Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Anthropology - Paleo Forum  »  Stone tool use in primates = opening oysters & nuts
Page 2 of 2    Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Lee Olsen
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:07 am
Guest
On Apr 28, 5:48 am, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Quote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:
Nazi
troll
McGinn
What has my writing got to do with the facts of stone tool definition?

Nothing.

Nor did your troll.


Quote:

--
pete
pete
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:48 am
Guest
Lee Olsen wrote:

Quote:
Here the author has it wrong, because by definition a stone tool is:

Nazi

troll

McGinn

What has my writing got to do with the facts of stone tool definition?

Nothing.

--
pete
nickname
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:15 pm
Guest
On Apr 16, 7:25 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
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.

conch = conchoidal
copy of stone to match seashell form, useful for cutting tools eg.
bait traps
Lee Olsen
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:05 pm
Guest
On Apr 28, 5:15 pm, nickname <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 7:25 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:





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.

conch = conchoidal
copy of stone to match seashell form, useful for cutting tools eg.
bait traps.

What is the date on this use? Did they modify the edges, like
grinding?
Lee Olsen
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:20 am
Guest
On Apr 29, 5:41 am, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Quote:
When glass or flint or quartz crystal is broken by impact,
the fracture is always conchoidal.

"Always"??? That is false.

Perverse, snap, and bending fractures are not conchoidal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_type

Another flaking method that does not require conchoidal fracture is
used for
small pebbles or cobbles.

The knapper simply places a pebble on an anvil with a dent on the
surface
and smacks the top of the pebble with a hammerstone. The resultant
break is similar to the segments of an orange (if you have the
required skill level).
The user then simply selects from the broken mess a sharp edge that
will
do the job. If a suitable edge isn't produced, simply repeat the
process until something becomes available. Messy, but effective.
This method is great when material of larger sizes are not available,
like on
a gravel beach where rocks are rounded.
Lee Olsen
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:45 am
Guest
On Apr 29, 6:30 am, pete <pfil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Quote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
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.

This web page

http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2001julykanzichimp.htm

has a picture labeled "KANZI'S CUTTING FLAKE".
The flake was clearly the result of a conchoidal fracture,
with the "bulb of percussion" easily identifiable
at the top of the flake.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22bulb+of+percussion%22&btnG=Go...

You almost seem to be saying that you think that
making a "conchoidal fracture" is a technique
depending on how the stone is hit,
as if you don't realize that every flake knocked
off of a piece of flint, is a conchoidal fracture.

But that is not correct as I explained above, perverse, snap, and
bending fractures are not conchoidal.

Quote:

Am I misunderstanding?

--
pete

What Kanzi is actually doing is hammer and anvil flaking, as in pebble
flaking
in the post above (same as he does for breaking nuts). It does not
require anymore brain power than what birds
know, like when a seagull drops a clam onto a rocky beach or the
vulture drops a rock on an egg. Force "breaks" is what is known, not
the priciples of the Hertzian cone.

Toth tried to force Kanzi into our normal method. Kanzi, being way
more practical, knew he could get the same result a lot easier, like
the seagull knows, by simply throwing his core against a wall or at
another rock on the ground. Sharp edge =s
cut string. He has no clue and can't be taught the principles of the
Hertzian cone.
He just skips it. The fact that sometimes a flake pops out looking
like a true
conchoidal flake is strictly coincidental, just as true conchoidal
flakes are found deep at the quarry site when we know no bird, man, or
ape made it.
pete
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:41 am
Guest
nickname wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 7:25 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.

conch = conchoidal
copy of stone to match seashell form, useful for cutting tools eg.
bait traps

"Conchoidal fracture"
is a characteristic of specific types of stones.

http://www.rocksforkids.com/RFK/identification.html#FRACTURE

When glass or flint or quartz crystal is broken by impact,
the fracture is always conchoidal.

In my life,
the best most commonly seen example of a conchoidal fracture,
is the cone shaped hole that BB makes in a glass window.

--
pete
pete
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:30 am
Guest
Lee Olsen wrote:

Quote:
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.

This web page

http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2001julykanzichimp.htm

has a picture labeled "KANZI'S CUTTING FLAKE".
The flake was clearly the result of a conchoidal fracture,
with the "bulb of percussion" easily identifiable
at the top of the flake.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22bulb+of+percussion%22&btnG=Google+Search

You almost seem to be saying that you think that
making a "conchoidal fracture" is a technique
depending on how the stone is hit,
as if you don't realize that every flake knocked
off of a piece of flint, is a conchoidal fracture.

Am I misunderstanding?

--
pete
 
Page 2 of 2    Goto page Previous  1, 2   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:31 am