Three-dimensional surface morphometry differentiates behaviour on primate percussive stone tools

Abstract

The Early Stone Age record preserves a rich behavioural signature of hominin stone tool making and use. The role of percussive technology in the daily subsistence strategies of our earliest ancestors has seen renewed focus recently. Studies of modern primate tool use highlight the diverse range of behaviours potentially associated with percussive technology. This has prompted significant methodological developments to characterize the associated damage marks (use-wear) on hammerstones and anvils. Little focus has, however, been paid to identifying whether these techniques can successfully differentiate between the damage patterns produced by specific and differing percussive behaviours. Here, we present a novel workflow drawing on the strengths of visual identification and three-dimensional (3D) surface quantification of use-wear. We apply this methodology firstly to characterize macaque percussive use-wear and test the efficacy of 3D surface quantification techniques in differentiating between percussive damage and natural surface topography. Secondly, we use this method to differentiate between use-wear associated with various wild macaque percussive behaviours. By combining analyst-directed, 3D surface analysis and use-wear dimensional analysis, we show that macaque percussive behaviours create specific diagnostic signatures and highlight a means of quantifiably recording such behavioural signatures in both primate and hominin contexts.

Wild macaques challenge the origin of intentional tool production

“…2, E to M), and percussive tools (hammerstones and anvils) (table S2). Hammerstones have damage patterns broadly corresponding with previously published descriptions for this behavior ( 55 , 56 ).…”

“…2, E to M), and percussive tools (hammerstones and anvils) (table S2). Hammerstones have damage patterns broadly corresponding with previously published descriptions for this behavior (55,56). generally short and wide, ranging from 13 to 78.6 mm in maximum length (table S3 and movie S2).…”

After the Revolution: A Review of 3D Modelling as a Tool for Stone Artefact Analysis

“…The third is the strong link between functional studies and primate archaeology (e.g. Benito-Calvo et al 2015;Haslam et al 2013;Luncz et al 2016;Proffitt et al 2021). Almost all functional papers include an experimental component (with primate archaeology studies being the notable exception).…”

Identifying functional and regional differences in chimpanzee stone tool technology

“…The analysis of macro use-wear presented here focuses on quantifying the spatial patterns and three-dimensional surface morphometry of discrete areas of pitting on both hammers and anvils. Discrete pits were chosen as a means of quantifying percussive damage as they are readily visible and can be clearly defined based on three-dimensional surface morphometric methods [67,68]. To assess similarities and differences in percussive damage between the tools from Djouroutou and those reported from Bossou, the results of this study were directly compared with published data on anvils [39], derived from the same spatial analytical methods presented in this study.…”