Nonhuman Primates’ Stone Age Revolution

Figure 1: South American Capuchin monkey using stone to crack open a nut (Credit: Dave Watts)

Humans (aka, Homo sapiens) are considered very unique in several ways.  We are the only species that has developed complex cultures, we are the only species that uses language, and we are generally considered the paramount species.  For all of our uniqueness researchers are beginning to realize that the traits that set us apart are actually not that different from several other animal species.  Today’s blog post will highlight this point by exploring the recent contemporary and archaeological evidence that covers the Stone Age innovations and accomplishments by nonhuman primate species.  This will be explored further by addressing what the term “Stone Age” means, followed by discussions on the contemporary and archaeological evidence that demonstrates how specifically nonhuman primates are meeting these criteria.

First, it is important to understand exactly what a “Stone Age” entails.  From a human perspective it is associated with the first definitive use of stone tools and the various other cultural innovations that go with it.   Stone tools were first definitively used by our hominid ancestors over 2 million years ago, starting with Homo habilis and their Olduwan stone tool traditions.  Subsequent species of hominids that evolved after Homo habilis built on this foundational knowledge and technology to create more complex stone tools, and with these innovations were various other cultural innovations, such as the control and manipulation of fire, the creation of jewelry and art, and purposeful hunting and fishing activities. 

When the term “Stone Age” is discussed in conjunction with nonhuman primates, however, it takes on a different meaning.  It simply refers to the use of stones (aka rocks or lithics) by nonhuman primates.  Typically, the use of stones among these species are to collect and obtain food, specifically as stones have been used to dig out or smash open food stuffs.  At the present time there have been no further cultural developments related to the “Stone Age” innovations observed among nonhuman primates.

Figure 2: Long tailed macaque in Thailand using a rock to open shellfish (Credit: Mark MacEwen)

 

Second, various nonhuman primate species have been observed creatively utilizing their natural resources to meet their intended goals.  Various ape species (e.g. gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, and chimpanzees) have been observed using leaves and sticks to fish out ants and termites, build nests, create weapons to kill and eat smaller primate species, and even draw attention to themselves for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse.  None of this is new information.  What is new, however, is the use of stones to acquire food (Figures 1 & 2).  Various nonhuman primate species, including but not limited to ape species, have been observed using stones to crack open nuts and shell fish to gain access to the food within the shells.  These species have also been seen using stones to dig out tubers and roots for nourishment.  This is unprecedented behavior, particularly among monkey species such as macaques and capuchins, who while intelligent are not necessarily seen as sophisticated as ape species. 

These are, however, not the only evidence that has shocked the anthropological community.  Beginning in 2007 there have been a series of published findings that have opened up a new avenue of research referred to as primate archaeology, wherein archaeological methods and theory are used to investigate primate material culture evidence of the distant past.  Studies in Western Africa and Northeastern Brazil have demonstrated definitive evidence that both chimpanzees and capuchins utilized stone tools for thousands of years, solely for the purposes of acquiring food resources.  This sets the timeline back for the nonhuman primate “Stone Age” Revolution thousands of years, but it also places the more recent evidence in context.  Nonhuman primates have had the ability to utilize stone tools, although their use has been dependent on need.

What does this mean in the great scheme of things?  Should humans be worried about a literal nonhuman primate take over as illustrated in the series, “Planet of the Apes”?  The simple answer at this time has and remains no.  Part of the reason why nonhuman primates have not been observed utilizing stone tools regularly is that many species are arboreal, meaning they live in trees.  Stone is not readily available in the forest canopies, meaning they just have not had a need to use stones as much as humans have had that need.  Second, the use of stone tools creates noise, which for most nonhuman primates is a noisy beacon that attracts predators, and nonhuman primate species do not want that.  Only when there is a need and little risk do nonhuman primate species utilize stone tools. 

This does not mean that these innovations are not without merit.  They provide researchers opportunities to gain better understandings of the circumstances that may have driven our hominid ancestors to develop stone tools.  As our hominid ancestors no longer exist today and therefore cannot be observed in their natural settings performing their typical tasks nonhuman primates provide a suitable analogy to allow for the study of human behavioral (and in this case, cultural) development.  This is what makes this discovery so special, and as more attention is paid to these areas of research more information about what modern nonhuman primates and premodern humans are and were capable of will come to light, providing us greater insights into what it means to be a primate.

