Abstract
Early stone tools, and in particular sharp stone tools, arguably represent one of the most important technological milestones in human evolution. The production and use of sharp stone tools significantly widened the ecological niche of our ancestors, allowing them to exploit novel food resources. However, despite their importance, it is still unclear how these early lithic technologies emerged and which behaviours served as stepping-stones for the development of systematic lithic production in our lineage. One approach to answer this question is to collect comparative data on the stone tool making and using abilities of our closest living relatives, the great apes, to reconstruct the potential stone-related behaviours of early hominins. To this end, we tested both the individual and the social learning abilities of five orangutans to make and use stone tools. Although the orangutans did not make sharp stone tools initially, three individuals spontaneously engaged in lithic percussion, and sharp stone pieces were produced under later experimental conditions. Furthermore, when provided with a human-made sharp stone, one orangutan spontaneously used it as a cutting tool. Contrary to previous experiments, social demonstrations did not considerably improve the stone tool making and using abilities of orangutans. Our study is the first to systematically investigate the stone tool making and using abilities of untrained, unenculturated orangutans showing that two proposed pre-requisites for the emergence of early lithic technologies–lithic percussion and the recognition of sharp-edged stones as cutting tools–are present in this species. We discuss the implications that ours and previous great ape stone tool experiments have for understanding the initial stages of lithic technologies in our lineage.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference78 articles.
1. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya;S Harmand;Nature,2015
2. Pliocene Archaeology at Lomekwi 3? New Evidence Fuels More Skepticism;M Dominguez-Rodrigo;J Afr Archaeol.,2019
3. What is ‘in situ’? A reply to Harmand et al. (2015);W Archer;J Hum Evol,2020
4. 3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools and Butchery Traces? More Evidence Needed;M Dominguez-Rodrigo;PaleoAnthropology,2016
5. Butchering and stone tool function;PL Walker;Am Antiq,1978
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献