, clear, supported-by-the-evidence story. This paper is trying to do far too much.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript and for the constructive, thorough, and thoughtful comments provided by the reviewers. We have carefully considered each point raised and have substantially revised the manuscript to address the concerns.
Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the key issues raised, explaining how we have addressed them in the revision.
Response to Reviewer 1
We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their deeply engaging and critical review. The reviewer rightly identified a lack of focus and substantiation in the original manuscript, where claims were often made without sufficient explanation or exemplification. We have undertaken a major revision to tell a clearer, more supported "story" as suggested.
Comment 1: Overarching concern regarding lack of synthesis, explanation, and examples; the manuscript makes many claims that are "left unexplained or even exemplified."
Response: This was the central critique, and we have addressed it comprehensively throughout the manuscript. We have:
Clarified our approach: We now explicitly state our integrative, synthesizing approach in the "Theoretical Foundations" section, explaining how we draw on multiple disciplines.
Added concrete examples: We have inserted specific examples to illustrate key concepts. For instance:
Page 4 (Theoretical Foundations): We now explain Lévi-Strauss's "elementary structures" with the example of cross-cousin marriage alliances in tribal societies.
Page 4-5 (Theoretical Foundations): We provide detailed explanations of how whakapapa encodes Māori spiritual authority and how a Sufi silsila transmits legitimacy.
Page 5 (Tribal Societal Genealogy): We added an example of how British colonial formalization of Nuer genealogies created artificial power structures.
Page 6 (Agrarian and Feudal Societies): We elaborated on how British census operations rigidified the fluid Indian jati system.
Page 7 (Modern Nationalist Genealogies): We specified how DNA data is used in the Aryan migration debate and provided crucial context to distinguish between the motivations of African Americans and white supremacists using genetic genealogy.
Explained impactful statements: For the mention of rising sea levels threatening Pacific Islander genealogies (p. 6), we added a phrase explaining the mechanism: "...as ancestral lands that physically anchor these narratives disappear, forcing a renegotiation of identity and belonging."
Comment 2: The paper "complicates the picture further" and is "replete with brief and relatively superficial statements." Sections like "Genealogy as a Tool of Imperial Control" lack development.
Response: We have restructured several sections for clarity and depth. Most significantly, we transformed the long, dense paragraphs in the "Agrarian and Feudal Societies" section into a clearer, sub-section format with headings (e.g., "i) Noble Lineages...", "ii) Role of Church..."). This improves readability and allows each point to be made more effectively. We have also added transitional sentences to improve the flow between sections and ideas.
Comment 3: The link between African American genealogy and white supremacist interests "may offend" due to lack of nuance.
Response: We agree completely. On page 8, we have added a crucial sentence to provide this nuance: "It is critical to distinguish between these motivations: the former is often a search for identity and belonging after the historical trauma of slavery, while the latter represents a distortion of genealogy for racist and exclusionary purposes."
Comment 4: The suggestions for future research "lack cohesion" and the conclusion claims to have "demonstrated" points that were unsubstantiated.
Response: We have toned down the language in the conclusion, changing "demonstrated" to "argued for" to better reflect the synthesizing nature of our perspective article. We have refined the future research directions, describing them as "promising frontiers" and added a sentence explicitly linking them back to the article's themes: "These suggested directions logically follow from the article's exploration of genealogy's adaptability to new technological and environmental pressures." This creates a clearer, more cohesive narrative thread.
Comment 5: The final paragraph's statement on genealogy's neutrality is confusing.
Response: We have revised the final paragraph to remove any confusion. The new concluding sentence explicitly states: "In conclusion, genealogy proves indispensable for analyzing cultural evolution precisely because it is never neutral." This aligns with the critical perspective we present throughout the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenealogy As Analytical Framework of Cultural Evolution of Tribes, Communities, and Societies offers a clear, comprehensive and informative introduction to family genealogy. The author(s) have managed to articulate several models of family genealogies including indigenous tribal, agrarian and modern nation states demonstrating the similarities, differences and purposes of these methods. In addition, the authors show how genealogy both preserves and alters culture. They demonstrate how a family genealogy can be co-opted by colonial powers such as when "British administrators attempted to formalize Nuer genealogies." (p. 5). From a substantive standpoint, the paper presents an interesting take on family genealogies that many scholars from different backgrounds would benefit from reading.
