"Capuchin tool making" Topic

Well not only do other primates make "tools" but it seems Capuchin monkeys do also.

Remarkably, the team found that the capuchin artifacts exhibit distinctive scoop-shaped or "conchoidal" flaking and sharp cutting edges, and that the monkeys often removed multiple flakes from a single rock—all hallmarks of human-made stone tools. (The authors note that stone fragments produced during chimpanzee nut-cracking, in contrast, lack most of the diagnostic criteria, as do flakes produced by captive bonobos that have been taught to knap.)

Experts have previously linked such characteristics to the emergence of humanlike hands and coordination, and to shifts in human cognition. But the fact that monkeys produced rocks with these same traits demands a different evolutionary explanation. And if modern-day monkeys modify rocks in this way it is possible that extinct monkeys and apes did too, leaving behind archaeological assemblages of their own. Archaeologists thus need to refine the criteria they use to identify stone tools intentionally produced by members of the human family

link

link

Apparently the Capuchin flints are identical to the oldest Oldawan tools from 2.6 to 3.3 million years ago.

The interesting thing is that the Capuchins selectively look for the "hammer" rock and the "subject" rock that is able to be successfully knapped. That means they clearly know what result they need. Of course, they do not use the knapped flints as tools, rather this is a way to lick salt and other minerals from the freshly broken rock surfaces.

The other issue is that what we thought of as ancient Homo artifacts may actually be from other species.

Yes, it's very interesting. Sevral primatologists/archiologists/anthologists feel both Chimps and capuchin monkeys are now in the stone age.

The search for tasty dust is not producing tools……….

Granted, and I think everyone has said just that. But a few things to consider:

1) These are Capuchin monkeys. Not apes like us or chimpanzees. The difference between the capuchins and chimpanzees is much greater than the difference between chimpanzees and us. That is significant.

2) Then look how the capuchin spends some time finding the right "hammer" stone. It's not just size, but also material. So what goes on in the capuchin brain when selecting the rock?

3) Then they select an appropriate stone to knap. They seem to know which stones will flake away and which ones don't. Sure the flakes aren't used as tools, but the tool making technique is already down. Maybe a capuchin only needs one of those "Also sprach Zarathustra" moments to figure out he has a sharp cutting surface to exploit.

4) Also the knapped flints look just like the most primitive hominid flints from millions of years ago. How do we know that some monkey's are just on the cusp of the Stone Age, as Gunfreak alludes.

5) It makes me think how do we know the first proto-humans didn't learn flint knapping as a way to get needed minerals into their diet, instead of making tools or weapons? Maybe they discovered uses for the sharp flints only much later, as a by-product of dietary supplementing.

6) And finally, the researchers worry that what they always assumed were hominid signs of tool making were really paleo-monkeys artifacts from knapping rocks. That would screw up the timelines for the earliest tool making. How would we tell the difference?

I think this brings up many good things to think about, much more than your "tasty dust" blow off suggests.

It isn't a "blow off". Millions of years prior to the other artifacts of sapient thinking, we see the asserted presence of early stone "tools". Now we have to step back and say, probably not. The natural creation of "knapped" stones, mingled with bits of rock left behind in the search for "tasty dust"; and a few anthropologists asserting that there have been traces of animal deposits along with the sharp stones, showing that they were used as tools and not simply discarded as the rocks were banged together. So "early" or millions of years ago has taken a hit.

Sapient thinking arises during the Paleolithic. Early "tool making" predating this "evolutionary eyeblink" by millions of years are not likely to be any sort of direct connection to the rise of sapience. In other words, capuchins have contributed to the disconnection of early evidence with any sort of evolutionary rise in "our kind of thinking". It's obvious: monkeys today are doing what "monkeys" have always done, time out of mind.

Interestingly, there is only one monkey, the same monkey, interested in the "tasty dust" quest in those video clips. Is he a prodigy of monkey intelligence? Or just a strange case? How many monkeys have been observed, and for how long, doing this rock banging thing?

It isn't a "blow off". Millions of years prior to the other artifacts of sapient thinking, we see the asserted presence of early stone "tools". Now we have to step back and say, probably not. The natural creation of "knapped" stones, mingled with bits of rock left behind in the search for "tasty dust"; and a few anthropologists asserting that there have been traces of animal deposits along with the sharp stones, showing that they were used as tools and not simply discarded as the rocks were banged together. So "early" or millions of years ago has taken a hit.

Don't really know what you are getting at here. What does the "natural creation" of Knapped stones mean? I would assume the paleontologists know the difference between a geological process that results in the cracking of stones and percussive hits creating knapped fragments. If that's what you mean.

Sapient thinking arises during the Paleolithic. Early "tool making" predating this "evolutionary eyeblink" by millions of years are not likely to be any sort of direct connection to the rise of sapience. In other words, capuchins have contributed to the disconnection of early evidence with any sort of evolutionary rise in "our kind of thinking". It's obvious: monkeys today are doing what "monkeys" have always done, time out of mind.

If you mean modern intelligence then yes. But sapience must have occurred before 2.6 million years ago…..so prior to the Paleolithic. Chimps and Homo split about 7 mya didn't they? And it's not that obvious at all. Why would we evolve but the monkeys not?

Interestingly, there is only one monkey, the same monkey, interested in the "tasty dust" quest in those video clips. Is he a prodigy of monkey intelligence? Or just a strange case? How many monkeys have been observed, and for how long, doing this rock banging thing?

From the first link:

Tomos Proffitt of the University of Oxford and a group of colleagues carried out the new study. They observed the capuchins selecting stones to use as hammers from a rock outcrop, a conglomerate of sandstone and rounded chunks or "cobbles" of quartzite, and watched as the animals struck the hammer stones against cobbles still embedded in the conglomerate.

I think they have been studying Capuchins for years. It doesn't sound like its only one genius monkey. I assume all capuchins display this behavior.

Don't really know what you are getting at here. What does the "natural creation" of Knapped stones mean? I would assume the paleontologists know the difference between a geological process that results in the cracking of stones and percussive hits creating knapped fragments. If that's what you mean.

From the first link:

"Some contend that they demonstrate a human presence in Brazil more than 20,000 years ago, long before the Clovis hunters who were once thought to be the first humans to colonize the Americas, around 13,000 years ago; others, including James Adovasio of Florida Atlantic University, warrant that the "tools" there are just rocks that shattered accidentally when they eroded out of a cliff face and fell to the ground below."

So from this I take it that arguably a flake could be naturally "made" by erosion or bashed into existence, rock on rock by a monkey…………..

Thanks, that is what I thought you meant. Using the term "Knapped" would mean a human or animal created flake for a purpose, and not a natural process involving weathering. I would still suspect that the former process would show signs of concussion, and the latter wouldn't.

It's all part of a plan. We are about to be replaced by a new primate culture!!!!

Dan

I don't get it…. I know lots of people who use tools…. but almost none that ever actually made one themselves…. unless opening Tupperware with your teeth is considered using a tool. I think making tools is overrated.

I consider myself clever when I successfully use the "wrong tool for the right job". Animals do it all the time.

……..unless opening Tupperware with your teeth is considered using a tool.

I'll suggest you are using three tools in that example.

Your teeth would be the first tool we ever used, even if they may fall into GWA's concept of the "wrong tool for the right job". If you look around, you'll see people still use their teeth and mouth for a variety of non-eating uses, holding a pen or paperclip for example.

A container, such as your Tupperware example, is still one of the most important of all tools that we still use ubiquitously. The first would be simple hollowed out bowls, to later sewn skin flasks and bags. Just imagine the need to transport water.

The re-sealable lid that you are biting off is a much more recent tool, but still extremely useful.

I think making tools is overrated.

Ya, easy for us. Get into the car, drive to Lowes and buy one.

Not so easy for the capuchins.

Animals do it all the time.

They do? Most don't don't do anything of the sort.

I think I have been used as a tool!

Whenever my Beagle wants something my Pit Bull/Lab is chewing on she carries on with drama and rushes to the sliding glass door pretending she wants to go outside. Stupid me opens the door. While she prances in place excitedly the Pit Bull/Lab, who can't resist, drops her chew-toy and rushes past us to go outside. With a satisfied grin, only Beagles can manage, she greedily attacks the abandoned chew-toy.

