Stone-Tool Usage by Thai Long-Tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis)
S.Malaivijitnond cs.2007 Am.J.Primat.69:227-233

In January & March of 2005, we conducted surveys of Mac.fasc at Piak Nam Yai
Island, Laem Son National Park, Ranong Prov. S-Thailand.
2 of the 3 troops on the island were observed using axe-shaped stones to
crack rock oysters, detached gastropods Thais tissoti, bivalves Gafrarium
divaricatum & swimming crabs Thalamita danae. They smashed the shells with
stones that were held in either the left or right hand, while using the
opposite hand to gather the oyster meat. Some monkeys used both hands to
handle the stones.

According to Matsuzawa¹s 1996 hierarchical classification of tool usage
(levels 0-3), the tool usage by Thai long-tailed macaques could be
characterized as either level 1 (cracking rock oysters with stones) or level
2 (cracking drifting mollusks & crabs with stones by placing them on a
rock).

Our discovery of stone-tool usage by Thai long-tailed macaques provides a
new point of reference for discussions regarding the evolution of tool usage
and the material culture of primates.

...

This is the first report of oyster-cracking behavior using stone tools in
Thai long-tailed macaques. Similar behaviors were observed over 100 yrs ago
in long-tailed macaques inhabiting the islands of the Mergui Archipelago,
S-Myanmar, in close proximity to our study areas. That brief report has long
been neglected ; in the past, human primates were believed to differ from
non-human primates on the basis of language, culture & tool usage.

However,
the distinction between humans & other primates by tool usage was definitely
contradicted by Jane Goodall¹s discovery of termite-fishing behavior in wild
chimpanzees in Gombe, E.Africa.

Apart from chimpanzees, tool usage has been
observed in other hominoids (eg, gorillas & orangutans) & platyrrhines (eg,
capuchins). Similarly to chimpanzees, wild capuchins use stones to crack the
tough shells of nuts, and use a piece of oyster shell to crack oysters ...

Olson, my little boy,

please shut your big mouth when you have nothing to
say.

On Apr 16, 3:56 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Stone-Tool Usage by Thai Long-Tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis)
S.Malaivijitnond cs.2007 Am.J.Primat.69:227-233

In January & March of 2005, we conducted surveys of Mac.fasc at Piak Nam Yai
Island, Laem Son National Park, Ranong Prov. S-Thailand.
2 of the 3 troops on the island were observed using axe-shaped stones to
crack rock oysters, detached gastropods Thais tissoti, bivalves Gafrarium
divaricatum & swimming crabs Thalamita danae.  They smashed the shells with
stones that were held in either the left or right hand, while using the
opposite hand to gather the oyster meat.  Some monkeys used both hands to
handle the stones.

Correct so far.

According to Matsuzawa¹s 1996 hierarchical classification of tool usage
(levels 0-3), the tool usage by Thai long-tailed macaques could be
characterized as either level 1 (cracking rock oysters with stones) or level
2 (cracking drifting mollusks & crabs with stones by placing them on a
rock).
Our discovery of stone-tool usage by Thai long-tailed macaques provides a
new point of reference for discussions regarding the evolution of tool usage
and the material culture of primates.

Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)

http://www.archaeologywordsmith.com/cgi-bin/lookup.cgi?category=&wher...
tool
"CATEGORY: artifact
DEFINITION: Any existing physical object that is in some way fashioned
or altered by humans and employed for a specific task or purpose.
Tools made of stone included of axes, adzes, arrowheads, spearheads,
daggers, knife blades, scrapers, borers, burins, picks, etc. The first
tools date back to c 2,600,000 years ago, the beginning of the
Paleolithic Age, and are different-sized pebble tools called choppers.
The chopper was the only tool used by man for almost 2,000,000 years,
until the appearance of the hand ax, a superior (and sharper) version
of the chopper.
stone tool
CATEGORY: lithics
DEFINITION: A tool made of stone, either ground stone or chipped
stone; a lithic artifact."

http://www.webref.org/anthropology/t/tool.htm
"tool: an object that appears to have been created for a specific
purpose."



...

This is the first report of oyster-cracking behavior using stone tools in
Thai long-tailed macaques. Similar behaviors were observed over 100 yrs ago
in long-tailed macaques inhabiting the islands of the Mergui Archipelago,
S-Myanmar, in close proximity to our study areas. That brief report has long
been neglected ; in the past, human primates were believed to differ from
non-human primates on the basis of language, culture & tool usage.

This is nothing more than strawman argument by someone obviously not
familiar
with the literature and trying to make himself look important by
making profound
statements that are false. No stone TOOL was observed, a stone was
observed.

However,
the distinction between humans & other primates by tool usage was definitely
contradicted by Jane Goodall¹s discovery of termite-fishing behavior in wild
chimpanzees in Gombe, E.Africa.

Here the author confuses "tools" with "stone tools" by lumping the two
together as if they are one.

They are not. Using an unmodified stone to break nuts is not the same
as making a stone tool.

The distinction that completely separates humans from all other
primates, birds, sea otters, etc.

is the ability to understand
conchoidal fracture. When a chimp modifies a branch by pulling off the
twigs to shape it into a termite probe,
this then, by the dictionary definition above, is a "tool" per Jane
Goodall above.

There is a  difference between pulling twigs off a branch and using
conchoidal fracture to make a STONE tool,
which has never been observed either in the wild or in the lab.

Apart from chimpanzees, tool usage has been
observed in other hominoids (eg, gorillas & orangutans) & platyrrhines (eg,
capuchins). Similarly to chimpanzees, wild capuchins use stones to crack the
tough shells of nuts, and use a piece of oyster shell to crack oysters ....

The error that is contiually being made is the simple fact that there
is such a thing as a simple tool,
there is no such thing as a simple STONE tool manufactured with an
understanding of conchoidal fracture.

What wasn't known in Jane Goodall's day was how complex an idea
conchoidal fracture is, like those
first stone tools required. Roche, Toth, and Semaw have demonstrated
this complex understanding has been in place for over two million
years.

Sileshi Semaw

The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns
of Human Evolution Between 2·6-1·5 Million Years Ago

Journal of Archaeological Science (2000) 27, 1197-1214

"Surprisingly, the makers of the Gona artefacts had a
sophisticated understanding of stone fracture mechanics and control
similar to what is observed for Oldowan
assemblages dated between 2·0-1·5 Ma. This observation was
corroborated by the recent archaeological discoveries
made at Lokalalei. Because of the similarities seen in the techniques
of artefact manufacture during the Late
Pliocene-Early Pleistocene, it is argued here that the stone
assemblages dated between 2·6-1·5 Ma group into the
Oldowan Industry. The similarity and simplicity of the artefacts from
this time interval suggests a technological stasis
in the Oldowan."

If using a rock is "According to Matsuzawa¹s 1996 hierarchical
classification of tool usage
 (levels 0-3)" then understanding conchoidal fracture is a level 07,
thus leaving all our feathered
and furry friends behind in the dust.

Who cares what Leakey's definition is.

On Apr 16, 3:56 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Stone-Tool Usage by Thai Long-Tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis)
S.Malaivijitnond cs.2007 Am.J.Primat.69:227-233

In January & March of 2005, we conducted surveys of Mac.fasc at Piak Nam Yai
Island, Laem Son National Park, Ranong Prov. S-Thailand.
2 of the 3 troops on the island were observed using axe-shaped stones to
crack rock oysters, detached gastropods Thais tissoti, bivalves Gafrarium
divaricatum & swimming crabs Thalamita danae. They smashed the shells with
stones that were held in either the left or right hand, while using the
opposite hand to gather the oyster meat. Some monkeys used both hands to
handle the stones.

Correct so far.

According to Matsuzawa¹s 1996 hierarchical classification of tool usage
(levels 0-3), the tool usage by Thai long-tailed macaques could be
characterized as either level 1 (cracking rock oysters with stones) or level
2 (cracking drifting mollusks & crabs with stones by placing them on a
rock).

Our discovery of stone-tool usage by Thai long-tailed macaques provides a
new point of reference for discussions regarding the evolution of tool usage
and the material culture of primates.

Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)

http://www.archaeologywordsmith.com/cgi-bin/lookup.cgi?category=&where=headwor
d&terms=tool
tool
"CATEGORY: artifact
DEFINITION: Any existing physical object that is in some way fashioned
or altered by humans and employed for a specific task or purpose.
Tools made of stone included of axes, adzes, arrowheads, spearheads,
daggers, knife blades, scrapers, borers, burins, picks, etc. The first
tools date back to c 2,600,000 years ago, the beginning of the
Paleolithic Age, and are different-sized pebble tools called choppers.
The chopper was the only tool used by man for almost 2,000,000 years,
until the appearance of the hand ax, a superior (and sharper) version
of the chopper.
stone tool
CATEGORY: lithics
DEFINITION: A tool made of stone, either ground stone or chipped
stone; a lithic artifact."

http://www.webref.org/anthropology/t/tool.htm
"tool: an object that appears to have been created for a specific
purpose."


...

This is the first report of oyster-cracking behavior using stone tools in
Thai long-tailed macaques. Similar behaviors were observed over 100 yrs ago
in long-tailed macaques inhabiting the islands of the Mergui Archipelago,
S-Myanmar, in close proximity to our study areas. That brief report has long
been neglected ; in the past, human primates were believed to differ from
non-human primates on the basis of language, culture & tool usage.

