1
|
Haslam M. Primate archaeology 3.1. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2024; 184:e24919. [PMID: 38400816 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.24919] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2023] [Revised: 12/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 02/26/2024]
|
2
|
Harmand S, Arroyo A. Linking primatology and archaeology: The transversality of stone percussive behaviors. J Hum Evol 2023; 181:103398. [PMID: 37329870 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103398] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2023] [Accepted: 05/09/2023] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
Since the launch of the Journal of Human Evolution fifty years ago, the archaeology of human origins and the evolution of culture have witnessed major breakthroughs with the identification of several new archaeological sites whose chronology has been slowly pushed back until the discovery of the earliest evidence of stone tool making at Lomekwi 3 (West Turkana, Kenya), at 3.3 Ma. Parallel to these discoveries, the study of wild primates, especially chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), allowed the development of models to understand key aspects of the behavior of extinct hominin species. Indeed, chimpanzees possess an impressive diversity of tool-aided foraging behaviors, demonstrating that technology (and culture) is not exclusive to humans. Additionally, current research has also shown that wild capuchin monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus) and long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) also rely on stone percussive foraging behaviors. The investigation of these primates is boosting new interpretative models to understand the origins of stone flaking and the archaeological signature left by these primates. This review aims to present an examination of the state-of-the-art and the current advances made in the study of the earliest hominin technology and primate percussive behaviors. Overall, we argue that while it has been shown that extant primates can generate unintentional flakes, early hominins exhibited skills in the production and use of flakes not identified in primates. Nonetheless, we stand up to continue developing interdisciplinary approaches (i.e., primate archaeology) to study extant primates, as these endeavors are essential to move forward toward a detailed understanding of the technological foraging behaviors beyond the genus Homo. Finally, we discuss future challenges for the study of the emergence of stone technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonia Harmand
- Turkana Basin Institute, Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-4364, USA; TRACES (Travaux et Recherches Archéologiques sur les Cultures, les Espaces et les Sociétés), UMR 5608 of the CNRS, Jean Jaurès University, Toulouse, 31058, France; IFRA Nairobi, Institut Français de Recherche en Afrique, UMIFRE, USR, 3336, CNRS, Kenya.
| | - Adrián Arroyo
- Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES-CERCA), Zona Educacional 4, Campus Sescelades URV (Edifici W3), 43007, Tarragona, Spain; Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Àrea de Prehistòria, Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002, Tarragona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Samuni L, Lemieux D, Lamb A, Galdino D, Surbeck M. Tool use behavior in three wild bonobo communities at Kokolopori. Am J Primatol 2021; 84:e23342. [PMID: 34694658 DOI: 10.1002/ajp.23342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2021] [Revised: 10/08/2021] [Accepted: 10/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Comparative studies on tool technologies in extant primates, especially in our closest living relatives, offer a window into the evolutionary foundations of tool use in hominins. Whereas chimpanzee tool technology is well studied across populations, the scarcity of described tool technology in wild populations of our other closest living relative, the bonobo, is a mystery. Here we provide a first report of the tool use repertoire of the Kokolopori bonobos and describe in detail the use of leaf-umbrellas during rainfall, with the aim to improve our knowledge of bonobo tool use capacity in the wild. The tool use repertoire of the Kokolopori bonobos was most similar to that of the nearby population of Wamba and comprised eight behaviors, none in a foraging context. Further, over a 6-month period we documented 44 instances of leaf-umbrella use by 22 individuals from three communities, suggesting that this behavior is habitual. Most leaf-umbrella tool users were adult females, and we observed a nonadult using a leaf-umbrella on only a single occasion. While the study and theory of tool technologies is often based on the use of tools in foraging tasks, tool use in bonobos typically occurs in nonforaging contexts across populations. Therefore, incorporating both foraging and nonforaging contexts into our theoretical framework is essential if we wish to advance our understanding of the evolutionary trajectories of tool technology in humans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liran Samuni
- Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.,Kokolopori Bonobo Research Project, Tshuapa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.,Department of Primatology, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
| | - David Lemieux
- Kokolopori Bonobo Research Project, Tshuapa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
| | - Alicia Lamb
- Kokolopori Bonobo Research Project, Tshuapa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.,Department of Biology, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York, USA
| | - Daiane Galdino
