Explore the vast range of titles available.

We describe a European Acheulean site characterised by an extensive accumulation of large cutting tools (LCT). This type of Lower Paleolithic assemblage, with dense LCT accumulations, has only been found on the African continent and in the Near East until now. The identification of a site with large accumulations of LCTs favours the hypothesis of an African origin for the Acheulean of Southwest Europe. The lithic tool-bearing deposits date back to 293–205 thousand years ago. Our chronological findings confirm temporal overlap between sites with clear “African” Acheulean affinities and Early Middle Paleolithic sites found elsewhere in the region. These complex technological patterns could be consistent with the potential coexistence of different human species in south-western Europe during the Middle Pleistocene.

In this paper, we apply Machine Learning (ML) algorithms to study the differences between Discoid and Centripetal Levallois methods. For this purpose, we have used experimentally knapped flint flakes, measuring several parameters that have been analyzed by seven ML algorithms. From these analyses, it has been possible to demonstrate the existence of statistically significant differences between Discoid products and Centripetal Levallois products, thus contributing with new data and a new method to this traditional debate. The new approach enabled differentiating the blanks created by both knapping methods with an accuracy >80% using only ten typometric variables. The most relevant variables were maximum length, width to the 25%, 50% and 75% of the flake length, external and internal platform angles, maximum width and number of dorsal scars. This study also demonstrates the advantages of the application of multivariate ML methods to lithic studies.

The tool‐using behaviors of wild chimpanzees comprise the most impressive assemblages and flexible repertoires of nonhuman material culture. We expand knowledge of the breadth and complexity of tool use in this species by providing the first descriptions of the form and function of two distinct tool sets used by chimpanzees in preying upon termites within the forests of the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo. Further, we report the first application of remote video monitoring technology to record wild chimpanzee tool‐using behavior. Based on tool assemblages recovered at termite nests, we hypothesized that chimpanzees were regularly visiting two forms of termite nests and using specific tools to extract termite prey depending on the structure of the nest. Six months of continuous remote video monitoring at six termite nests confirmed that chimpanzees use a tool set to puncture and fish at subterranean termite nests and another tool set to perforate and fish at epigeal (aboveground) nests. Our findings of strict adherence to tool forms at different nest types, tool material selectivity, repeated visits to nests with reusable wood tool assemblages, and differences in material culture between communities have broad implications for our understanding of the ecological and cultural factors that shape hominoid tool use.

A species-wide study shows that the Hawaiian crow Corvus hawaiiensis is a highly proficient tool user, creating opportunities for comparative studies with tool-using New Caledonian crows and other corvids. Tool use in a second tropical crow species Birds in the crow family are renowned for their cognitive abilities. The New Caledonian crow Corvus moneduloides is well known for its ability to make and use foraging tools. Christian Rutz et al . show that it is not some lone outlier—it is now joined by another species from the Pacific, the Hawaiian crow Corvus hawaiiensis , better known by its indigenous Hawaiian name 'Alalā. These birds naturally develop tool-using skills when young, and proficient tool use is a species-wide capacity. The authors can say this with confidence as the 'Alalā is extinct in the wild, and they were able to test 104 of the 109 surviving members of the species at the time, all in captivity. The research suggests that the technological skills of tropical crows might be fostered by rather unusual ecological circumstances found on remote islands, such as reduced competition for embedded prey and low predation risk. The discovery of a second tool-using crow species opens up exciting opportunities for comparative studies on animal tool use. Only a handful of bird species are known to use foraging tools in the wild 1 . Amongst them, the New Caledonian crow ( Corvus moneduloides ) stands out with its sophisticated tool-making skills 2 , 3 . Despite considerable speculation, the evolutionary origins of this species’ remarkable tool behaviour remain largely unknown, not least because no naturally tool-using congeners have yet been identified that would enable informative comparisons 4 . Here we show that another tropical corvid, the ‘Alalā ( C. hawaiiensis ; Hawaiian crow), is a highly dexterous tool user. Although the ‘Alalā became extinct in the wild in the early 2000s, and currently survives only in captivity 5 , at least two lines of evidence suggest that tool use is part of the species’ natural behavioural repertoire: juveniles develop functional tool use without training, or social input from adults; and proficient tool use is a species-wide capacity. ‘Alalā and New Caledonian crows evolved in similar environments on remote tropical islands, yet are only distantly related 6 , suggesting that their technical abilities arose convergently. This supports the idea that avian foraging tool use is facilitated by ecological conditions typical of islands, such as reduced competition for embedded prey and low predation risk 4 , 7 . Our discovery creates exciting opportunities for comparative research on multiple tool-using and non-tool-using corvid species. Such work will in turn pave the way for replicated cross-taxonomic comparisons with the primate lineage, enabling valuable insights into the evolutionary origins of tool-using behaviour.