This is nothing more than strawman argument by someone obviously not
familiar
with the literature and trying to make himself look important by
making profound
statements that are false. No stone TOOL was observed, a stone was
observed.


However,
the distinction between humans & other primates by tool usage was definitely
contradicted by Jane Goodall¹s discovery of termite-fishing behavior in wild
chimpanzees in Gombe, E.Africa.

Here the author confuses "tools" with "stone tools" by lumping the two
together as if they are one.
They are not. Using an unmodified stone to break nuts is not the same
as making a stone tool.

The distinction that completely separates humans from all other
primates, birds, sea otters, etc. is the ability to understand
conchoidal fracture. When a chimp modifies a branch by pulling off the
twigs to shape it into a termite probe,
this then, by the dictionary definition above, is a "tool" per Jane
Goodall above.

There is a difference between pulling twigs off a branch and using
conchoidal fracture to make a STONE tool,
which has never been observed either in the wild or in the lab.


Apart from chimpanzees, tool usage has been
observed in other hominoids (eg, gorillas & orangutans) & platyrrhines (eg,
capuchins). Similarly to chimpanzees, wild capuchins use stones to crack the
tough shells of nuts, and use a piece of oyster shell to crack oysters ...

The error that is contiually being made is the simple fact that there
is such a thing as a simple tool,
there is no such thing as a simple STONE tool manufactured with an
understanding of conchoidal fracture.

What wasn't known in Jane Goodall's day was how complex an idea
conchoidal fracture is, like those
first stone tools required. Roche, Toth, and Semaw have demonstrated
this complex understanding has been in place for over two million
years.

Sileshi Semaw

The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their
Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns
of Human Evolution Between 2·6-1·5 Million Years Ago

Journal of Archaeological Science (2000) 27, 1197-1214

"Surprisingly, the makers of the Gona artefacts had a
sophisticated understanding of stone fracture mechanics and control
similar to what is observed for Oldowan
assemblages dated between 2·0-1·5 Ma. This observation was
corroborated by the recent archaeological discoveries
made at Lokalalei. Because of the similarities seen in the techniques
of artefact manufacture during the Late
Pliocene-Early Pleistocene, it is argued here that the stone
assemblages dated between 2·6-1·5 Ma group into the
Oldowan Industry. The similarity and simplicity of the artefacts from
this time interval suggests a technological stasis
in the Oldowan."

If using a rock is "According to Matsuzawa¹s 1996 hierarchical
classification of tool usage
(levels 0-3)" then understanding conchoidal fracture is a level 07,
thus leaving all our feathered
and furry friends behind in the dust.

On Apr 16, 7:25 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Nice review of Stone tool def's etc]

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lee Olsen wrote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)

That's not a definition.

That's just something that Leakey said about stone tools.

Not every statement about something is a definition.

--
pete

On Apr 27, 6:38 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Lee Olsen wrote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)

That's not a definition.

Nobody said it was.

That's just something that Leakey said about stone tools.

That's exactly right.



Not every statement about something is a definition.

Nobody said they were.  But Leakey's quip was true just the same as
per the definiitions that you, as an asshole troll, deliberately cut
out of context from the original post above:

You're whacked.  You just did it again!

Lee Olsen wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:38 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)
That's not a definition.

Nobody said it was.

Your placement of Leakey's quote, is directly after the phrase
    "by definition a stone tool is:"
and apparently part of the same sentence and paragraph.

Everything which followed after that,
had line breaks which did not appear to
be part of the same sentence and paragraph.

--
pete

Lee Olsen wrote:
On Apr 27, 8:04 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:38 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)
That's not a definition.
Nobody said it was.
Your placement of Leakey's quote, is directly after the phrase
    "by definition a stone tool is:"
and apparently part of the same sentence and paragraph.

Everything which followed after that,
had line breaks which did not appear to
be part of the same sentence and paragraph.
If you don't like how Leakey and I write, take us to court.

You appear to think that I'm blaming Leakey because you wrote
    "by definition a stone tool is:"
and the Leakey quote is the only thing following that says
    "Stone tools are".

Your writing is very bad.

I have no idea why you think that it isn't.

Lumping yourself together with Leakey like that
simply because I was only criticizing what *you* wrote,
is trending towards megalomania.

Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)

On Apr 27, 6:38 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)
That's not a definition.

Nobody said it was.

On Apr 27, 8:04 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:38 pm, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/
"Stone tools are fossilized human behavior."
--Louis Leakey (1903-1972)
That's not a definition.
Nobody said it was.
Your placement of Leakey's quote, is directly after the phrase
"by definition a stone tool is:"
and apparently part of the same sentence and paragraph.

Everything which followed after that,
had line breaks which did not appear to
be part of the same sentence and paragraph.

If you don't like how Leakey and I write, take us to court.