Early knapping techniques do not necessitate cultural transmission

Abstract

Early stone tool production, or knapping, techniques are claimed to be the earliest evidence for cultural transmission in the human lineage. Previous experimental studies have trained human participants to knap in conditions involving opportunities for cultural transmission. Subsequent knapping was then interpreted as evidence for a necessity of the provided cultural transmission opportunities for these techniques. However, a valid necessity claim requires showing that individual learning alone cannot lead to early knapping techniques. Here, we tested human participants ( N = 28) in cultural isolation for the individual learning of early knapping techniques by providing them with relevant raw materials and a puzzle task as motivation. Twenty-five participants were technique naïve according to posttest questionnaires, yet they individually learned early knapping techniques, therewith producing and using core and flake tools. Early knapping techniques thus do not necessitate cultural transmission of know-how and could likewise have been individually derived among premodern hominins.

What kind of culture did early hominin toolmakers have?

“…These forms can clearly appear without the cultural transmission of know-how being involved, and independent experimental frameworks have indeed validated the notion that Oldowan artifacts are the unintentional (and non-cultural) byproducts of leasteffort flaking behaviors (e.g., Toth, 1985). In one case, Oldowan artifact forms appeared in stochastic knapping sequences during spandrels experiments (Moore & Perston, 2016), while in another, naïve novices who had never been exposed to Oldowan artifact forms reproduced all those core types that were possible from the provided knapping blank form (Snyder et al, 2022).…”

“…And indeed, the answer to this question is yes. Human test participants produced all four early knapping techniques (passive hammer, bipolar, freehand, and projectile) when tested without any demonstrations, teaching, or other exposure to stone toolsin short, in the absence of know-how models to copy (Snyder et al, 2022). Both the toolmaking techniques and the artifactual outcomes produced by naïve human novices were valid representatives of Oldowan technology(-ies) 3 .…”

“…If cumulative culture of know-howbeyond the individual reachis indeed unique among the apes to living modern humans, the search for the origins of cumulative culture of knowhow should be directed towards the hominin lineage post-divergence from the chimpanzee and bonobo lineage (i.e., the least common ancestor, LCA, of humans and Pan would not have possessed abilities for cultural transmission of know-how; see Snyder et al, 2022;Sterelny & Hiscock, in press;Stout et al, 2019;Tennie et al, 2016Tennie et al, , 2017compare with Toth & Schick, 2018;Wynn & McGrew, 1989;Wynn et al, 2011). This investigation is, however, limited by the available preserved physical evidence for hominin cognition and behavior.…”

“…Indeed, the overall pattern of stasis is to be expected, and thus makes sense, under a minimal culture model wherein knowhow development never truly kicks off to go beyond individual re-innovation capacities (see below). Minimal cultures can change but only very slowly over extensive, biologically meaningful time units (Snyder et al, 2022). While minimal cultures surely interact with such slow, biological change (Tennie et al, 2020b), the lack of sufficient levels of copying social learning and cultural transmission of know-how would prevent fast changes and simultaneously would keep the range of know-how bounded., thereby resulting in stasis.…”

“…One suggestion is that 'indirect' transmission of know-how (i.e., before participants entered the test) influenced the behavioral outcomes in the study of Snyder et al (2022). First, in our view, this is an unlikely possibility as the participants were evaluated on their past experiences directly related to stone tools and other types of experiential information (e.g., that sharp things can be used to cut) would not inform them on the desired behavioral outcomee.g., on the know-how of knapping (see discussion in Snyder et al, 2022). Just as well, the possibility still remains and so triangulation with data from other species is required.…”