The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe witnessed the replacement and partial absorption of local Neanderthal populations by Homo sapiens populations of African origin 1 . However, this process probably varied across regions and its details remain largely unknown. In particular, the duration of chronological overlap between the two groups is much debated, as are the implications of this overlap for the nature of the biological and cultural interactions between Neanderthals and H. sapiens . Here we report the discovery and direct dating of human remains found in association with Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefacts 2 , from excavations at Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria). Morphological analysis of a tooth and mitochondrial DNA from several hominin bone fragments, identified through proteomic screening, assign these finds to H. sapiens and link the expansion of Initial Upper Palaeolithic technologies with the spread of H. sapiens into the mid-latitudes of Eurasia before 45 thousand years ago 3 . The excavations yielded a wealth of bone artefacts, including pendants manufactured from cave bear teeth that are reminiscent of those later produced by the last Neanderthals of western Europe 4 – 6 . These finds are consistent with models based on the arrival of multiple waves of H. sapiens into Europe coming into contact with declining Neanderthal populations 7 , 8 . Direct dates for human remains found in association with Initial Upper Palaeolithic artefacts at Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria) demonstrate the presence of Homo sapiens in the mid-latitudes of Europe before 45 thousand years ago.

The naming of Australopithecus africanus in 1925, based on the Taung Child, heralded a new era in human evolutionary studies and turned the attention of the then Eurasian-centric palaeoanthropologists to Africa, albeit with reluctance. Almost one hundred years later, Africa is recognized as the cradle of humanity, where the entire evolutionary history of our lineage prior to two million years ago took place—after the Homo–Pan split. This Review examines data from diverse sources and offers a revised depiction of the genus and characterizes its role in human evolution. For a long time, our knowledge of Australopithecus came from both A. africanus and Australopithecus afarensis , and the members of this genus were portrayed as bipedal creatures that did not use stone tools, with a largely chimpanzee-like cranium, a prognathic face and a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees. Subsequent field and laboratory discoveries, however, have altered this portrayal, showing that Australopithecus species were habitual bipeds but also practised arboreality; that they occasionally used stone tools to supplement their diet with animal resources; and that their infants probably depended on adults to a greater extent than what is seen in apes. The genus gave rise to several taxa, including Homo , but its direct ancestor remains elusive. In sum, Australopithecus had a pivotal bridging role in our evolutionary history owing to its morphological, behavioural and temporal placement between the earliest archaic putative hominins and later hominins—including the genus Homo . This Review examines the palaeobiology of Australopithecus in terms of morphology, phylogeny, diet, tool use, locomotor behaviour and other characteristics, and considers the role of this genus of hominins in human evolution.

Early stone tools, and in particular sharp stone tools, arguably represent one of the most important technological milestones in human evolution. The production and use of sharp stone tools significantly widened the ecological niche of our ancestors, allowing them to exploit novel food resources. However, despite their importance, it is still unclear how these early lithic technologies emerged and which behaviours served as stepping-stones for the development of systematic lithic production in our lineage. One approach to answer this question is to collect comparative data on the stone tool making and using abilities of our closest living relatives, the great apes, to reconstruct the potential stone-related behaviours of early hominins. To this end, we tested both the individual and the social learning abilities of five orangutans to make and use stone tools. Although the orangutans did not make sharp stone tools initially, three individuals spontaneously engaged in lithic percussion, and sharp stone pieces were produced under later experimental conditions. Furthermore, when provided with a human-made sharp stone, one orangutan spontaneously used it as a cutting tool. Contrary to previous experiments, social demonstrations did not considerably improve the stone tool making and using abilities of orangutans. Our study is the first to systematically investigate the stone tool making and using abilities of untrained, unenculturated orangutans showing that two proposed pre-requisites for the emergence of early lithic technologies–lithic percussion and the recognition of sharp-edged stones as cutting tools–are present in this species. We discuss the implications that ours and previous great ape stone tool experiments have for understanding the initial stages of lithic technologies in our lineage.