References

Barras, C. (2015, August 18). Chimpanzees and monkeys have entered the Stone Age. Retrieved from BBC: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150818-chimps-living-in-the-stone-age

Bower, B. (2019, June 24). Capuchin monkeys’ stone-tool use has evolved over 3,000 years. Retrieved from Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/capuchin-monkey-stone-tool-use-evolution-3000-years

Kaplan, S. (2018, July 6). These tiny monkeys have entered their Stone Age with a bang. Retrieved from Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/07/06/these-tiny-monkeys-have-entered-their-stone-age-with-a-bang/

Mercader, J., Barton, H., Gillespie, J., Harris, J., Kuhn, S., Tyler, R., & Boesch, C. (2007). 4,300-Year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology. PNAS, 3043-3048.

Who Says It Best? The Pop vs. Soda Debate

Generic Names for Soft Drinks Distribution Map (Source: Pop Vs. Soda.com)

As an anthropologist I have had the privilege and luck to travel to various places throughout the United States and world.  In these travels I have experienced a great variety of cultures and languages, and one of the most daunting experiences is learning how to speak in a new environment, particularly if and when you already speak the native language.  Language is one of the quickest ways to identify if someone is "not from around here" or an outsider, and I have learned very quickly to be a chameleon of sorts when it comes to language, adopting not only the local accents but the local nomenclature, as well.  This is what inspired today's blog post topic: the pop vs. soda (vs. coke) debate.  This is a hot topic among my students and even between me and my friends.  While this blog post will not settle the debate about which term should reign supreme (despite what the title may suggest) it will cover the reason why such diverse terms for the same types of beverages exist.

But before we get into that it is important to identify what exactly is being discussed.  The terms "pop", "soda", and "coke" are used throughout the United States (and Canada) to refer to carbonated beverages that are popularly consumed throughout both countries.  As noted in the above map there are regional preferences to these terms.  The term "pop" is used among much of the Midwest, Northern United States, and Canadian (not pictured but speaking from personal experience) populations.  The term "soda" is preferred by Northeaster and Western American populations, while "coke" (not to be confused with Coca Cola) refers to all carbonated beverages regardless of flavor or manufacturer (including the dreaded Pepsi).  These regional distinctions help locate individuals origins when speaking within mixed groups, as well as can lead to some confusion among them (particularly in the service industry when people ask for a "Coke" but really wanted a different carbonated beverage, e.g. a Sprite or Pepsi).

The regional terminology also demonstrates the unique histories of the regions of the US to where these terms originate (despite their wide geographical linguistic use).  The term "soda" actually started in the Northeaster United States where the first soda fountain was invented in Connecticut in 1863.  The term "coke" is associated with the Coca-Cola company and the American south because the company began in the region and had a regional stronghold for several generations before the introduction of rival companies.  The term "pop" has problematic origins, with some claiming it is used from the sound carbonated beverages make to others stating that the term comes from ginger pop, the original name of ginger carbonated beverages.

But if these terms originated in very specific areas of the United States why are they said throughout various parts of the country, particularly in high frequency?  That is actually due to migration patterns throughout history.  California and much of the Western United States was populated more recently than the remainder of the country, and based on the linguistic map presented above it appears that the majority of California migrants were from the Northeast, which could also account for the rivalry between the East and West Coast.  Note, these are personal observations, not based on researched evidence, so these claims may be incorrect.  They do, however, demonstrate how language can be used to trace human migration patterns.

So there you have it: the origins of "pop" vs. "soda" vs. "coke".  Again, this post is not meant to settle the debate as to which is best.  It does demonstrate how language can be regionally specific and how language can provide insights into someone's geographic origins, or at least where they spent a lot of time most recently since despite living in the Midwest I still say "pop" after almost a decade of enculturation in Canadian language and culture.  ;)

Bibliography

Gilbert-Lurie, Mikaela. Why Do Some People Say "Soda" and Others Say "Pop?" Let's Get To The Bottom Of This Age-Old Mystery. 3 July 2015. Electronic. 18 December 2019.

Sherman, Elisabeth. Where People Say 'Soda' vs. 'Pop' and Other Regionalisms. 20 July 2017. Electronic. 18 December 2019.

Smith, Ben T. Pop Vs. Soda (Dialect Blog). 23 December 2011. Electronic. 19 December 2019.

Unknown. Soda vs Pop vs. Coke: Who Says What, And Where? 6 December 2017. Electronic. 18 December 2019.

