Insights into early lithic technologies from ethnography

The archaeological visibility of chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut-cracking

The earliest evidence for complex tool use in the archaeological record dates to 3.3 Ma. While wooden tools may have been used by our earliest ancestors, the evidence is absent due to poor preservation. However, insights into possible early hominin wooden tool use can be gained from observing the tool-use practices of our closest living relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). By using stone hammers used to crack various nuts, chimpanzees leave a durable material signature comprised of formal tools and associated diagnostic fragments. While the archaeological evidence of chimpanzee wooden tool use is temporary, the combination of stone hammers and wooden anvils can create a more enduring lithic record. This study explores the lithic assemblages associated with wooden and stone anvil use at nut-cracking sites in Taï National Park, Côte d'Ivoire, using technological and use-wear analyses. Our results indicate clear differences in density, fracture patterns, and use-wear in the lithic records between wooden anvil and stone anvil sites. New archaeological excavations at six chimpanzee nut-cracking sites reveal that the anvils' material directly influences the visibility of nut-cracking evidence in the archaeological record. By examining the nature of the lithic signatures associated with wooden anvil and stone anvil use by chimpanzees, we can formulate hypotheses about the probability of such behaviors being preserved and identifiable in the Plio-Pleistocene hominin archaeological record. The variability in material signatures from nut-cracking on different anvils suggests that stone anvils leave a clear archaeological record. Evidence for wooden anvil use is likely underrepresented due to the more ephemeral nature of the associated percussive damage and material signature. It may, however, still be possible, albeit challenging, to identify wooden anvil use in the archaeological record.

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.

Technical intelligence and culture: Nut cracking in humans and chimpanzees

OBJECTIVES

According to the technical intelligence hypothesis, humans are superior to all other animal species in understanding and using tools. However, the vast majority of comparative studies between humans and chimpanzees, both proficient tool users, have not controlled for the effects of age, prior knowledge, past experience, rearing conditions, or differences in experimental procedures. We tested whether humans are superior to chimpanzees in selecting better tools, using them more dexteriously, achieving higher performance and gaining access to more resource as predicted under the technical intelligence hypothesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Aka and Mbendjele hunter-gatherers in the rainforest of Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo, respectively, and Taï chimpanzees in the rainforest of Côte d'Ivoire were observed cracking hard Panda oleosa nuts with different tools, as well as the soft Coula edulis and Elaeis guinensis nuts. The nut-cracking techniques, hammer material selection and two efficiency measures were compared.

RESULTS

As predicted, the Aka and the Mbendjele were able to exploit more species of hard nuts in the forest than chimpanzees. However, the chimpanzees were sometimes more efficient than the humans. Social roles differed between the two species, with the Aka and especially the Mbendjele exhibiting cooperation between nut-crackers whereas the chimpanzees were mainly individualistic.

DISCUSSION

Observations of nut-cracking by humans and chimpanzees only partially supported the technical intelligence hypothesis as higher degrees of flexibility in tool selection seen in chimpanzees compensated for use of less efficient tool material than in humans. Nut cracking was a stronger social undertaking in humans than in chimpanzees.

How similar are nut-cracking and stone-flaking? A functional approach to percussive technology

Various authors have suggested similarities between tool use in early hominins and chimpanzees. This has been particularly evident in studies of nut-cracking which is considered to be the most complex skill exhibited by wild apes, and has also been interpreted as a precursor of more complex stone-flaking abilities. It has been argued that there is no major qualitative difference between what the chimpanzee does when he cracks a nut and what early hominins did when they detached a flake from a core. In this paper, similarities and differences between skills involved in stone-flaking and nut-cracking are explored through an experimental protocol with human subjects performing both tasks. We suggest that a 'functional' approach to percussive action, based on the distinction between functional parameters that characterize each task and parameters that characterize the agent's actions and movements, is a fruitful method for understanding those constraints which need to be mastered to perform each task successfully, and subsequently, the nature of skill involved in both tasks.