- Kokolopori Bonobo Research Project, Tshuapa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
| | - Martin Surbeck
- Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.,Kokolopori Bonobo Research Project, Tshuapa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.,Department of Primatology, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Musgrave S, Lonsdorf E, Morgan D, Sanz C. The ontogeny of termite gathering among chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2020; 174:187-200. [PMID: 33247844 PMCID: PMC7818130 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.24125] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2020] [Revised: 05/15/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Objectives Acquiring tool‐assisted foraging skills can potentially improve dietary quality and increase fitness for wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). In contrast to chimpanzees in East and West Africa, chimpanzees in the Congo Basin use tool sets and brush‐tipped fishing probes to gather termites. We investigated the ontogeny of these tool skills in chimpanzees of the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo, and compared it to that for chimpanzees at Gombe, Tanzania. We assessed whether chimpanzees acquired simple tool behaviors and single tool use before more complex actions and sequential use of multiple tool types. Materials and Methods Using a longitudinal approach, we scored remote video footage to document the acquisition of termite‐gathering critical elements for 25 immature chimpanzees at Goualougo. Results All chimpanzees termite fished by 2.9 years but did not manufacture brush‐tipped probes until an average of 4.3 years. Acquisition of sequential tool use extended into juvenility and adolescence. While we did not detect significant sex differences, most critical elements except tool manufacture were acquired slightly earlier by females. Discussion These findings contrast with Gombe, where chimpanzees learn to both use and make fishing probes between ages 1.5–3.5 and acquire the complete task by age 5.5. Differences between sites could reflect tool material selectivity and design complexity, the challenge of sequential tool behaviors, and strength requirements of puncturing subterranean termite nests at Goualougo. These results illustrate how task complexity may influence the timing and sequence of skill acquisition, improving models of the ontogeny of tool behavior among early hominins who likely used complex, perishable technologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Musgrave
- Department of Anthropology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA
| | - Elizabeth Lonsdorf
- Department of Psychology, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - David Morgan
- Lester E. Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Crickette Sanz
- Congo Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo.,Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.,Kyoto University Institute for Advanced Study, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thompson JC, Carvalho S, Marean CW, Alemseged Z. Origins of the Human Predatory Pattern: The Transition to Large-Animal Exploitation by Early Hominins. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 2019. [DOI: 10.1086/701477] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
6
|
Proffitt T, Haslam M, Mercader J, Boesch C, Luncz L. Revisiting Panda 100, the first archaeological chimpanzee nut-cracking site. J Hum Evol 2018; 124:117-139. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2017] [Revised: 04/27/2018] [Accepted: 04/30/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|
7
|
Abstract
The idea that early Australopithecus shaped stone tools to butcher large mammals before the emergence of Homo around 2 million years ago has excited both primatologists and archaeologists. Such claims depend on interpreting modifications found on the surfaces of fossil bones. Recent experiments involving the feeding of mammal carcasses to modern crocodiles have revealed that equifinality—the creation of similar products by different processes—is more important than previously appreciated by zooarchaeologists. Application of these findings to Ethiopian fossils casts doubt on claims for the earliest large mammal butchery and indicates the need for reassessment of all Oldowan-associated bone assemblages to determine the degree to which equifinality compromises earlier interpretations of hominid subsistence activities and their role in human evolution. Zooarchaeologists have long relied on linear traces and pits found on the surfaces of ancient bones to infer ancient hominid behaviors such as slicing, chopping, and percussive actions during butchery of mammal carcasses. However, such claims about Plio–Pleistocene hominids rely mostly on very small assemblages of bony remains. Furthermore, recent experiments on trampling animals and biting crocodiles have shown each to be capable of producing mimics of such marks. This equifinality—the creation of similar products by different processes—makes deciphering early archaeological bone assemblages difficult. Bone modifications among Ethiopian Plio–Pleistocene hominid and faunal remains at Asa Issie, Maka, Hadar, and Bouri were reassessed in light of these findings. The results show that crocodiles were important modifiers of these bone assemblages. The relative roles of hominids, mammalian carnivores, and crocodiles in the formation of Oldowan zooarchaeological assemblages will only be accurately revealed by better bounding equifinality. Critical analysis within a consilience-based approach is identified as the pathway forward. More experimental studies and increased archaeological fieldwork aimed at generating adequate samples are now required.