Some animals fashion tools or constructions out of plant materials to aid foraging, reproduction, self-maintenance, or protection. Their choice of raw materials can affect the structure and properties of the resulting artifacts, with considerable fitness consequences. Documenting animals’ material preferences is challenging, however, as manufacture behavior is often difficult to observe directly, and materials may be processed so heavily that they lack identifying features. Here, we use DNA barcoding to identify, from just a few recovered tool specimens, the plant species New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) use for crafting elaborate hooked stick tools in one of our long-term study populations. The method succeeded where extensive fieldwork using an array of conventional approaches—including targeted observations, camera traps, radio-tracking, bird-mounted video cameras, and behavioral experiments with wild and temporarily captive subjects—had failed. We believe that DNA barcoding will prove useful for investigating many other tool and construction behaviors, helping to unlock significant research potential across a wide range of study systems.

Middle Palaeolithic stone artefacts referred to as 'Levallois' have caused considerable debate regarding issues of technological predetermination, cognition and linguistic capacities in extinct hominins. Their association with both Neanderthals and early modern humans has, in particular, fuelled such debate. Yet, controversy exists regarding the extent of 'predetermination' and 'standardization' in so-called 'preferential Levallois flakes' (PLFs). Using an experimental and morphometric approach, we assess the degree of standardization in PLFs compared to the flakes produced during their manufacture. PLFs possess specific properties that unite them robustly as a group or 'category' of flake. The properties that do so, relate most strongly to relative flake thicknesses across their surface area. PLFs also exhibit significantly less variability than the flakes generated during their production. Again, this is most evident in flake thickness variables. A further aim of our study was to assess whether the particular PLF attributes identified during our analyses can be related to current knowledge regarding flake functionality and utility. PLFs are standardized in such a manner that they may be considered 'predetermined' with regard to a specific set of properties that distinguishes them statistically from a majority of other flakes. Moreover, their attributes can be linked to factors that, based on current knowledge, are desirable features in flake tools (e.g. durability, capacity for retouch, and reduction of torque). As such, our results support the hypothesis that the lengthy, multi-phase, and hierarchically organized process of Levallois reduction was a deliberate, engineered strategy orientated toward specific goals. In turn, our results support suggestions that Levallois knapping relied on a cognitive capacity for long-term working memory. This is consistent with recent evidence suggesting that cognitive distinctions between later Pleistocene hominins such as the Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans were not as sharp as some scholars have previously suggested.

Isochron burial dating with cosmogenic nuclides 26 Al and 10 Be shows that the skeleton of the australopithecine individual known as ‘Little Foot’ is around 3.67 million years old, coeval with early Australopithecus from East Africa; a manuport dated to 2.18 million years ago from the Oldowan tool assemblage conforms with the oldest age previously suggested by fauna. An early date for 'Little Foot' australopithecine The cave infillings at Sterkfontein in South Africa contain some of the richest assemblages of fossil hominins in the world. The problem with Sterkfontein and many caves like it is that it is notoriously difficult to date such sediments : they accumulate in a haphazard way with many episodes of deposition, erosion and reworking. Darryl Granger et al . use isochron burial dating with cosmogenic nuclides 26 Al and 10 Be to show that the breccia containing the substantially complete skeleton of the australopithecine individual known as 'Little Foot' is around 3.67 million years old, coeval with Australopithecus afarensis ('Lucy') from East Africa. The earliest stone tools from Sterkfontein are dated to around 2.18 million years ago, a similar age to tools from nearby sites such as Swartkrans. The cave infills at Sterkfontein contain one of the richest assemblages of Australopithecus fossils in the world, including the nearly complete skeleton StW 573 (‘Little Foot’) 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 in its lower section, as well as early stone tools 5 , 6 , 7 in higher sections. However, the chronology of the site remains controversial 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 owing to the complex history of cave infilling. Much of the existing chronology based on uranium–lead dating 10 , 11 and palaeomagnetic stratigraphy 8 , 12 has recently been called into question by the recognition that dated flowstones fill cavities formed within previously cemented breccias and therefore do not form a stratigraphic sequence 4 , 14 . Earlier dating with cosmogenic nuclides 9 suffered a high degree of uncertainty and has been questioned on grounds of sediment reworking 10 , 11 , 13 . Here we use isochron burial dating with cosmogenic aluminium-26 and beryllium-10 to show that the breccia containing StW 573 did not undergo significant reworking, and that it was deposited 3.67 ± 0.16 million years ago, far earlier than the 2.2 million year flowstones found within it 10 , 11 . The skeleton is thus coeval with early Australopithecus afarensis in eastern Africa 15 , 16 . We also date the earliest stone tools at Sterkfontein to 2.18 ± 0.21 million years ago, placing them in the Oldowan at a time similar to that found elsewhere in South Africa at Swartkans 17 and Wonderwerk 18 .