Hammer-stones to open macaúba nuts and unintentionally flake production in wild bearded capuchin monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus) at Ubajara National Park (Brazil): An archeological approach (original) (raw)

Abstract

So far, hammer-stones used by capuchins have only been described in detail, with archeological approaches, in the long-term study site of Serra da Capivara, where capuchins use lithic tools to crack open low-resistance food items, dig the soil to access embedded resources, or pound on conglomerate cliffs to pulverize them (stone-onstone). Our work provides the first technological and techno-morpho-functional, use-wear and residue analysis of a sample of lithic materials collected at six nut-cracking sites used by bearded capuchin monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus) living in the Ubajara National Park (Cear´a, Brazil), a population not habituated to the presence of researchers at the time. Shell remains at the sites were dominated by macaúba (Acrocomia aculeata) nuts. Technological and techno-morpho-functional analysis identified six lithic hammer-stones, four tool fragments and fifteen flakes on the bases of their morphology, their technological traits (flakes), their potential percussion marks of use observed at the naked eye, and their potential function. Use-wear and residue (e.g., starch grains) analyses unambiguously linking lithic tools to the processing of food items have been found on two hammerstones, one hammer-stone fragment, two flakes and two micro-flakes. Our study adds one more geographical site where an archeological approach has been taken to describe tools used by capuchins. We report that cracking of hard-shelled nuts by wild robust capuchins may unintentionally produce flakes like those produced by stoneon- stone behavior observed in the same species, by long-tailed macaques cracking Elaeis guineensis nuts, by western chimpanzees cracking Panda oleosa nuts and by Pliocene/Pleistocene hominins. The detailed analysis of lithic tools used by capuchin monkeys to process hard-shelled nuts, therefore, represents a significant improvement towards the construction of a representative reference collection of tools for this important model taxon for stone tool use in non-human primates.

Figures (17)

Fig. 1. Nut-cracking sites in Ubajara National Park (UNP), including a large stone anvil, a hammer-stone, and leftovers of processed macatiba nuts. (a) hammer-stone H6/7 (Tables 1, 3); (b) hammer-stone H5 (Tables 1, 3). Photo credit: T. Faldtico.

Fig. 3. Macatiba nuts (Acrocomia aculeata). Photo credit: T. Falotico. Capuchins at UNP have been observed to consume the mesocarp but also to consume the endosperm by cracking open the hard shell with hammer-stones and anvils (Figs. 1, S1). They can collect the fresh bunches from the tree or collect the fallen fruits or dry nuts from the ground. They transport the resources to the anvils to process them with Since the hardness of the food type, tool size and raw material differ across Ubajara and SNCP, the other site with available data originated by the application of archeological analyses, we expect that the pilot study on this tool collection will be the launching pad to widely broaden,

Fig. 2. Map of South America showing the range of Sapajus libidinosus within the genus Sapajus and the location of the two geographical sites where an archaeological approach has been taken to study stone percussive tools: the long-term study site of Serra da Capivara National Park (SCNP) and the new site of the current study Ubajara National Park (UNP), at the northern limit of the species distribution.

Fig. 4. Left: whole hammer-stone (H5); right: ventral face of a flake (F15) Photo credit: C.M. Bocioaga. For 3D images of H5 and F15 see Supplementary material. An initial technological and techno-morpho-functional analysis, involving naked-eye macroscopic observations, was conducted to recognize the raw material of the lithics and to categorize them into three groups: hammer-stones, fractured hammer-stones, and flakes, based on their presumed intended function. The actual function of these The sample comprised six intact hammer-stones, four hammer-stone fragments, and 15 flakes collected from six nut-cracking sites, charac- terized by the presence of hammer-stones, anvils, and shell remains (see Fig. 1), where macatiba fruits (Attalea aculeata, see Fig. 3) were pro- cessed. To enhance a comprehensive understanding of the external

Fig. 5. Numbering of the hammer-stone faces. Following and modifying Bourguignon, 1997 Macro-traces were observed directly on the sample using the digital Concerning the flakes, two faces were identified: ventral face (the one detached from the block of rock) and dorsal face (the one opposite to the ventral face) (Arzarello et al., 2011). For each lithic, we recorded raw material, making qualitative distinctions and noting quantitative characteristics such as maximum length, maximum width, maximum thickness (measured using a caliper), and weight (using a digital

Basic features of lithic materials described in the study. Two shapes for whole hammer-stones were recognized: oval (H1; H2; H3; H4; H6/7) and polyhedral (H3; H5), Table 1. However, due to the small sample size, it was not possible to attempt an identification of tool selection patterns regarding hammer-stone shape. The shape of the hammer-stone faces was also considered and, subsequently, the latter was related to the amount of potential percussive traces present on each of them.

Morphological description of whole hammers faces.

Potential percussion marks and their percentages.

