www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9

Elaine Morgan in one of her books on human evolution suggested that human fire use could have begun with the sparks when flintstone was used to open shellfish.
Although more obvious in H.erectus, neandertals still have features that are exclusively or typically seen in (semi)aquatic (esp. littoral, shallow-diving) mammals, e.g. brain enlargement (cf DHA in seafood), platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, rel.long outer digital rays, projecting mid-face and large piriform aperture (google "Oi, big nose!"), pachy-osteo-sclerosis (esp. of the occiput, suggesting regular back-floating), stone tool use.

Once they had discovered how to make fire from shellfish brought on land, Morgan argued, this could perhaps have facilitated a more permanent transition to the land. I don't know whether using stones for opening shellfish ("repeated percussion and/or forceful abrasion") causes a specific kind of microwear?
For a recent view on Morgan's waterside hypothesis, google e.g.
"coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".

Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis
AC Sorensen, E Claud & M Soressi 2018
Scientific Reports 8, 10065 open access
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9

Fire use appears to have been rel.common among mid-Palaeolithic Hn, but how did they procure their fire?
- through the collection of natural fire?
- by producing it themselves, using tools?
We present here the first direct artefactual evidence for regular, systematic fire-production by Hn.
From archaeological layers attributed to late-Mousterian (multiple sites throughout France, primarily MTA techno-culture: Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, c 50 ka), we identify using micro-wear analysis dozens of late-Mid-Palaeolithic bifacial tools that exhibit macro- & microscopic traces, suggesting
- repeated percussion and/or
- forceful abrasion with a hard mineral material.
Both the locations & nature of the polish & associated striations are comparable to those obtained experimentally by obliquely percussing fragments of pyrite (FeS2) against the flat/convex sides of a biface to make fire.
The striations within these discrete use zones are always oriented roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool, allowing us to rule out taphonomic origins for these traces.
We therefore suggest:
the occasional use of bifaces as ‘strike-a-lights’ was a techno-cultural feature shared among the late Hn in France.

Op dinsdag 3 augustus 2021 om 22:05:24 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:

Sorry, it was probably Alister Hardy who first mentioned this possibility:
"Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS 7:642-5, 1960:
"... Man learnt his tool-making on the shore ... Californian sea-otter which dives to the bottom, brings up a large sea-urchin in one hand & a stone in the other, whilst it floats on its back, breaks the sea-urchin against its chest with the stone ... it was but a step to split flints into more efficient tools ... learnt how to strike together flints to make fires, perhaps with dried seaweed, on the sea-shore ..."