Structurally the paper is sound. The authors begin by describing the analytical framework of family genealogy before delving into concrete examples.
The highlights of the paper consisted in combining the clarification of a particular kind of genealogy with concrete historical examples. Such examples helped to elucidate the type of genealogy explicated in the section.
Having said that there were some sections of the paper were this tendency was not practiced. For example, when concretizing Dawkins notion of "meme" on page 4, the authors note that " Whakapapa of Māori tribes (Walker, 1990) and the Silsila of Sufi orders (Ernst, 1997) persist because they encode spiritual authority and social legitimacy. However, as Henrich (2001) notes, genealogies also mutate oral traditions and may be altered to suit contemporary political needs. "
It would be a good idea to explain how the these tribes are able to encode authority and social legitimacy by providing a concrete example of their religious belief system.
The same issue appears earlier on page 3 where the authors note the following: "His (Levi Strauss) concept of "elementary structures of kinship" demonstrated how genealogical ties extend beyond biological descent to forge political and economic networks. This perspective remains influential in understanding how tribal societies use genealogy to mediate intergroup relations." The concept is not sufficiently explained. A concrete example and another clarificatory sentence or two would help elucidate the concept.
Correcting these minor issues would improve the quality the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer’s Comments
Comment: Genealogy As Analytical Framework of Cultural Evolution of Tribes, Communities, and Societies offers a clear, comprehensive and informative introduction to family genealogy. The author(s) have managed to articulate several models of family genealogies including indigenous tribal, agrarian and modern nation states demonstrating the similarities, differences and purposes of these methods. In addition, the authors show how genealogy both preserves and alters culture. They demonstrate how a family genealogy can be co-opted by colonial powers such as when "British administrators attempted to formalize Nuer genealogies." (p. 5). From a substantive standpoint, the paper presents an interesting take on family genealogies that many scholars from different backgrounds would benefit from reading.
Structurally the paper is sound. The authors begin by describing the analytical framework of family genealogy before delving into concrete examples.
The highlights of the paper consisted in combining the clarification of a particular kind of genealogy with concrete historical examples. Such examples helped to elucidate the type of genealogy explicated in the section.
Having said that there were some sections of the paper where this tendency was not practiced. For example, when concretizing Dawkins notion of "meme" on page 4, the authors note that " Whakapapa of Māori tribes (Walker, 1990) and the Silsila of Sufi orders (Ernst, 1997) persist because they encode spiritual authority and social legitimacy. However, as Henrich (2001) notes, genealogies also mutate oral traditions and may be altered to suit contemporary political needs." It would be a good idea to explain how these tribes are able to encode authority and social legitimacy by providing a concrete example of their religious belief system.
Response: The central weakness of the quoted passage is that it states a function ("encode spiritual authority and social legitimacy") without demonstrating the mechanism. It tells the reader that these genealogies work as high-fidelity memes but falls short of showing how their specific religious and cosmological beliefs make this possible. This is now cleared.
Comment: The same issue appears earlier on page 3 where the authors note the following: "His (Levi Strauss) concept of "elementary structures of kinship" demonstrated how genealogical ties extend beyond biological descent to forge political and economic networks. This perspective remains influential in understanding how tribal societies use genealogy to mediate intergroup relations." The concept is not sufficiently explained. A concrete example and another clarificatory sentence or two would help elucidate the concept. Correcting these minor issues would improve the quality the paper.
Response: This gap has been bridged too
Comment: I appreciate you responding to the latest recommendations. The paper continues to improve. Please revise the abstract to take out the mentions of "universal" and change to something like "very common" or "widely distributed" or some such. Your paper is not trying to prove that these genealogical facets of culture are universal, and you can't really say this unless you look at all cultures. Please read through the full paper with your changes to make sure that it all reads well.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the time and tremendous expert input into this work, which has added sufficient value to the paper and has now made it fit for publication. As suggested, we have read through the paper, corrected or deleted all mistaken areas, and highlighted all such areas in yellow.
Once again, thank you the reviewers and editors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