Collapse
|
8
|
Shea JJ. Occasional, obligatory, and habitual stone tool use in hominin evolution. Evol Anthropol 2017; 26:200-217. [PMID: 29027335 DOI: 10.1002/evan.21547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/28/2017] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Archeologists have long assumed that earlier hominins were obligatory stone tool users. This assumption is deeply embedded in traditional ways of describing the lithic record. This paper argues that lithic evidence dating before 1.7 Ma reflects occasional stone tool use, much like that practiced by nonhuman primates except that it involved flaked-stone cutting tools. Evidence younger than 0.3 Ma is more congruent with obligatory stone tool use, like that among recent humans. The onset of habitual stone tool use at about 1.7 Ma appears correlated with increased hominin logistical mobility (carrying things). The onset of obligatory stone tool use after 0.3 Ma may be linked to the evolution of spoken language. Viewing the lithic evidence dating between 0.3-1.7 Ma as habitual stone tool use explains previously inexplicable aspects of the Early-Middle Pleistocene lithic record.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John J Shea
- Anthropology Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-4364
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Haslam M, Hernandez-Aguilar RA, Proffitt T, Arroyo A, Falótico T, Fragaszy D, Gumert M, Harris JWK, Huffman MA, Kalan AK, Malaivijitnond S, Matsuzawa T, McGrew W, Ottoni EB, Pascual-Garrido A, Piel A, Pruetz J, Schuppli C, Stewart F, Tan A, Visalberghi E, Luncz LV. Primate archaeology evolves. Nat Ecol Evol 2017; 1:1431-1437. [DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0286-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2017] [Accepted: 07/19/2017] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
10
|
Roffman I, Savage-Rumbaugh S, Rubert-Pugh E, Stadler A, Ronen A, Nevo E. Preparation and use of varied natural tools for extractive foraging by bonobos (Pan Paniscus). AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2015; 158:78-91. [PMID: 26119360 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22778] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2014] [Revised: 04/16/2015] [Accepted: 05/16/2015] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The tool-assisted extractive foraging capabilities of captive (zoo) and semi-captive (sanctuary) bonobo (Pan paniscus) groups were compared to each other and to those known in wild chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) cultures. MATERIALS AND METHODS The bonobos were provided with natural raw materials and challenged with tasks not previously encountered, in experimental settings simulating natural contexts where resources requiring special retrieval efforts were hidden. They were shown that food was buried underground or inserted into long bone cavities, and left to tackle the tasks without further intervention. RESULTS The bonobos used modified branches and unmodified antlers or stones to dig under rocks and in the ground or to break bones to retrieve the food. Antlers, short sticks, long sticks, and rocks were effectively used as mattocks, daggers, levers, and shovels, respectively. One bonobo successively struck a long bone with an angular hammer stone, completely bisecting it longitudinally. Another bonobo modified long branches into spears and used them as attack weapons and barriers. Bonobos in the sanctuary, unlike those in the zoo, used tool sets to perform sequential actions. DISCUSSION The competent and diverse tool-assisted extractive foraging by the bonobos corroborates and complements the extensive information on similar tool use by chimpanzees, suggesting that such competence is a shared trait. Better performance by the sanctuary bonobos than the zoo group was probably due to differences in their cultural exposure and housing conditions. The bonobos' foraging techniques resembled some of those attributed to Oldowan hominins, implying that they can serve as referential models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Itai Roffman
- International Graduate Center of Evolution, Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838, Israel
| | | | | | | | - Avraham Ronen
- Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838, Israel
| | - Eviatar Nevo
- International Graduate Center of Evolution, Institute of Evolution, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 3498838, Israel
| |
Collapse
|