Identifying bipolar knapping in the Mesolithic site of Font del Ros (northeast Iberia)

Despite recent advances in the identification of bipolar knapping, its role in many sites is not well known. We propose to assess the significance of this technique in the context of changes that occur in the Mesolithic. A lithic assemblage was recovered from unit SG at Font del Ros (Catalunya, Spain) in which pitted stones, cores and products arising from bipolar reduction (flakes, fragments and splintered pieces) were identified. This study indicates that the bipolar technique is fundamental in the settlement. These results are key to defining the organization of Holocene hunter-gatherer subsistence in northeast Iberia.

Percussive technology in human evolution: an introduction to a comparative approach in fossil and living primates

Percussive technology is part of the behavioural suite of several fossil and living primates. Stone Age ancestors used lithic artefacts in pounding activities, which could have been most important in the earliest stages of stone working. This has relevant evolutionary implications, as other primates such as chimpanzees and some monkeys use stone hammer-and-anvil combinations to crack hard-shelled foodstuffs. Parallels between primate percussive technologies and early archaeological sites need to be further explored in order to assess the emergence of technological behaviour in our evolutionary line, and firmly establish bridges between Primatology and Archaeology. What are the anatomical, cognitive and ecological constraints of percussive technology? How common are percussive activities in the Stone Age and among living primates? What is their functional significance? How similar are archaeological percussive tools and those made by non-human primates? This issue of Phil. Trans. addresses some of these questions by presenting case studies with a wide chronological, geographical and disciplinary coverage. The studies presented here cover studies of Brazilian capuchins, captive chimpanzees and chimpanzees in the wild, research on the use of percussive technology among modern humans and recent hunter-gatherers in Australia, the Near East and Europe, and archaeological examples of this behaviour from a million years ago to the Holocene. In summary, the breadth and depth of research compiled here should make this issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, a landmark step forward towards a better understanding of percussive technology, a unique behaviour shared by some modern and fossil primates.

Limestone percussion tools from the late Early Pleistocene sites of Barranco León and Fuente Nueva 3 (Orce, Spain)

In recent years, there is growing interest in the study of percussion scars and breakage patterns on hammerstones, cores and tools from Oldowan African and Eurasian lithic assemblages. Oldowan stone toolkits generally contain abundant small-sized flakes and their corresponding cores, and are characterized by their structural dichotomy of heavy- and light-duty tools. This paper explores the significance of the lesser known heavy-duty tool component, providing data from the late Lower Pleistocene sites of Barranco León and Fuente Nueva 3 (Orce, Spain), dated 1.4-1.2 Myr. Using quantitative and qualitative data from the large-sized limestone industries from these two major sites, we present a new methodology highlighting their morpho-technological features. In the light of the results, we discuss the shortfalls of extant classificatory methods for interpreting the role of percussive technology in early toolkits. This work is rooted in an experimental program designed to reproduce the wide range of percussion marks observed on the limestone artefacts from these two sites. A visual and descriptive reference is provided as an interpretative aid for future comparative research. Further experiments using a variety of materials and gestures are still needed before the elusive traces yield the secrets of the kinds of percussive activities carried out by hominins at these, and other, Oldowan sites.

Variability in an early hominin percussive tradition: the Acheulean versus cultural variation in modern chimpanzee artefacts

Percussion makes a vital link between the activities of early human ancestors and other animals in tool-use and tool-making. Far more of the early human actions are preserved as archaeology, since the percussion was largely used for making hard tools of stone, rather than for direct access to food. Both primate tools and early hominin tools, however, offer a means to exploring variability in material culture, a strong focus of interest in recent primate studies. This paper charts such variability in the Acheulean, the longest-lasting tool tradition, extant form about 1.7 to about 0.1 Ma, and well known for its characteristic handaxes. The paper concentrates on the African record, although the Acheulean was also known in Europe and Asia. It uses principal components and discriminant analysis to examine the measurements from 66 assemblages (whole toolkits), and from 18 sets of handaxes. Its review of evidence confirms that there is deep-seated pattern in the variation, with variability within a site complex often matching or exceeding that between sites far distant in space and time. Current techniques of study allow comparisons of handaxes far more easily than for other components, stressing a need to develop common practice in measurement and analysis. The data suggest, however, that a higher proportion of traits recurs widely in Acheulean toolkits than in the chimpanzee record.