7 ms·
Cool! I was unaware there were non-human primates that made and used stone tools. Sucks for the archaeologists of course, but I get the impression that theirs i
by lll-o-lll 4y ago
Cool! I was unaware there were non-human primates that made and used stone tools. Sucks for the archaeologists of course, but I get the impression that theirs is a profession where you must constantly revise in light of new evidence.
Now, if it turns out that ancient DNA is all bunk, I’ll be very sad indeed. Understanding the origins of the human primates is so interesting, but maybe we will never have enough good data to be confident of much. There are limits to what we can figure out, but that’s never stopped anyone from telling a good story!
- mc32 4y agoBut looks like this, as of now anyway, only applies to new world species and thus sites in the South American continent and not Africa or Asia.
- AlotOfReading 4y agoIt's been known for awhile that modern humans aren't the only tool users. Neanderthals and other archaic humans are straightforward examples, but western chimpanzees also do it pretty frequently. Even outside the apes, macaques are known to use stone tools for foraging and sexual gratification.
- ceejayoz 4y agoLots outside primates, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals Birds, dolphin, octopuses, otters...
- mc32 4y agoSure and I guess Neanderthal tools would have produced similar tool shapes to those produced by historical humans. What this paper is saying is that S.Am. primates may be responsible for primitive tools previously associated/attributed with/to humans (due to how they look/characteristics) in some South American sites but this aspect casts some doubt on the origin of those sites and thus affects chronological occupation of the continent by people.
- wolverine876 4y agoModern humans (homo sapiens) are ~200,000 years old. Tool use goes back ~2.5 million years.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoThese days, homo sapiens is more like 300-350 ky old, and (Lomekwian) tool industry is 3.4 My old : https://tauromachy.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/the-lomekwi-tools-and-how-we-maybe-almost-were-not/ https://tauromachy.wordpress.com/2018/07/05/the-lomekwi-tool... Which puts into question the naming of homo habilis (="handy man", that 2.5 My old Oldowan tool industry you seem to mention comes from) and australopithecus (responsible for Lomekwian) as "not-homo". Tool use is of course much older (other primates) and other animals also do it : dolphins, crows... Can this capuchin-monkey example be called "tool industry" ?
- wolverine876 4y agoWho wrote that? They seem clear that they have no expertise. https://tauromachy.wordpress.com/2018/06/06/a-kind-of-introduction/ https://tauromachy.wordpress.com/2018/06/06/a-kind-of-introd...
- BlueTemplar 4y agoLou Keep. Also known for : https://loukeep.substack.com/p/vagaries https://loukeep.substack.com/p/vagaries But especially : https://samzdat.com/ https://samzdat.com/ They might not have expertise, but they know how to write. And (from my own, admittedly layman's searches) I haven't seen anything contradicting the main claims.
- wolverine876 4y ago> They might not have expertise, but they know how to write. That describes the sophists (by the modern meaning), those who can communicate persuasively but are liars. I'd much rather have the opposite.
- cudgy 4y agoQuestion for any archaeologists or zoologists. Do seagulls using the coastal rocks to break open oysters and clams by dropping them from the air qualify as using tools? If not, what is this type of activity considered?
- _0ffh 4y agoIIRC that should count as using tools, but that's still a step away from making tools.
- OJFord 4y agoAre nests tools for child-rearing? Or is that making furniture without the use of tools?
- mc32 4y agoBeavers make dams and build lodges. Bees build hives and have division of labor… at dome point we have to declare a cutoff.
- OJFord 4y agoSure, I just think it's interesting, and that surely you do need to think about why you're interested in whether an animal 'makes' or uses 'tools' to know where that cut-off should be, otherwise it's a bit arbitrary and self-fulfilling ('only humans and some apes use tools' ... 'where tool is defined as a manufactured object held in the hand'!) isn't it?
- macinjosh 4y agoIIRC, Bees build their hives with their own secretions. I see this as categorically different than animals that make nests out of various items laying around. In the case of a beaver I think it is more advanced than a birds nest because they actually harvest specific trees instead of using what’s on the ground already.
- OJFord 4y ago
- lostlogin 4y agoI wonder if monkey archeology will have artefacts described as being ‘for ritual use’?
- ceejayoz 4y agoLandfills become "ceremonial mounds" filled with trinkets and household necessities for the afterlife.
- number6 4y agoThe site at Onkalo is still a mistery. One might suspect that the barrels are some kind of Sarkophagus. Surely a mighty warrior king was burried here with his troops
- atoav 4y agoI assume landfills have been much rarer in past times.
- RansomStark 4y agoEx-archaeologist here. You are correct, less people less trash, but you might be surprised. Archaeological landfills are called middens[0], and they're more like trash heaps than landfills, but there's a lot of them around the world. A quick primer from dig it Scotland on middens: https://www.digitscotland.com/a-load-of-old-rubbish-what-middens-can-reveal-about-scotlands-past/ https://www.digitscotland.com/a-load-of-old-rubbish-what-mid... [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midden
- lostlogin 4y agoI’d assumed that a large part of it was that things were broadly biodegradable. Bone and pottery seems to be found, but a lot has rotted away. Near me there are a lot of middens and it’s just shells now, presumably from nearby Maori pa sites.
- nemo44x 4y ago> but I get the impression that theirs is a profession where you must constantly revise in light of new evidence We call it “science”.
- permo-w 4y agoI think the difference being that in for example maths, once something is proven, that’s it. but very little is so concrete in archaeology, and even when something can be said confidently, new evidence can come to light and change those norms
- svnt 4y agoMathematics is not a science. Every science has the potential for what you describe, perhaps more or less depending on its sparsity of data. The sparsity of data in archaeology is extremely high.