Fig. 8. TFU analysis. TFU p (red dashed lines) represents where the hammer-stone was handled by the user. TFU t (green part) is the part of the tool which contactin; and modifying the material (food and/or anvil). Hammer-stone 6/7: t) TFU t1 on face 1; u) TFU t2 on face 2; v) TFU t3 on face 3. (For interpretation of the reference: to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 9. Hammer-stone H6/H7. Macro-distribution of residues. The residues included brown/reddish vegetal material with crust appearance (A); white powder material i.e., starch grains, located in the interstitial space of the crystals (C); epicarp fragments, fibers and starch grains associated (D, E, G, H). Visible wear marks, i. e., macro pits (B, F). (Photo credit: I.Caricola).

Percussive Stone Tools analyzed with microscopic techniques and details on presence/absence of use-wear traces and residues.

Fig. 10. Residues found on percussion stone tools (sample H5) analyzed with the RH-Hirox digital microscope and the SEM-EDX. In detail: (a—c) raphides (i.e. calcium oxalate crystals) and starch grains; (d-i) fibers and starch grains associated (Photo credit: I.Caricola).

Fig. 11. The residues found on the stone percussion stone tools (samples H6/7) analyzed with the RH-Hirox digital microscope and the SEM-EDX. (a—d) detail of stem fragment and (d) chemical analysis carried out by SEM-EDX (O-C-K); (e-h) epicarp fragments, with evident bundles of striations with different orientations; (h chemical composition of epicarp (O-C-K); (i) fibers (in red square) associated with the presence of a contamination consisting of an animal hair (in green square); (j- SEM-EDX details of the fibers (C-O-Ca-K-Si); (m) starch grains; (n—p) animal hair observed using SEM-EDX (C-O-S). (Photo credit: I.Caricola). (For interpretation ¢ the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

‘ig. 12. Macro and micro-traces observed on percussion stone tools. In detail: (a-c) area with pits; (d—-f) cracks on the top of the quartz crystals; (g) quartz cryst: with pits/cracks; (h-i) micro polishes. Photo credit: I. Caricola, C. Lemorini.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (58)

