Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26483526›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Percussive technology in human evolution: an introduction to a comparative approach in fossil and living primates.

Ignacio de la Torre, Satoshi Hirata

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Flake production: A universal by-product of primate stone percussion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Searching for the emergence of stone tool making in eastern Africa.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A new type of anvil in the Acheulian of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ignacio de la TorreInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK i.torre@ucl.ac.uk.
Satoshi HirataKumamoto-Sanctuary of Wildlife Research Center, Kyoto University, 990 Ohtao, Misumi, Uki, Kumamoto 869-3201, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Percussive technology is part of the behavioural suite of several fossil and living primates. Stone Age ancestors used lithic artefacts in pounding activities, which could have been most important in the earliest stages of stone working. This has relevant evolutionary implications, as other primates such as chimpanzees and some monkeys use stone hammer-and-anvil combinations to crack hard-shelled foodstuffs. Parallels between primate percussive technologies and early archaeological sites need to be further explored in order to assess the emergence of technological behaviour in our evolutionary line, and firmly establish bridges between Primatology and Archaeology. What are the anatomical, cognitive and ecological constraints of percussive technology? How common are percussive activities in the Stone Age and among living primates? What is their functional significance? How similar are archaeological percussive tools and those made by non-human primates? This issue of Phil. Trans. addresses some of these questions by presenting case studies with a wide chronological, geographical and disciplinary coverage. The studies presented here cover studies of Brazilian capuchins, captive chimpanzees and chimpanzees in the wild, research on the use of percussive technology among modern humans and recent hunter-gatherers in Australia, the Near East and Europe, and archaeological examples of this behaviour from a million years ago to the Holocene. In summary, the breadth and depth of research compiled here should make this issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, a landmark step forward towards a better understanding of percussive technology, a unique behaviour shared by some modern and fossil primates.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionTool Use BehaviorAnimalsArchaeologyFossilsHumansPrimatesTechnologyarchaeologyhuman evolutionPalaeolithicpaleoanthropologyprimatology

Identifiers

PMID26483526
PMCPMC4614711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.