_____

> www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
>
> Elaine Morgan in one of her books on human evolution suggested that human fire use could have begun with the sparks when flintstone was used to open shellfish.
> Although more obvious in H.erectus, neandertals still have features that are exclusively or typically seen in (semi)aquatic (esp. littoral, shallow-diving) mammals, e.g. brain enlargement (cf DHA in seafood), platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, rel.long outer digital rays, projecting mid-face and large piriform aperture (google "Oi, big nose!"), pachy-osteo-sclerosis (esp. of the occiput, suggesting regular back-floating), stone tool use.
>
> Once they had discovered how to make fire from shellfish brought on land, Morgan argued, this could perhaps have facilitated a more permanent transition to the land. I don't know whether using stones for opening shellfish ("repeated percussion and/or forceful abrasion") causes a specific kind of microwear?
> For a recent view on Morgan's waterside hypothesis, google e.g.
> "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
>
>
> Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis
> AC Sorensen, E Claud & M Soressi 2018
> Scientific Reports 8, 10065 open access
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
>
> Fire use appears to have been rel.common among mid-Palaeolithic Hn, but how did they procure their fire?
> - through the collection of natural fire?
> - by producing it themselves, using tools?
> We present here the first direct artefactual evidence for regular, systematic fire-production by Hn.
> From archaeological layers attributed to late-Mousterian (multiple sites throughout France, primarily MTA techno-culture: Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, c 50 ka), we identify using micro-wear analysis dozens of late-Mid-Palaeolithic bifacial tools that exhibit macro- & microscopic traces, suggesting
> - repeated percussion and/or
> - forceful abrasion with a hard mineral material.
> Both the locations & nature of the polish & associated striations are comparable to those obtained experimentally by obliquely percussing fragments of pyrite (FeS2) against the flat/convex sides of a biface to make fire.
> The striations within these discrete use zones are always oriented roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool, allowing us to rule out taphonomic origins for these traces.
> We therefore suggest:
> the occasional use of bifaces as ‘strike-a-lights’ was a techno-cultural feature shared among the late Hn in France.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 6:22:03 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 3 augustus 2021 om 22:05:24 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:
>
> Sorry, it was probably Alister Hardy who first mentioned this possibility:
> "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS 7:642-5, 1960:
> "... Man learnt his tool-making on the shore ... Californian sea-otter which dives to the bottom, brings up a large sea-urchin in one hand & a stone in the other, whilst it floats on its back, breaks the sea-urchin against its chest with the stone ... it was but a step to split flints into more efficient tools ... learnt how to strike together flints to make fires, perhaps with dried seaweed, on the sea-shore ..."
>
> _____
> > www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
> >
> > Elaine Morgan in one of her books on human evolution suggested that human fire use could have begun with the sparks when flintstone was used to open shellfish.
> > Although more obvious in H.erectus, neandertals still have features that are exclusively or typically seen in (semi)aquatic (esp. littoral, shallow-diving) mammals, e.g. brain enlargement (cf DHA in seafood), platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, rel.long outer digital rays, projecting mid-face and large piriform aperture (google "Oi, big nose!"), pachy-osteo-sclerosis (esp. of the occiput, suggesting regular back-floating), stone tool use..
> >
> > Once they had discovered how to make fire from shellfish brought on land, Morgan argued, this could perhaps have facilitated a more permanent transition to the land. I don't know whether using stones for opening shellfish ("repeated percussion and/or forceful abrasion") causes a specific kind of microwear?
> > For a recent view on Morgan's waterside hypothesis, google e.g.
> > "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> >
> >
> > Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis
> > AC Sorensen, E Claud & M Soressi 2018
> > Scientific Reports 8, 10065 open access
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
> >
> > Fire use appears to have been rel.common among mid-Palaeolithic Hn, but how did they procure their fire?
> > - through the collection of natural fire?
> > - by producing it themselves, using tools?
> > We present here the first direct artefactual evidence for regular, systematic fire-production by Hn.
> > From archaeological layers attributed to late-Mousterian (multiple sites throughout France, primarily MTA techno-culture: Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, c 50 ka), we identify using micro-wear analysis dozens of late-Mid-Palaeolithic bifacial tools that exhibit macro- & microscopic traces, suggesting
> > - repeated percussion and/or
> > - forceful abrasion with a hard mineral material.
> > Both the locations & nature of the polish & associated striations are comparable to those obtained experimentally by obliquely percussing fragments of pyrite (FeS2) against the flat/convex sides of a biface to make fire.
> > The striations within these discrete use zones are always oriented roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool, allowing us to rule out taphonomic origins for these traces.
> > We therefore suggest:
> > the occasional use of bifaces as ‘strike-a-lights’ was a techno-cultural feature shared among the late Hn in France.

Flint x iron, not flint x clamshell, makes sparks.

Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 00:22:03 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:

> Sorry, it was probably Alister Hardy who first mentioned this possibility:
> "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS 7:642-5, 1960:
> "... Man learnt his tool-making on the shore ... Californian sea-otter which dives to the bottom, brings up a large sea-urchin in one hand & a stone in the other, whilst it floats on its back, breaks the sea-urchin against its chest with the stone ... it was but a step to split flints into more efficient tools ... learnt how to strike together flints to make fires, perhaps with dried seaweed, on the sea-shore ..."

