New evidence of early tool use

[Feirefiz]

Apparently there is new evidence that our ancestors started using tools earlier than previously thought.

Starting millions of years ago, the evolutionary ancestors of humans figured out how to use primitive stone tools in a systematic way. [...]
Exactly when that leap took place has never been pinpointed, but the oldest evidence of stone tools has dated back to about 2.5 million years ago — at least until now. In a new paper, released on Wednesday by the journal Nature, Zeresenay Alemseged, an anthropologist at the California Academy of Sciences, and several colleagues say they have pushed that milestone back 800,000 years. Two animal bones, excavated in Dikika, Ethiopia, bear what the authors call "unambiguous stone-tool cut marks for flesh removal and percussion [i.e., smashing] for marrow access."

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...009968,00.html

[ivan astikov]

I'd question the suggestion that the "tool-users" actually hunted the animal down before butchering it. How do we know it wasn't found dead already, and that the "tool-users" didn't have a "hankering for meat" but were just that starving that they used their trusty multi-purpose tool to get what was available? Also, I can't imagine their thought processes being any more advanced than those of a chimp wheedling insects out of a tree stump with a twig.

(If meat is supposed to be so essential for increasing brain power, how come full blown carnivores aren't smarter than they are?)

[Zuul]

Interesting find, Feirefiz.

That demonstrates cleverness, says Alemseged. It also shows that the butchers were capable of complex social behavior. "They're sharing the landscape with dangerous scavengers such as hyenas," he says, "and so some would have had to serve as lookouts." And because that landscape bore only pebbles, not rocks, they would have had to carry the stone tools several miles before using them.

What is really exciting about this is that they were able to find evidence of this in a region that wouldn't have had convenient tool-ready rocks just waiting to be picked up. This would imply that there was forethought and planning involved in using the rocks, rather than just grabbing something that was handy to smash something open like otters do.

Additionally, if they had to carry stones, this adds some credence to the theory that bipedalism became the norm rather than the exception in response to carrying objects and food. I always found that theory far more likely than some of the others (the thermoregulatory model and the provisional model, I'm looking at you).

[Nrblex]

Is there the evidence that austropolithecus was fully bipedal or is it thought they might have only done it part time? Maybe when they had to travel with their meat and stones?

[Zuul]

This article suggests they were walking upright as far back as 3.6 million years. Since we can't really say that the bones are the oldest butchered bones that will ever be found (I've got a feeling we'll be finding a lot more now that they're purposefully looking for them), it'd be a bit premature to suggest that this sort of tool use came after full-time bipedalism.

Additionally, we can never be entirely sure any species we find is actually an ancestral species. They are obviously related to us, but may not actually be the ones we descended from. It's possible several different hominids independently developed an upright gait and tool use. I love this sort of stuff specifically because it's such a smashed up puzzle slowly being revealed and deciphered.

[Panther Squad]

Oh...

I was hoping this would be about that ancient dildo.







(disappointed)