From Mr Philip Kiberd
Sir: I was very interested to read your feature on primate tool-use (`From modern apes to
human origins', October), having several moons ago examined the subject for my
undergraduate dissertation.
I fail to see any evidence that artefacts in the archaeological record may be those of apes
or monkeys. It is likely that many of the early tools may have been made by
Australopithecines, as well as by the Homo lineage. Paranthropus robustus
may have used tools to obtain roots and tubers, and recent work by Randy Susman also
suggests this hominid may be the maker of the stone tools found at Sterkfontein - a
possibility I hinted at in my 1988 dissertation. I also believe Paranthropus bosei
was a tool-user, as Louis Leakey originally suggested.
It is unlikely that apes made stone tools in the distant past. The tools used by chimps in
the forests of Liberia and the Ivory Coast are of a recognisable type, usually a pounding
stone. We don't know how long chimps have been using stone tools to open nuts, but it is
possible they began as a result of humans doing the same. Some of the earliest
observations were of chimps re-using stones and anvils left by humans. Moreover, the
form of the tools that chimps use in the wild and in captivity is quite specific and unlike
any of the stone tools found in the archaeological record.
The tool-use and tool-making of capuchins may be no more significant than that of other
non-ape tool-users. Many animals have been regularly observed to use tools, including
sea-otters, elephants, Egyptian vultures, bears, and Galapagos finches. All this tells us is
that the level of intelligence needed to use external objects to perform tasks is not
necessarily high.
The point was raised that tool-use and tool-making goes through an evolutionary process
of materials, from plants to stone - a somewhat 19th century perspective. Rather than
using woody material first and then stones, the most suitable material for the job at hand
would have been selected. The mental and physical manipulation of an object is more
significant, in any case, than the material used. A tool constructed out of several twigs
fixed together is as complex as a stone with its corners knocked off. Even so, complexity
is not always a guide to intelligence; and a simple tool that works may be all that is
needed.
As for bonobos, love, and human origins, much as I admire the work of primate
researchers, I cannot but feel that models for past hominid societies sometimes reflect
more the political concerns of modern man than those of past savannah dwellers. Is it a
coincidence that in an increasingly violent world, the models that come to the fore are
those of a far-distant peace-loving ape-people in which females (not males) get down to a
bit of cuddling when they fall out? Yet in my experience, bonobo-like use of non-
reproductive sex in human society tends to be the cause of tension, rather than defusing it.
And if bonobos are a viable model for our earliest ancestors, then either someone got fed
up with all the loving and peace, or something else went drastically awry. Perhaps it was
just too good way back then.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Rick Toomey
Sir: I write with reference to your news item on the discovery of possible Mesolithic
enforced vegetarians (`Mesolithic food industry on Colonsay', June), which has since been
picked up by the magazine The Vegetarian.
The first problem with the interpretation is that the lack of bone on the site may be the
result not of prehistoric human behaviour, but of taphonomic processes. Bone frequently
does not preserve well, or at all, in open-air sites. Is there any reason why bone should
preserve well in this particular case?
There are many sites that do not have plant remains, but do have bone. Are these evidence
of cultures that do not use plant products? They certainly have not been interpreted as
such.
Another important question is about the nature of the site. Is the site some sort of `special
use' site that does not represent the general lifestyle of the people? Or is the site a
seasonal occupation site that doesn't represent the diet of the full year? A 9,000-year-old
vegetarian culture is not impossible, but before we can accept the idea fully, we need a
more complete analysis of the site.
Yours faithfully,
From Ms Cherry Lavell
Sir: Mike Heyworth's plea (`Why are archaeologists not reading?', October) clutched an
icy hand at my memory cells, because in the many years when I was editing British
Archaeological Abstracts I wrote similar despairing pieces myself.
The first was in 1981, followed by two more in 1984 (one of those being entitled `Why
don't you want to know?' when I showed how important papers were being missed). A
sharp aside on the same theme appeared in DV Clarke's Beatrice de Cardi lecture for
1983. And those were in the heady days when there were 600 subscriptions, compared to
half that number now!
I used to think it would take a generation for archaeologists to accept abstracts as an
essential part of life, the way scientists do. Well, a generation has gone by since we
started issuing them. What about it, people?
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Ian Haydock
Sir: As an example of that rare combination, the librarian/archaeologist, I wish to add to
Mike Heyworth's comments on the British Archaeological Bibliography.
At library school I was taught, and further experience has underlined, that any discipline
worthy of calling itself such has some kind of indexing or abstracting service. The volume
of literature in most areas is such that no practitioner could hope to read everything, and
these services exist to organise material so that the user can find what he/she is looking
for.
So why are we not using BAB? If we don't know what our colleagues are doing,
and what evidence they are producing, do we not run the risk of reinventing the wheel
constantly with countless small variations, and not progressing to link two wheels together
on an axle?
Digging is without value if it is not written up. It is still without value if we don't know
the existence of the written text.
Yours faithfully,
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1996
Apes and humans
PHILIP KIBERD
Field Officer
Tempvs Reparatvm
Oxford
25 October
Past vegetarians
RICK TOOMEY
Illinois State Museum
Urbana, USA
10 October
On not reading
CHERRY LAVELL
London NW1
12 October
IAN HAYDOCK
Library Systems Officer
University of Birmingham
23 October