It was not as simple as Hardy suggested:
the sequence might have been:
opening seafood with stones -> stone tool-making -> on land pyrite -> fire

see discussion at aat@groups.io,
Gareth Morgan (son of Elaine):

.... iron meteorites. They are very rare,

Very common where I come from. We used to crack them open to get at the quartz crystals inside. You can buy them online for about 40 cents a gram.

"Where are rare geodes found?

Geodes are found throughout the world, but the most concentrated areas are located in the deserts. Volcanic ash beds, or regions containing limestone, are common geode locations. There are many easily accessible geode collecting sites in the western United States, including in California, Arizona, Utah and Nevada."

Pyrite... It shatters easily and turns to powder

We also used to scour the coal tips for "fools' gold". I can assure you it is not fragile. It was only with difficulty that we could separate the "gold nuggets" from the rock.

the lump you have will only last for a few strikes before it is ruined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ShZCfDfRc8
Fire making 'Neandertal style' with a flint hand axe and pyrite - YouTube
Supplementary Video 1 from our Scientific Reports publication (open access), which can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9.
www.youtube.com
G.

....

it is pretty much inevitable that lumps of iron and lumps of flint will have been bashed together at some point, sparks will inevitably have been struck.

Unfortunately, Gareth, this is not right. Pyrite is hard and brittle. It shatters easily and turns to powder if you try to use it like a hammer. To make sparks with pyrite, you need a large supply, because the lump you have will only last for a few strikes before it is ruined.

The only natural "lumps of iron" on the surface of planet Earth are iron meteorites. They are very rare, and would not make sparks when struck with flint. Pyrite makes sparks because it has sulphur in it. Steel makes sparks because it has carbon in it, not because of the iron.

You can read about iron meteorites on wikipedia, second paragraph: "The iron found in iron meteorites was one of the earliest sources of usable iron available to humans, due to the malleability and ductility of the meteoric iron,[3] before the development of smelting that signaled the beginning of the Iron Age."

_______

> > www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9

> > Elaine Morgan in one of her books on human evolution suggested that human fire use could have begun with the sparks when flintstone was used to open shellfish.
> > Although more obvious in H.erectus, neandertals still have features that are exclusively or typically seen in (semi)aquatic (esp. littoral, shallow-diving) mammals, e.g. brain enlargement (cf DHA in seafood), platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, rel.long outer digital rays, projecting mid-face and large piriform aperture (google "Oi, big nose!"), pachy-osteo-sclerosis (esp. of the occiput, suggesting regular back-floating), stone tool use..
> >
> > Once they had discovered how to make fire from shellfish brought on land, Morgan argued, this could perhaps have facilitated a more permanent transition to the land. I don't know whether using stones for opening shellfish ("repeated percussion and/or forceful abrasion") causes a specific kind of microwear?
> > For a recent view on Morgan's waterside hypothesis, google e.g.
> > "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> >
> >
> > Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis
> > AC Sorensen, E Claud & M Soressi 2018
> > Scientific Reports 8, 10065 open access
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
> >
> > Fire use appears to have been rel.common among mid-Palaeolithic Hn, but how did they procure their fire?
> > - through the collection of natural fire?
> > - by producing it themselves, using tools?
> > We present here the first direct artefactual evidence for regular, systematic fire-production by Hn.
> > From archaeological layers attributed to late-Mousterian (multiple sites throughout France, primarily MTA techno-culture: Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, c 50 ka), we identify using micro-wear analysis dozens of late-Mid-Palaeolithic bifacial tools that exhibit macro- & microscopic traces, suggesting
> > - repeated percussion and/or
> > - forceful abrasion with a hard mineral material.
> > Both the locations & nature of the polish & associated striations are comparable to those obtained experimentally by obliquely percussing fragments of pyrite (FeS2) against the flat/convex sides of a biface to make fire.
> > The striations within these discrete use zones are always oriented roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool, allowing us to rule out taphonomic origins for these traces.
> > We therefore suggest:
> > the occasional use of bifaces as ‘strike-a-lights’ was a techno-cultural feature shared among the late Hn in France.

