Preparation and use of varied natural tools for extractive foraging by bonobos (Pan Paniscus)

Captive bonobos (Pan paniscus) apply precision grips when using flaked stone tools

OBJECTIVES

Current evidence suggests that flaked stone tool technologies did not emerge until ~3.3-2.6 million-years-ago (Ma). It is often hypothesized that early hominin (principally Ardipithecus and early Australopithecus) manual anatomy may have prevented an earlier emergence, as the forceful precision grips essential to flake tool-use may have been ineffectively performed by these species. Marzke, Marchant, McGrew, and Reece (2015) observed potentially forceful pad-to-side precision grips being recruited by wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) during feeding behaviors, indicating that Pan-like manual anatomy, and therefore potentially early hominin anatomy, may be capable of effectively securing flake stone tools during their use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Here, we report on the grips recruited by four captive, human-trained, bonobos (Pan paniscus) during the use of stone and organic tools, including flake stone tools during cutting behaviors.

RESULTS

It is revealed that pad-to-side precision grips are frequently recruited by these bonobos when securing stone flakes during cutting actions. In some instances, high forces could have been resisted and applied by the thumb and fingers.

DISCUSSION

While our analyzes are preliminary and limited to captive individuals, and Pan is not suggested to secure flakes with the same efficacy as Homo or Australopithecus, it points to early hominins potentially being able to perform the precision grips required to use flake stone tools. In turn, the ability to gain tangible benefits from the effective use of flake tools (i.e., gain energetic returns from processing food resources) may have been - at least anatomically - possible in early Australopithecus and other pre-Early Stone Age hominin species. In turn, hominin manual anatomy may not be a leading restriction on the emergence of the earliest stone tool technologies.

The use of chimpanzee-modified faunal assemblages to investigate early hominin carnivory

Chimpanzees regularly hunt and consume prey smaller than themselves. It seems therefore likely that early hominins also consumed small vertebrate meat before they started using and producing stone tools. Research has focused on cut marks and large ungulates, but there is a small body of work that has investigated the range of bone modifications produced on small prey by chimpanzee mastication that, by analogy, can be used to identify carnivory in pre-stone tool hominins. Here, we review these works along with behavioral observations and other neo-taphonomic research. Despite some equifinality with bone modifications produced by baboons and the fact that prey species used in experiments seldom are similar to the natural prey of chimpanzees, we suggest that traces of chimpanzee mastication are sufficiently distinct from those of other predators that they can be used to investigate mastication of vertebrate prey by early hominins.

Bone-related behaviours of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) during two excavating experiments

After stone tools, bone tools are the most abundant artefact type in the Early Pleistocene archaeological record. That said, they are still relatively scarce, which limits our understanding of the behaviours that led to their production and use. Observations of extant primates constitute a unique source of behavioural data with which to construct hypotheses about the technological forms and repertoires exhibited by our hominin ancestors. We conducted two different experiments to investigate the behavioural responses of two groups of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes; n = 33 and n = 9) to disarticulated, defleshed, ungulate bones while participating in a foraging task aimed at eliciting excavating behaviour. Each chimpanzee group was provided with bone specimens with different characteristics, and the two groups differed in their respective experience levels with excavating plant tools. We found that several individuals from the inexperienced group used the provided bones as tools during the task. In contrast, none of the individuals from the experienced group used bones as excavating tools, but instead continued using plant tools. These chimpanzees also performed non-excavating bone behaviours such as percussion and tool-assisted extraction of organic material from the medullary cavity. Our findings serve as a proof-of-concept that chimpanzees can be used to investigate spontaneous bone tool behaviours such as bone-assisted excavation. Furthermore, our results raise interesting questions regarding the role that bone characteristics, as well as previous tool-assisted excavating experience with other raw materials, might have in the expression of bone tool-assisted excavation.

A socio-ecological perspective on the gestural communication of great ape species, individuals, and social units

Over the last 30 years, most research on non-human primate gestural communication has been produced by psychologists, which has shaped the questions asked and the methods used. These researchers have drawn on concepts from philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, and ethology, but despite these broad influences the field has neglected to situate gestures into the socio-ecological context in which the diverse species, individuals, and social-units exist. In this review, we present current knowledge about great ape gestural communication in terms of repertoires, meanings, and development. We fold this into a conversation about variation in other types of ape social behaviour to identify areas for future research on variation in gestural communication. Given the large variation in socio-ecological factors across species and social-units (and the individuals within these groups), we may expect to find different preferences for specific gesture types; different needs for communicating specific meanings; and different rates of encountering specific contexts. New tools, such as machine-learning based automated movement tracking, may allow us to uncover potential variation in the speed and form of gesture actions or parts of gesture actions. New multi-group multi-generational datasets provide the opportunity to apply analyses, such as Bayesian modelling, which allows us to examine these rich behavioural landscapes. Together, by expanding our questions and our methods, researchers may finally be able to study great ape gestures from the perspective of the apes themselves and explore what this gestural communication system reveals about apes’ thinking and experience of their world.

