Claudio Tennie

Homepage

Publications

Positions

Contact

ABOUT ME

I am trained in biology (especially behavioural biology), psychology (especially comparative and developmental psychology), archaeology (especially cognitive archaeology and early stone tools) and philosophy (especially philosophy of science). I am habilitated in the first three of these fields.

Currently my work is based at the University of Tübingen (Germany) where I hold a permanent research group leader position ("Tools and Culture among Early Hominins") in the Working Group of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology. In addition, I am an adjunct scientist at the Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes (Chicago, USA).

ABOUT MY WORK

TL;DR

My lab asks when, why, and how the cultural evolution of know-how began in humans. Our results indicate that apes and early hominins (including the “invisible” organic-tool phase) had closed-ended cultures described by the Zone of Latent Solutions (ZLS). The Lomekwian & Oldowan & early Acheulean likewise show closed-ended cultural patterns. All these species (apes, too) had culture, but their social learning catalysed individual know-how rather than copying it token-by-token beyond latent reach. Such learning can be vital for survival and social life, yet it is insufficient for open-ended cultural evolution of know-how. Based on archaeological interpretation, I place the first tentative evidence of supra-individual know-how in our lineage at ~1.0–0.5 Ma. We are now narrowing and back-checking that window using comparative and archaeological tests, new methods (e.g., Method of Local Restriction), models, and rigorous replication pipelines (e.g., BRAVO to curb coders’ degrees of freedom in video analyses).

Core question

What are humans? Culture is central to any serious answer. Culture is multifactorial, but some ingredients are necessary. Most of human culture requires a special subset of social learning: template copying of know-how, token-by-token (e.g., learned sound sequences realising words). This copying need not be perfect, but it must be (a) precise enough not to drown design in noise across transmission and (b) powerful enough to give learners access to know-how beyond individual reach. This capacity enables direct cultural evolution of know-how but also reshapes its carriers: today’s mutually reinforcing culture–cognition dependency rests on know-how copying: remove culturally acquired know-how from human minds, and society collapses.

Therefore my pragmatic target is the evolution of know-how copying: copying a procedural template even when it could not be constructed individually (supra-individual know-how). My lab combines comparative work (especially apes) with archaeology (artefacts and distributions), developmental/psychological studies, and modelling.

Key distinctions (what evolves)

Know-how

Procedures/techniques/artefact forms /behaviours; linearly and/or hierarchically constituted: when required know-how exceeds individual reach, copying is the only transmission route. Under suitable circumstances, this can then drive direct cultural evolution of know-how.

Know-where / know-what / know-when etc. (locations, resources, timings):

These can spread socially without copying know-how. These do not, on their own, lead to direct cultural evolution of know-how.

Apes today (ZLS)

Ape cultures are real but closed-ended: apes socially learn where/what/when; the how remains individually attainable (the ZLS). In their natural state (absent human training), apes do not copy supraindividual know-how; thus their social learning cannot generate open-ended, direct cultural evolution of know-how.

Phylogenetic inference: the last common ancestor of apes and humans likely lacked know-how copying and, with it, cultural evolution of know-how.

Early stone tools

The sharp stone flake culture of the Oldowan (~2.6 Ma) shows extended stases across time/space/species best explained by latent know-how (individually attainable) rather than requiring know-how copying.

Proofs-of-principle: modern humans can reinvent earliest stone tool know-how without know-how models; untrained and unenculturated apes can sometimes make (and in at least one case use) early stone stools, too. (These results passed interreliability checks). Naive humans can also produce early Acheulean (~1.7 Ma) handaxes in the absence of know-how models.

Therefore: the mere presence of early stone-tool know-how (via flakes, early handaxes) is no longer evidence for know-how copying; the origin of cumulative cultural know-how likely lies later than the early Acheulean.

Current best estimate

My working estimate for first supra-individual know-how in our lineage: ~1.0–0.5 Ma.

My lab plans to systematically test the later stone tool record (using Method of Local Restriction and allied diagnostics, coupled with inter-rater reliability and state-of-the-art coding, sensu BRAVO) to refine this window. Once achieved, we will link timing to biology and ecology at the relevant horizons.

How we study the question

Comparative cognition: to identify which information types are socially learned by our closest living relatives, and which are not. Tests of how far ape innovation can reach in the absence of know-how copying.

Archaeological adjudication: ZLS logic, Method of Local Restriction, variability and boundedness metrics to detect evidence for or against know-how copying.

Rigour & replication: preregistration/Registered Reports where appropriate; BRAVO workflow to reduce coders’ degrees of freedom; targeted replication checks so inferences rest on robust data.

Triangulation: experiments, comparative/developmental data, lithic/archaeological analyses, and modelling.