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 4:52:41 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op woensdag 4 augustus 2021 om 00:22:03 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:
> > Sorry, it was probably Alister Hardy who first mentioned this possibility:
> > "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS 7:642-5, 1960:
> > "... Man learnt his tool-making on the shore ... Californian sea-otter which dives to the bottom, brings up a large sea-urchin in one hand & a stone in the other, whilst it floats on its back, breaks the sea-urchin against its chest with the stone ... it was but a step to split flints into more efficient tools ... learnt how to strike together flints to make fires, perhaps with dried seaweed, on the sea-shore ..."
> It was not as simple as Hardy suggested:
> the sequence might have been:
> opening seafood with stones -> stone tool-making -> on land pyrite -> fire
>
>
> see discussion at a...@groups.io,
> Gareth Morgan (son of Elaine):
>
> ... iron meteorites. They are very rare,
>
> Very common where I come from. We used to crack them open to get at the quartz crystals inside. You can buy them online for about 40 cents a gram.
>
> "Where are rare geodes found?
>
> Geodes are found throughout the world, but the most concentrated areas are located in the deserts. Volcanic ash beds, or regions containing limestone, are common geode locations. There are many easily accessible geode collecting sites in the western United States, including in California, Arizona, Utah and Nevada."
>
> Pyrite... It shatters easily and turns to powder
>
> We also used to scour the coal tips for "fools' gold". I can assure you it is not fragile. It was only with difficulty that we could separate the "gold nuggets" from the rock.
>
> the lump you have will only last for a few strikes before it is ruined.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ShZCfDfRc8
> Fire making 'Neandertal style' with a flint hand axe and pyrite - YouTube
> Supplementary Video 1 from our Scientific Reports publication (open access), which can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9.
> www.youtube.com
> G.
>
> ...
>
> it is pretty much inevitable that lumps of iron and lumps of flint will have been bashed together at some point, sparks will inevitably have been struck.
>
> Unfortunately, Gareth, this is not right. Pyrite is hard and brittle. It shatters easily and turns to powder if you try to use it like a hammer. To make sparks with pyrite, you need a large supply, because the lump you have will only last for a few strikes before it is ruined.
>
> The only natural "lumps of iron" on the surface of planet Earth are iron meteorites. They are very rare, and would not make sparks when struck with flint. Pyrite makes sparks because it has sulphur in it. Steel makes sparks because it has carbon in it, not because of the iron.
>
> You can read about iron meteorites on wikipedia, second paragraph: "The iron found in iron meteorites was one of the earliest sources of usable iron available to humans, due to the malleability and ductility of the meteoric iron,[3] before the development of smelting that signaled the beginning of the Iron Age."
>
>
> _______
> > > www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
>
> > > Elaine Morgan in one of her books on human evolution suggested that human fire use could have begun with the sparks when flintstone was used to open shellfish.
> > > Although more obvious in H.erectus, neandertals still have features that are exclusively or typically seen in (semi)aquatic (esp. littoral, shallow-diving) mammals, e.g. brain enlargement (cf DHA in seafood), platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, rel.long outer digital rays, projecting mid-face and large piriform aperture (google "Oi, big nose!"), pachy-osteo-sclerosis (esp. of the occiput, suggesting regular back-floating), stone tool use.
> > >
> > > Once they had discovered how to make fire from shellfish brought on land, Morgan argued, this could perhaps have facilitated a more permanent transition to the land. I don't know whether using stones for opening shellfish ("repeated percussion and/or forceful abrasion") causes a specific kind of microwear?
> > > For a recent view on Morgan's waterside hypothesis, google e.g.
> > > "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
> > >
> > >
> > > Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis
> > > AC Sorensen, E Claud & M Soressi 2018
> > > Scientific Reports 8, 10065 open access
> > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
> > >
> > > Fire use appears to have been rel.common among mid-Palaeolithic Hn, but how did they procure their fire?
> > > - through the collection of natural fire?
> > > - by producing it themselves, using tools?
> > > We present here the first direct artefactual evidence for regular, systematic fire-production by Hn.
> > > From archaeological layers attributed to late-Mousterian (multiple sites throughout France, primarily MTA techno-culture: Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, c 50 ka), we identify using micro-wear analysis dozens of late-Mid-Palaeolithic bifacial tools that exhibit macro- & microscopic traces, suggesting
> > > - repeated percussion and/or
> > > - forceful abrasion with a hard mineral material.
> > > Both the locations & nature of the polish & associated striations are comparable to those obtained experimentally by obliquely percussing fragments of pyrite (FeS2) against the flat/convex sides of a biface to make fire..
> > > The striations within these discrete use zones are always oriented roughly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tool, allowing us to rule out taphonomic origins for these traces.
> > > We therefore suggest:
> > > the occasional use of bifaces as ‘strike-a-lights’ was a techno-cultural feature shared among the late Hn in France.