Could woodworking have driven lithic tool selection?

Understanding early stone tools, particularly relationships between form and function, is fundamental to understanding the behavioral evolution of early hominins. The oldest-claimed flake tools date to ca. 3.3 million years ago, and their development may represent a key step in hominin evolution. Flake form, and its relationship to function, has long been a focus of Paleolithic studies, almost exclusively with respect to meat acquisition. However, evidence for woodworking is now known from sites dating to 1.5 Ma. Additionally, Pan troglodytes are known to manufacture wooden tools for hunting and foraging, thus creating a phylogenetic (parsimony) argument for more ancient woodworking. However, few studies examining woodworking and Paleolithic tools have been completed to date. Indeed, it remains an open question whether woodworking may have instigated specific selective demands on the form of early stone tools. Here, we conducted an experiment testing the comparative woodworking efficiency (measured by time) of small and large flakes. Two groups of participants used either a relatively small or large unretouched flake to remove a predefined area from standardized samples of wood. Those using larger flakes were significantly more efficient (i.e., required less time) during this woodworking task. Our results demonstrate that larger flakes could have been preferentially chosen by hominins for woodworking, consistent with previous data generated experimentally in other (non-woodworking) tasks. Moreover, the production of relatively large flakes, such as those at Lomekwi, could have been motivated by woodworking, rather than, or in addition to, butchery. Such issues may also have encouraged the use of Levallois production strategies in later times.

Chimpanzee extractive foraging with excavating tools: Experimental modeling of the origins of human technology

It is hypothesized that tool-assisted excavation of plant underground storage organs (USOs) played an adaptive role in hominin evolution and was also once considered a uniquely human behavior. Recent data indicate that savanna chimpanzees also use tools to excavate edible USOs. However, those chimpanzees remain largely unhabituated and we lack direct observations of this behavior in the wild. To fill this gap in our knowledge of hominoid USO extractive foraging, we conducted tool-mediated excavation experiments with captive chimpanzees naïve to this behavior. We presented the chimpanzees with the opportunity to use tools in order to excavate artificially-placed underground foods in their naturally forested outdoor enclosure. No guidance or demonstration was given to the chimpanzees at any time. The chimpanzees used tools spontaneously in order to excavate the underground foods. They exhibited six different tool use behaviors in the context of excavation: probe, perforate, dig, pound, enlarge and shovel. However, they still excavated manually more often than they did with tools. Chimpanzees were selective in their choice of tools that we provided, preferring longer tools for excavation. They also obtained their own tools mainly from naturally occurring vegetation and transported them to the excavation site. They reused some tools throughout the study. Our new data provide a direction for the study of variables relevant to modeling USO extractive foraging by early hominins.

Evolutionary Scenarios and Primate Natural History

Scenarios summarize evolutionary patterns and processes by interpreting organismal traits and their natural history correlates in a phylogenetic context. They are constructed by (1) describing phenotypes (including physiology and behavior), ideally with attention to formative roles of development, experience, and culture; (2) inferring homologies, homoplasies, ancestral character states, and their transformations with phylogenetic analyses; and (3) integrating those components with ecological and other ancillary data. At their best, evolutionary scenarios are factually dense narratives that entail no known falsehoods; their empirical and methodological shortcomings are transparent, they might be rejected based on new discoveries, and their potential ideological pitfalls are flagged for scrutiny. They are exemplified here by homoplastic foraging with percussive tools by humans, chimpanzees, capuchins, and macaques; homoplastic hunting with spears by humans and chimpanzees; and private experiences (e.g., sense of fairness, grief) among diverse animals, the homologous or homoplastic status of which often remains unexplored. Although scenarios are problematic when used to bolster political agendas, if constructed carefully and regarded skeptically, they can synthesize knowledge, inspire research, engender public understanding of evolution, enrich ethical debates, and provide a deeper historical context for conservation, including nature appreciation.

Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients

Is thought possible without language? Individuals with global aphasia, who have almost no ability to understand or produce language, provide a powerful opportunity to find out. Surprisingly, despite their near-total loss of language, these individuals are nonetheless able to add and subtract, solve logic problems, think about another person's thoughts, appreciate music, and successfully navigate their environments. Further, neuroimaging studies show that healthy adults strongly engage the brain's language areas when they understand a sentence, but not when they perform other nonlinguistic tasks such as arithmetic, storing information in working memory, inhibiting prepotent responses, or listening to music. Together, these two complementary lines of evidence provide a clear answer: many aspects of thought engage distinct brain regions from, and do not depend on, language.