norseman

Stone tools may not be what they seem..

14 posts in this topic

Someone's train jumped the track down at "Now it seems that flakes per se may not represent what we thought they did. Capuchins pound rocks together to crack them open and lick the powdered quartz, probably to access dietary minerals. The process sends flakes flying in every direction. But the monkeys don’t use the flakes as tools; they just leave them lying about."

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists; gotta love'em. Monkey's didn't "accidentally make stone tools", they broke rocks.

And this one: "The scientists said they aren't sure why the monkeys perform this behavior, but they did see the capuchins licking the rocks after breaking them. It's possible, the scientists wrote in Nature, that the capuchins are eating lichens or trace minerals from the rocks." I figure they can rule out the possibility the monkeys were breaking open the rocks to get to the lichens. Maybe the rocks were rounded, and the monkey just wanted to may sure there wasn't a nut inside. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the licking was demonstration that monkeys have yet to discover a technique to determine fracture planes...

"hmmm..tastes like about a 45 degree angle from current perpendicular...."

 

Or maybe not..doesn't meant that some time in the future (either near or far) that some monkey might realize those chips and shards could prove useful in different applications other than mere "licking stones" Who's to say our own development of knapping stone didn't arise from some similar behaviour once one of us thought

"dang that rock is sharp! I just cut myself on it!.......wait a second!"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion, but they aren't making tools until they take one up and use it as such.  Until then, they have potential to be tools, but are just rock chips up to that point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question they are asking is how do you tell the two stone flakes apart?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the article to be very interesting. I took an anthropology class in the fall, and we talked about the exact same thing. I learned that H. habilis had made the flakes. Then, I also learned about the different tools the earlier humans used. In my anthropology class, I was never taught about monkeys making the flakes. However, we did go over the relatives that were still ape like. I wish I learned about monkeys actually making the flakes in class.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a little while now I have been marveling at the way scientists take a teeny bit of information and go a long long LONG way with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monkeys making stone flakes that are indistinguishable from flakes found by anthropologists in supposed human ancestor digs?

 

Is not teeny.

 

Its a giant monkey wrench. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, norseman said:

Monkeys making stone flakes that are indistinguishable from flakes found by anthropologists in supposed human ancestor digs?

 

Is not teeny.

 

Its a giant monkey wrench. 

Disqualified posting, as you failed to use any ALL-CAPS.

Just now, norseman said:

Monkeys making stone flakes that are indistinguishable from flakes found by anthropologists in supposed human ancestor digs?

 

Is not teeny.

 

Its a giant monkey wrench. 

Disqualified posting, as you failed to use any ALL-CAPS.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And why?

 

Because anthropologists in supposed human ancestor digs were taking a teeny bit of information and going a long long LONG way with it.

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites