Researchers have discovered that a type of monkey in Thai forests today, known as long-tailed macaques, can, in the words of the paper's co-author, Lydia Luncz of the Technological Primates Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, produce stone artifacts "indistinguishable from what we see at the beginning of the [human] archeological record -- what we see as the onset of being human."
And while tool use in nonhuman primates is nothing new, what makes this discovery even more vexatious is that it appears that the macaques made their artifacts by accident rather than by design.
seem to have made their artifacts by accident, not by design. But in many ways, that only makes the finding more disruptive.
IOW, the fact that these monkeys create stone artifacts by accident that are nearly identical to those that were crafted by the earliest humans, suggests the possibility that what has been assumed to be a critical hallmark of human tool use actually happened by accident -- thereby seriously blurring the line between tool use by early humans and our primate relatives.
Of course anyone expecting crisp, clear delineations in things like this is just going to end up frustrated. Anthropology, much like biology, is gloriously messy.
The entire paper, Wild macaques challenge the origin of intentional tool production, can be read by clicking the hyperlink although I still made the abstract from it available below.
And while tool use in nonhuman primates is nothing new, what makes this discovery even more vexatious is that it appears that the macaques made their artifacts by accident rather than by design.
seem to have made their artifacts by accident, not by design. But in many ways, that only makes the finding more disruptive.
IOW, the fact that these monkeys create stone artifacts by accident that are nearly identical to those that were crafted by the earliest humans, suggests the possibility that what has been assumed to be a critical hallmark of human tool use actually happened by accident -- thereby seriously blurring the line between tool use by early humans and our primate relatives.
Of course anyone expecting crisp, clear delineations in things like this is just going to end up frustrated. Anthropology, much like biology, is gloriously messy.
The entire paper, Wild macaques challenge the origin of intentional tool production, can be read by clicking the hyperlink although I still made the abstract from it available below.
Abstract
Intentionally produced sharp-edged stone flakes and flaked pieces are our primary evidence for the emergence of technology in our lineage. This evidence is used to decipher the earliest hominin behavior, cognition, and subsistence strategies. Here, we report on the largest lithic assemblage associated with a primate foraging behavior undertaken by long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). This behavior results in a landscape-wide record of flaked stone material, almost indistinguishable from early hominin flaked pieces and flakes. It is now clear that the production of unintentional conchoidal sharp-edged flakes can result from tool-assisted foraging in nonhominin primates. Comparisons with Plio-Pleistocene lithic assemblages, dating from 3.3 to 1.56 million years ago, show that flakes produced by macaques fall within the technological range of artifacts made by early hominins. In the absence of behavioral observations, the assemblage produced by monkeys would likely be identified as anthropogenic in origin and interpreted as evidence of intentional tool production.
Intentionally produced sharp-edged stone flakes and flaked pieces are our primary evidence for the emergence of technology in our lineage. This evidence is used to decipher the earliest hominin behavior, cognition, and subsistence strategies. Here, we report on the largest lithic assemblage associated with a primate foraging behavior undertaken by long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). This behavior results in a landscape-wide record of flaked stone material, almost indistinguishable from early hominin flaked pieces and flakes. It is now clear that the production of unintentional conchoidal sharp-edged flakes can result from tool-assisted foraging in nonhominin primates. Comparisons with Plio-Pleistocene lithic assemblages, dating from 3.3 to 1.56 million years ago, show that flakes produced by macaques fall within the technological range of artifacts made by early hominins. In the absence of behavioral observations, the assemblage produced by monkeys would likely be identified as anthropogenic in origin and interpreted as evidence of intentional tool production.
Comment