Here we use a multi-model approach to directly compare cognitive aspects required for 11 techno-behaviours, ranging from the simplest capuchin pounding behaviour to the most complex chimpanzee nut-cracking and Lomekwi 3 knapping behaviours. These behaviours are that of bearded capuchin monkeys pounding rocks and very early stone-tool knapping from Lomekwi 3. Recently, two further techno-behaviours were reported that could both represent intermediary phases in hominin cognitive evolution pertaining to our ultimate technological astuteness. This study represents the first direct comparison of chimpanzee pounding tools and archaeological material, and thus may contribute to a better understanding of hominin percussive activities.Īlthough it is sometimes suggested that modern-day chimpanzee nut-cracking behaviour is cognitively similar to early stone-tool-knapping behaviour, few systematic comparative studies have tested this assumption. The approach used in this study may help to stablish a framework with which to interpret archaeological assemblages and improve understanding of use-wear formation processes on pounding tools used by chimpanzees. Our results show specific patterns of use-wear distribution across the active surfaces of pounding tools, which reveal some similarities with traces on archaeological percussive objects from the Early Stone Age, and are consistent with traces on other experimental pounding tools used by modern humans. We examined captive chimpanzee pounding tools using a combination of technological analysis, use-wear distribution, and micro-wear analysis. We present the results of a series of experiments at the Kumamoto Sanctuary in Japan, in which captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) performed several nut cracking sessions using raw materials from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Moreover, external factors, like geological context and raw material availability, post-depositional conditions and research focus and intensity, further contribute to the invisibility of such finds in the Middle Palaeolithic record. With expediency being a key factor in Middle Palaeolithic lithic technology, we can expect comparable patterns for other similar-aged ground stone assemblages. nuts) resulted in a relatively low discernibility of the wear. The presence of post-depositional surface modifications, their relatively expedient use and their potential application on soft contact materials (e.g. The limited build-up of use wear on the tools is interpreted as expedient use. The hammerstones were preferentially made of quartz and quartzite, while the anvils are mostly of limestone. These grounds stone tools are larger and heavier than the manuports. Low-power use wear analysis and the archaeological context of these finds provide evidence for the possible use of at least 58 pieces for active (hammerstones) and 5 for passive (anvils) percussive tasks, specifically lithic production and potentially bone processing. At NN2/2, coarse gravel-and cobble-sized pieces (n = 351) were sourced from local outcrops of glacial deposits, with a preferential selection for quartzite and sandstone. This paper aims to contribute to a more thorough understanding of the full spectrum of homi nin technological behaviour, by presenting a systematic analysis of ground stone tools from the Last Interglacial Middle Palaeolithic site Neumark-Nord 2/2 (NN2/2) (Germany). Despite a strong increase in the research on hominin percussive tool use, the primary focus in the study of technological behaviour still lies on flaked stone artefacts, especially for the Middle Palaeolithic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |