“An ape's view of the Oldowan” revisited

Wynn, Thomas; Hernández‐Aguilar, R. Adriana; Marchant, Linda F.; McGrew, William C.

doi:10.1002/evan.20323

Cited by 159 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 106 publications

(148 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such memories postulate a skill system embedded in a social network of toolmaking practices in which adaptation for learning to refine skill has evolved (Donald 2012:280). Therefore, we disagree with Wynn et al (2011) and view Oldowan technology as being beyond the reach of extant apes but presumably within the reach of extinct hominin species other than Homo (see Hecht et al 2015 for a similar conclusion).…”

Section: Explaining Relationships Between Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Later studies by Whiten et al (2009) suggest, however, that the situation is more complicated: the apes are not confined to emulation but also imitate extensively. It has been shown, for example, that the technology of nut cracking among apes can be transmitted by social learning from one generation to the next (Fragaszy et al 2013;Wynn et al 2011). Zentall (2004 also presents evidence that imitation can be found in several bird species.…”

Section: Emulation Imitation and Rehearsalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Oldowan technology is based on flake production from simple cores. Flakes and, more contingent, cores were used as tools for butchery and possibly plant processing (Lemorini et al 2014;Torre 2011;Wynn et al 2011) as well as for nonsubsistence tasks such as woodworking (Lemorini et al 2014). Oldowan has previously been re-garded as the earliest evidence of flaked-stone technology.…”

Section: Explaining Relationships Between Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers have claimed that the behavior of Oldowan tool-producing hominins can be accommodated within the ape adaptive grade (Wynn et al 2011). Wynn et al (2011:195) write, "Apes had been very successful and very varied for millions of years before the advent of flaked stone technology, and it is likely that several were tool users.…”

Section: Explaining Relationships Between Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

Gärdenfors¹,

Högberg²

2017

Current Anthropology

138

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching is present in all human societies, while within other species it is very limited. Something happened during the evolution of Homo sapiens that also made us Homo docens-the teaching animal. Based on discussions of animal and hominin learning, we analyze the evolution of intentional teaching by a series of levels that require increasing capacities of mind reading and communication on the part of the teacher and the learner. The levels of teaching are (1) intentional evaluative feedback, (2) drawing attention, (3) demonstrating, (4) communicating concepts, and (5) explaining relations between concepts. We suggest that level after level has been added during the evolution of teaching. We demonstrate how different technologies depend on increasing sophistication in the levels of cognition and communication required for teaching them. As regards the archaeological evidence for the different levels, we argue that stable transmission of the Oldowan technology requires at least teaching by demonstration and that learning the late Acheulean hand-axe technology requires at least communicating concepts. We conclude that H. docens preceded H. sapiens.

show abstract

Section: Explaining Relationships Between Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Emulation Imitation and Rehearsalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining Relationships Between Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining Relationships Between Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

Gärdenfors¹,

Högberg²

2017

Current Anthropology

138

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primates, including chimpanzees, capuchins and macaques, have all been observed to use hammer and anvil techniques in order to break hard food casings in their natural environments [9,20]. The use of such a technique for nut-cracking is generally considered as the most complex technical skill mastered by non-human primates [21][22][23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How similar are nut-cracking and stone-flaking? A functional approach to percussive technology

Bril

Parry

Dietrich

2015

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various authors have suggested similarities between tool use in early hominins and chimpanzees. This has been particularly evident in studies of nut-cracking which is considered to be the most complex skill exhibited by wild apes, and has also been interpreted as a precursor of more complex stone-flaking abilities. It has been argued that there is no major qualitative difference between what the chimpanzee does when he cracks a nut and what early hominins did when they detached a flake from a core. In this paper, similarities and differences between skills involved in stone-flaking and nut-cracking are explored through an experimental protocol with human subjects performing both tasks. We suggest that a ‘functional’ approach to percussive action, based on the distinction between functional parameters that characterize each task and parameters that characterize the agent's actions and movements, is a fruitful method for understanding those constraints which need to be mastered to perform each task successfully, and subsequently, the nature of skill involved in both tasks.

show abstract

On the tool use behavior of the bonobo‐chimpanzee last common ancestor, and the origins of hominine stone tool use

Haslam

2014

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last common ancestor (LCA) shared by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (P. paniscus) was an Early Pleistocene African ape, which, based on the behavior of modern chimpanzees, may be assumed to be a tool-using animal. However, the character of tool use in the Pan lineage prior to the 20th century is largely unknown. Here, I use available data on wild bonobo tool use and emerging molecular estimates of demography during Pan evolution to hypothesise the plausible tool use behavior of the bonobo-chimpanzee LCA (or "Pancestor") at the start of the Pleistocene, over 2 million years ago. This method indicates that the common ancestor of living Pan apes likely used plant tools for probing, sponging, and display, but it did not use stone tools. Instead, stone tool use appears to have been independently invented by Western African chimpanzees (P. t. verus) during the Middle Pleistocene in the region of modern Liberia-Ivory Coast-Guinea, possibly as recently as 200,000-150,000 years ago. If this is the case, then the LCA of humans and chimpanzees likely also did not use stone tools, and this trait probably first emerged among hominins in Pliocene East Africa. This review also suggests that the consistently higher population sizes of Central African chimpanzees (P. t. troglodytes) over the past million years may have contributed to the increased complexity of wild tool use seen in this sub-species today.

show abstract

“An ape's view of the Oldowan” revisited

Cited by 159 publications

References 106 publications

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

The Archaeology of Teaching and the Evolution ofHomo docens

How similar are nut-cracking and stone-flaking? A functional approach to percussive technology

On the tool use behavior of the bonobo‐chimpanzee last common ancestor, and the origins of hominine stone tool use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About