Anyone with pets smarter than Hamsters can recount lots and lots of behaviors tool making and otherwise supposedly way too smart to defy our notions of what some like to believe separates "us fom them."

If anyone supposes that ony humans can dream I have news for you. Mine are always twitching and yelping as they delight while chasing squirrels only they can see in the Land-of-Nod.

Dream on….

I'm sure GWA will respond that there is a large difference between "tool usage" and "tool making". An otter breaking open a shell with a rock is quite a different matter from knapping a rock and using the flints as a knife or scraper.

Since it typically takes an opposable thumb to actually handle something well enough to manipulate it into a tool is no reason to discriminate against a creature for using what it can find. Is putting a handle on a rock to "make a hammer" really that significant an accomplishment to make that much of an intellectual difference? Just an example of human arrogance….

Primates are overrated! Fight manipular discimination!

Since it typically takes an opposable thumb to actually handle something well enough to manipulate it into a tool is no reason to discriminate against a creature for using what it can find.

You are right. Just google crows and tool usage and then just imagine what they could do with thumbs. The problem is that opposable thumbs and forward facing stereoscopic eyes had a lot to do with the development of our brains.

Is putting a handle on a rock to "make a hammer" really that significant an accomplishment to make that much of an intellectual difference?

Yes it is.

Just an example of human arrogance….

Well AGW will be happy to see that. That's usually my line.

Primates are overrated!

Maybe, but I'm glad I'm one.

It always gets back to the recursive thinking thing. Animals can be innovative and often are. But it is genetic memory aka evolved thought. We have it too, on a much deeper and higher spectrum. We are not the same as any other animals, not more than remotely. We think, "What are my pets thinking? What are the contents of their dreams?" Etc. None of them thinks about what we might be thinking. They can assess a mood by outward signs only. Apparently, dogs have this ability to see our body language, even our facial expressions, and respond to known moods. Do any other animals do this? Not that I have heard of. They can only respond to our actions.

Animals can be innovative and often are. But it is genetic memory aka evolved thought.

Depends on the animal doesn't it?

A cockroach is born already knowing everything it takes to be a cockroach. I don't think the term "genetic memory" means much in this context. The cockroach is pre-programmed to act like a cockroach via it's genes. It's not really memory.

More advanced creatures also have some pre-programming. A baby human doesn't have to be taught how to breath. We are programmed to do so, or we'd never live long enough to learn how. We are also programmed, like all mammals, to suckle at the teat.

The capuchins also know how to do these things automatically. However, knapping flints from a softer rock by hitting it with a harder rock is a learned, social skill that they pick up from observing their elders. It's not "genetic memory". Neither is the behavior of JSchutts dogs.

Butting in with a bit of pedantry.

Granted that we're stuck with the language for discussing the subject that is (understandably) biased, but it would help (maybe?) if an eye were kept out for slips such as "…higher spectrum." and "More advanced creatures…" which carry a value judgment that only serves to cloud the issue.

…or not.

…….."More advanced creatures…" which carry a value judgment that only serves to cloud the issue.

I think I can be forgiven with the anthropomorphism when comparing the mental capacities of cockroaches and humans. But your point is well taken.

Cockroaches,maybe. Don't know about crows,though. Those dudes worry me:

youtu.be/lcvbgq2SSyc

They worried Poe long before now. The look in a raven's eye will stop you cold. Having a pair of them fly at roof level across your front yard as you stand on the porch can resurrect atavistic shivers of the Nordic ancestors!

Great name for a 70's prog rock band!

Great name for a 70's prog rock band!

"Atavistic Shivers"? Agreed.

There were already groups called "The Crows", "The Ravens" and "Stone the Crows".

Crows and ravens are smart:

link

The weirdest way is adapting to human behavior to help them expand their dietary choices. Both them and seagulls have been observed dropping nuts, clams and shellfish in front of oncoming cars so that they can eat the food within.

I read that on the internet, so it must be true.

No,it would have to be the full "Atavistic Shivers of the Nordic Ancestors". We're talking the 70's here.

Probably Berlin-based. Lots of electronics.

Might have put out an LP called "The Crow". One track per side.