If you want to know anything about fire domestication, do not ask a mermaid, they are completely clueless.

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 6:22:03 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Op dinsdag 3 augustus 2021 om 22:05:24 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Sorry, it was probably Alister Hardy who first mentioned this possibility:
>> "Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS 7:642-5, 1960:
>> "... Man learnt his tool-making on the shore ... Californian sea-otter which dives to the bottom, brings up a large sea-urchin in one hand & a stone in the other, whilst it floats on its back, breaks the sea-urchin against its chest with the stone ... it was but a step to split flints into more efficient tools ... learnt how to strike together flints to make fires, perhaps with dried seaweed, on the sea-shore ..."
>>
>> _____
>>> www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
>>>
>>> Elaine Morgan in one of her books on human evolution suggested that human fire use could have begun with the sparks when flintstone was used to open shellfish.
>>> Although more obvious in H.erectus, neandertals still have features that are exclusively or typically seen in (semi)aquatic (esp. littoral, shallow-diving) mammals, e.g. brain enlargement (cf DHA in seafood), platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, rel.long outer digital rays, projecting mid-face and large piriform aperture (google "Oi, big nose!"), pachy-osteo-sclerosis (esp. of the occiput, suggesting regular back-floating), stone tool use.
>>>
>>> Once they had discovered how to make fire from shellfish brought on land, Morgan argued, this could perhaps have facilitated a more permanent transition to the land. I don't know whether using stones for opening shellfish ("repeated percussion and/or forceful abrasion") causes a specific kind of microwear?
>>> For a recent view on Morgan's waterside hypothesis, google e.g.
>>> "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo PPT".
>>>
>>>
>>> Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis
>>> AC Sorensen, E Claud & M Soressi 2018
>>> Scientific Reports 8, 10065 open access
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28342-9
>>>

>
> Flint x iron, not flint x clamshell, makes sparks.

Good one. Hard to imagine Hardy could go from an otter on its back IN
WATER to making fire on land (was the otter supposed to set fire to itself?).

As for Morgan - what a load of ignorant rubbish.

You want sparks? Stone against stone would be a better source. From 2002

https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0242.htm

A study of chimpanzees' use of hammers to open nuts in western Africa may
provide
fresh clues to how tools developed among human ancestors. A paper
published in the
May 24 issue of the journal Science documents the first archaeological
examination of
a non-human primate workplace and establishes new links between the use of
tools by
chimpanzees and similar developments among human ancestors (hominids). The
research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The research
site is in the Tai Forest, about 375 miles west of the capital of the
Ivory Coast, Abidjan.

