ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
Identifying functional and regional differences in chimpanzee stone tool technology.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The mind & muscles: Introducing a validated EEG/EMG protocol for recording cognitive-muscular interactions in experimental archaeology.PloS one · 2025Article
- Searching for the earliest archaeological record: insights from chimpanzee material landscapes.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Emergent technological variation in archaeological landscapes: a primate perspective.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
- Identifying functional and regional differences in chimpanzee stone tool technology.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The earliest hominin archaeological sites preserve a record of stone tools used for cutting and pounding. Traditionally, sharp-edged flakes were seen as the primary means by which our earliest ancestors interacted with the world. The importance of pounding tools is increasingly apparent. In some cases, they have been compared with stone hammers and anvils used by chimpanzees for nut-cracking. However, there has been little focus on providing a robust descriptive and quantitative characterization of chimpanzee stone tools, allowing for meaningful comparisons between chimpanzee groups and with archaeological artefacts. Here we apply a primate archaeological approach to characterize the range of chimpanzee nut-cracking stone tools from Djouroutou in the Taï National Park. By combining a techno-typological analysis, and two- and three-dimensional measures of damage, we identify clear differences in the location and extent of damage between nut-cracking hammerstones and anvils used at Djouroutou and when compared with other wild chimpanzee populations. Furthermore, we discuss these results in relation to interpretations of Plio-Pleistocene percussive technology. We highlight potential difficulties in identifying the underlying function of percussive artefacts based on morphological or techno-typological attributes alone. The material record from Djouroutou represents an important new datum of chimpanzee regional and material culture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.