An Ape's View of the Oldowan

Wynn, Thomas; McGrew, William C.

doi:10.2307/2802697

Cited by 263 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent both with behavioural evidence of the sensorimotor [147,148] and manipulative [46] complexity of Oldowan knapping, and with the concrete simplicity [149][150][151] and limited hierarchical depth [47] of Oldowan action sequences. Attempts to train a modern bonobo to make Oldowan tools [152] similarly indicate a relatively easy comprehension of the overall action plan but continuing difficulties with 'lower-level' perceptualmotor coordination and affordance detection.…”

Section: Stone Toolmaking and Brain Evolutionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution

Stout

Chaminade

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

351

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-standing speculations and more recent hypotheses propose a variety of possible evolutionary connections between language, gesture and tool use. These arguments have received important new support from neuroscientific research on praxis, observational action understanding and vocal language demonstrating substantial functional/anatomical overlap between these behaviours. However, valid reasons for scepticism remain as well as substantial differences in detail between alternative evolutionary hypotheses. Here, we review the current status of alternative 'gestural' and 'technological' hypotheses of language origins, drawing on current evidence of the neural bases of speech and tool use generally, and on recent studies of the neural correlates of Palaeolithic technology specifically.

show abstract

Section: Stone Toolmaking and Brain Evolutionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution

Stout

Chaminade

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

351

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, it falls in the same category as a chimpanzee stripping off the leaves and sharpening the tip of a stem. At another level, the particular method of stone modification may imply greater cognitive abilities in our extinct ancestors, but in the case of stone tools traditionally described as Oldowan, this implication has been disputed (Wynn & McGrew, 1989).…”

Section: A Chimpanzee's View Of the Archaeological Record Of Tool Usementioning

confidence: 99%

The manual skills and cognition that lie behind hominid tool use

Byrne

2004

The Evolution of Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tool use is an important aspect of being human that has assumed a central place in accounts of the evolutionary origins of human intelligence. This has inevitably focused a spotlight on any signs of tool use or manufacture in great apes and other non-human animals, to the relative neglect of skills that do not involve tools. The aim of this chapter is to explore whether this emphasis is appropriate. Could it be that we may learn as much about the origin of human intelligence from skilled manual behaviour in general? Suppose we take this broader view, accepting evidence from all manifestations of manual skill, what can we learn of the mental capacities of the great apes and ourselves? My own ultimate purpose is to use comparative evidence from living species to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the many cognitive traits that came together to make human psychology. The cognition of great apes is the obvious starting point, to trace the more primitive (i.e. ancient) cognitive aptitudes that are still important to us today. In this chapter, I focus on great ape cognition as it is expressed in manual skills, based on cognitive aspects of tool use and manufacture considered significant in the human evolutionary lineage.

show abstract

“…The same is true for bonobo chimpanzee (P. paniscus) populations that also consume meat (Hohmann and Fruth, 2008). This lack of tool-assisted butchery cannot easily be attributed to a physical inability to produce or utilise stone flakes suitable for cutting (Wynn and McGrew, 1989;Toth et al, 1993;Schick et al, 1999;Mercader et al, 2002;Toth and Schick, 2009), but rather, it seems that there is a lack of incentive for this behavioural repertoire to naturally occur. Indeed, chimpanzee meat eating is characterised by the consumption of small-bodied vertebrates that can readily be dismembered through the bare force of hands and teeth (Boesch, 1994;McGrew, 1992;Stanford, 1996;Newton-Fisher, 2014;Marzke et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrastingly, although some chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) populations are famed for their hunting capabilities and appetite for meat, they do not actively employ tools in the processing and removal of flesh from their prey Boesch, 1989, 1990;Wynn and McGrew, 1989;McGrew, 1992;Pruetz and Bertolani, 2007;Newton-Fisher, 2014). The same is true for bonobo chimpanzee (P. paniscus) populations that also consume meat (Hohmann and Fruth, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating interrelationships between Lower Palaeolithic stone tool effectiveness and tool user biometric variation: implications for technological and evolutionary changes

Key

Lycett

2016

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

with cutting efficiency using both flakes and handaxes over extended periods of use and in multiple types of cutting task. Results indicate that (1) both handaxe and flake cutting efficiency is significantly related with biometric variation of individual tool-users, (2) relationships between biometric parameters and efficiency are consistent across extended durations but vary dependent upon task-type conditions, (3) manipulative strength is the most significant biometric trait in terms of predicting flake efficiency, while (4) hand size is the strongest predictor of handaxe cutting efficiency. These results demonstrate the long-term impact that stone tool use likely had on the evolution of hominin biometric variation during the Lower Palaeolithic, while also highlighting the variable influence of different tool use contexts.Most notably, results indicate that the onset of the Acheulean may have been dependent, a priori, upon hand dimensions that are close to the modern human range, and that prior to the appearance of this anatomy, handaxe use would have been an impractical (i.e. inefficient) tool use behaviour compared to the use of flakes.

show abstract

An Ape's View of the Oldowan

Cited by 263 publications

References 34 publications

Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution

Stone tools, language and the brain in human evolution

The manual skills and cognition that lie behind hominid tool use

Investigating interrelationships between Lower Palaeolithic stone tool effectiveness and tool user biometric variation: implications for technological and evolutionary changes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About