A team from George Washington University (GWU) and the Max Planck
Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology of Leipzig, Germany (which provided the primary
funding for
the work) studied a site where chimpanzees had carried in stone hammers
from nearby
areas to open nuts on tree roots, which they used as anvils. The
researchers last fall,
recovered 479 stone pieces, chips of granite, laterite, feldspar and
quartz broken from
the hammers.

"Some of the stone by-products of the chimpanzee nut cracking are similar
to what we
see among the technologically simplest Oldowan [hominid] sites in East
Africa," said
rainforest archaeologist Julio Mercader of GWU, the lead author of the
journal article,
titled "Excavation of a Chimpanzee Stone Tool Site in the African
Rainforest."
....

"a site where chimpanzees had carried in stone hammers from nearby areas"

"a site where chimpanzees had carried in stone hammers from nearby areas"

"a site where chimpanzees had carried in stone hammers from nearby areas"

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5572/1452
Excavation of a Chimpanzee Stone Tool Site in the African Rainforest

Abstract
Chimpanzees from the Taı̈ forest of Côte d'Ivoire produce unintentional
flaked stone
assemblages at nut-cracking sites, leaving behind a record of tool use and
plant
consumption that is recoverable with archaeological methods. About 40
kilograms of
nutshell and 4 kilograms of stone were excavated at the Panda 100 site.
The data
unearthed show that chimpanzees transported stones from outcrops and soils to
focal points, where they used them as hammers to process foodstuff. The
repeated
use of activity areas led to refuse accumulation and site formation. The
implications
of these data for the interpretation of the earliest hominin
archaeological record are
explored.

PDF here

<https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Mercader_Excavation_Science_2002_1555926.pdf>

Note:
"Chimpanzees used raw materials from various sources, including granite (10)
(79%), laterite (16.5%), diorite (2%), quartz (1.5%), and feldspar (1%).
The nearest
probable raw material sources were within a radius of 0.1 to 2 km from P100."

0.1 to 2 km *away*. Carried...

From 2012, chimps using stones to open nuts - includes a god picture of a
young chimp doing so...

https://www.livescience.com/20213-chimp-nut-cracking-culture.html

"The researchers studied 45 chimpanzees from three different groups for
the 2008, 2009 and 2010 nut-cracking seasons, as they use tools to open
coula nuts from a tropical African tree of the same name. The chimps use
hard "nutcrackers," which they craft from materials they find in their
environment, to break the skin of these nuts against tree root "anvils." "

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(12)00318-1
Evidence for Cultural Differences between Neighboring Chimpanzee Communities

The majority of evidence for cultural behavior in animals has come from
comparisons
between populations separated by large geographical distances that often
inhabit
different environments [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The difficulty of excluding
ecological and genetic
variation as potential explanations for observed behaviors has led some
researchers to
challenge the idea of animal culture [7, 8, 9]. Chimpanzees (Pan
troglodytes verus) in the
Taï National Park, Côte d'Ivoire, crack Coula edulis nuts using stone and
wooden hammers
and tree root anvils [10, 11, 12]. In this study, we compare for the first
time hammer
selection for nut cracking across three neighboring chimpanzee communities
that live in
the same forest habitat, which reduces the likelihood of ecological
variation. Furthermore, the study communities experience frequent
dispersal of females at maturity, which
eliminates significant genetic variation [13, 14]. We compared key
ecological factors, such
as hammer availability and nut hardness, between the three neighboring
communities
and found striking differences in group-specific hammer selection among
communities despite similar ecological conditions. Differences were found
in the selection of hammer
material and hammer size in response to changes in nut resistance over
time. Our findings highlight the subtleties of cultural differences in
wild chimpanzees and illustrate how
cultural knowledge is able to shape behavior, creating differences among
neighboring
social groups.

https://www.livescience.com/7968-human-evolution-origin-tool.html
Includes a picture of a bipedal chimp ant fishing.

Class is dismissed.