The Cultural History of Haiti & Its Effects on Haitian Identity

Figure 1: Haiti Map

Today’s blog post will explore the rich cultural history of Haiti and Haitians, and how their history has had an effect on Haitian identity both domestically and abroad.  Through this blog post you will learn about the location of the country of Haiti and how that geographical placement affected its identity.  This will be followed by the historical events that had the most profound affect on the development of the sociopolitical situations faced by modern Haitians.

Haiti is a country located on the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean Sea (Figure 1).  The island is 600 miles south east of Florida, and Haiti is bordered by the Dominican Republic.  The island was originally inhabited by the Taino Indians who were subsequently wiped out by European diseases brought by Christopher Columbus and his crew and tortuous enslavement by subsequent French colonists who imprisoned that Taino and forced them to work on the sugar plantations.  With the Taino populations decimated the European (French and otherwise) colonists turned to a new source of forced human labor: enslaved Africans.  An estimated 30,000 Africans were imported to Haiti annual, and they ultimately made up half of the human population (totally 500,000 individuals). 

This population dynamic provided the fertile social environment that eventually led to a series of social revolutions in the country.  These revolutions were created out of segmentation of the populations, with enslaved blacks being relegated to the lowest social status and those of European descent being elevated to the highest status.  There were individuals who were in between: the Affranchi.  This group was made up of freed slaves and the children of white and black couplings.  As Haiti was a French colony the French government declared the Affranchi have similar right to those of European descent, which concerned the French colonists.  They ignored the French government’s ruling and denied the Affranchi their rights.  

Figure 2: Haitian Art (Artist Unknown)

This act and the subsequent abolishment of slavery by the French government led to the first revolution, which was led largely by freed slaves and the Affranchi alike.  The conclusion of this revolution led to the instatement of Jean-Jacques Dessalines to the leadership of the newly independent Haiti, who eventually renamed himself Emperor Jacques I, Haiti’s first dictator.  Napoleon, who took over and now led France, began his own conflict with Haiti because he feared the power gained by the freed Blacks and Affranchi.  This led to a series of conflict in Haiti that led to the assignation of Dessalines and the subsequent split of the country both geographically and socially.  This fissure of the country fostered greater strife among Haitians based on racial lines.

The country was eventually reunited in 1818, but this did not solve the social unrest among Haitian racial groups.  Haiti’s new leader, Jean Pierre Boyer, stressed the racial differences among the people, favoring those of mixed ancestry and lighter skin color, as well as reintroduced force labor among the citizenry.  In 1843 Boyer was ousted, but the civil and political unrest grew worse.  A series of 22 dictators took control of Haiti over the next 72 years, further plummeting the country into social, political, and economic turmoil.  Eventually, the United States involved itself in the country’s sociopolitical matters by taking control of the government from 1915 until 1934.  This was a time of relative peace, but the United States did little to assist Haiti economically or in establishing order after their withdrawal.  This eventually led to Jean-Claude Duvalier being elected as the country’s leader, and while he promised great changes, he brought more of the same but at higher costs.  Political, social, and economic unrest worsened under his rule as he reduced the Haitian military and employed a private military force to control Haitian citizens.  He rewrote the constitution to declare himself President for life and allowed for his son to take over upon his death.  When this happened, his son continued the reign of terror as well as bankrupted the country further before fleeing in 1986. 

Unfortunately, Haiti has been unable to recover economically from these sociopolitical hardships.  Haiti boasts one of the most impoverished and poorly educated populations in the developed world.  Their currency is greatly devalued and necessities, such as food, shelter, and basic medical care, are largely inaccessible to the majority of Haitians.  This has led several thousands of Haitians to claim political asylum overseas, including here in the United States.  Sadly, due to the impoverished nature of Haitian asylum seekers (which leads to a lack of education and few marketable skills that make them favorable immigrants) many are denied asylum status, particularly in the United States.

Despite these hardships and several others that have befallen Haitians more recently the Haitian people remain one of the most culturally rich and friendly around the world.  They are fiercely proud of their African heritage, their resilience, and their culture.  Their art (Figure 2) is vibrant and positive, showcasing their ways of life, which they take great pride in.  They are a people who have and will continue to persevere despite what challenges they face, and hopefully over time they will not only persevere but rise up and establish a greater financial, political, and social independence that they have not quite achieved yet.

 

References Cited

Peters-Golden, H.  (2011).  Culture Sketches: Case Studies in Anthropology. 6th Edition.  Mc-Graw Hill Education.