1. Adams, J., Delgado, S., Dubreuil, L., Hamon, C., Plisson, H., Risch, R., 2009. Functional analysis of macro-lithic artefacts: a focus on working surfaces. In: Costa, L.J., Eigeland, L., Sternke, F. (Eds.), Non-flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory: Old Prejudices and New Directions. Proceedings of the XV Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 43-66.
2. Arroyo, A., de la Torre, I., 2016. Assessing the function of pounding tools in the Early Stone Age: A microscopic approach to the analysis of percussive artefacts from Beds I and II, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). J. Archaeol. Sci. 74, 23-34. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jas.2016.08.003.
3. Arroyo, A., de la Torre, I., 2018. Pounding tools in HWK EE and EF-HR (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania): percussive activities in the Oldowan-Acheulean transition. J. Hum. Evol. 120, 402-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.10.005.
4. Arroyo, A., Falótico, T., Burguet-Coca, A., Expósito, I., Quinn, P., Proffitt, T., 2021. Use- wear and residue analysis of pounding tools used by wild capuchin monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus) from Serra da Capivara (Piauí, Brazil). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 35, 102690 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102690.
5. Arzarello, M., Peresani, M., Fontana, F., 2011. Manuale di tecnologia litica preistorica. Concetti, metodi e tecniche. Carrocci Editore.
6. Astruc, L., Vargiolu, R., Zahouani, H., 2003. Wear assessments of prehistoric instruments. Wear 255 (1-6), 341-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1648(03)00173-X.
7. Barrett, B.J., Monteza-Moreno, C.M., Dogandžić, T., Zwyns, N., Ibáñez, A., Crofoot, M.C., 2018. Habitual stone-tool-aided extractive foraging in white-faced capuchins, Cebus Capucinus. Royal Soc. Open Sci. 5 (8), 181002 https://doi.org/10.1098/ rsos.181002.
8. Barton, H., Mutri, G., Hill, E., Farr, L., Barker, G., 2018. Use of grass seed resources c. 31 ka by modern humans at the Haua Fteah cave, northeast Libya. J. Archaeol. Sci. 99, 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.08.013.
9. Benito-Calvo, A., Carvalho, S., Arroyo, A., Matsuzawa, T., de la Torre, I., 2015. First GIS analysis of modern stone tools used by wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in Bossou, Guinea, West Africa. Plos One 10 (3), e0121613. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0121613.
10. Boëda, E., 1997. Technogenèse des systèmes de production lithique au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Europe occidentale et au Proche-Orient. Thèse d'Habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Paris-X.Bofill, M. (2012). Quantitative analysis of use-wear patterns: a functional approach to the study of grinding stones. Broadening Horizons 3, 63-84.
11. Boesch, C., Kalan, A.K., Mundry, R., Arandjelovic, M., Pika, S., Dieguez, P., Kühl, H.S., 2020. Chimpanzee ethnography reveals unexpected cultural diversity. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 (9), 910-916. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0890-1.
12. Bourguignon L. 1997 -Le Moustérien de type Quina: nouvelle définition d'une technique. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Paris X-Nanterre, 2 tomes, 672 p.
13. Caricola, I., Breglia, F., Larocca, F., Hamon, C., Lemorini, C., Giligny, F., 2020. Prehistoric exploitation of minerals resources. Experimentation and use-wear analysis of grooved stone tools from Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italy). Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 12 (11), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01219-7.
14. Colombo, C.A., Berton, L.H.C., Diaz, B.G., Ferrari, R.A., 2018. Macauba: a promising tropical palm for the production of vegetable oil. OCL 25 (1), D1088. https://doi. org/10.1051/ocl/2017038.
15. Croft, S., 2021. Lithic residues analysis. Brit. Archaeol. Rep.
16. da Silva César, A., de Azedias Almeida, F., de Souza, R.P., Silva, G.C., Atabani, A.E., 2015. The prospects of using Acrocomia aculeata (macaúba) a non-edible biodiesel feedstock in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 1213-1220. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.125.
17. de la Torre, I., Benito-Calvo, A., Arroyo, A., Zupancich, A., Proffitt, T., 2013. Experimental protocols for the study of battered stone anvils from Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jas.2012.08.007.
18. Dubreuil, L., Savage, D., Delgado-Raack, S., Plisson, H., Stephenson, B., de la Torre, I., 2015. In: Current Analytical Frameworks for Studies of Use-wear on Ground Stone Tools. Springer, Cham, pp. 105-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08257-8\_
19. Falótico, T., 2022. Robust capuchin tool use cognition in the wild. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 46, 101170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101170.
20. Falótico, T., Ottoni, E.B., 2016. The manifold use of pounding stone tools by wild capuchin monkeys of Serra da Capivara National Park, Brazil. Behaviour 153 (4), 421-442.
21. Falótico, T., Coutinho, P.H.M., Bueno, C.Q., Rufo, H.P., Ottoni, E.B., 2018. Stone tool use by wild capuchin monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus) at Serra das Confusões National Park, Brazil. Primates 59 (4), 385-394. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X- 00003357.
22. Falótico T., Valença T., Verderane M.V, Santana B.C, Sirianni G. (2024). Mapping nut- cracking in a new population of wild capuchin monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus) at Ubajara National Park, Brazil. American Journal of Primatology, e23595. doi.org/ 10.1002/ajp.23595Ferreira, R. G., Emidio, R. A., & Jerusalinsky, L. (2010). Three stones for three seeds: natural occurrence of selective tool use by capuchins (Cebus libidinosus) based on an analysis of the weight of stones found at nutting sites. Am. J. Primatol. 72(3), 270-275. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20771.
23. Falótico, T., Proffitt, T., Ottoni, E.B., Staff, R.A., Haslam, M., 2019. Three thousand years of wild capuchin stone tool use. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 (7), 1034-1038. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41559-019-0904-4.
24. Fullagar, R., Field, J., Kealhofer, L., 2008. Grinding stones and seeds of change: starch and phytoliths as evidence of plant food processing. New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, pp. 159-172.
25. Gumert, M.D., Kluck, M., Malaivijitnond, S., 2009. The physical characteristics and usage patterns of stone axe and pounding hammers used by long-tailed macaques in the Andaman Sea region of Thailand. Am. J. Primatol.: Off. J. Am. Soc. Primatol. 71 (7), 594-608. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20694.
26. Hamon, C. (2006). Broyage et abrasion au Néolitique ancien. Caractérisation technique et fonctionnelle des outillages en grès du Bassin parisien, BAR International Series 1551.
27. Harmand, S., Arroyo, A., 2023. Linking primatology and archaeology: the transversality of stone percussive behaviors. J. Hum. Evol. 181, 103398 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhevol.2023.103398.
28. Haslam, M., Gumert, M.D., Biro, D., Carvalho, S., Malaivijitnond, S., 2013. Use-wear patterns on wild macaque stone tools reveal their behavioural history. PLoS One 8 (8), e72872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072872.
29. Haslam, M., Hernandez-Aguilar, R.A., Proffitt, T., et al., 2017. Primate archaeology evolves. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 1431-1437. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0072872.
30. Hayes, E., Rots, V., 2018. Documenting scarce and fragmented residues on stone tools: an experimental approach using optical microscopy and SEM-EDS. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 11 (7), 3065-3099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0736-1.
31. Hayes, E., Cnuts, D., Rots, V., 2019. Integrating SEM-EDS in a sequential residue analysis protocol: benefits and challenges. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 23, 116-126. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.10.029.
32. Hayes, E.H., Field, J.H., Coster, A.C.F., Fullagar, R., Matheson, C., Florin, S.A., Clarkson, C., 2021. Holocene grinding stones at Madjedbebe reveal the processing of starchy plant taxa and animal tissue. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 35, 102754 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102754.
33. Hiane, P.A., Baldasso, P.A., Marangoni, S., Macedo, M.L.R., 2006. Chemical and nutritional evaluation of kernels of bocaiuva, Acrocomia aculeata (Jacq.) Lodd. Food Sci. Technol. 26 (3), 683-689. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101- 20612006000300031.
34. ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade). (2001). Plano de Manejo Parque Nacional de Ubajara -Fase 2. https://www.icmbio.gov.br/parnauba jara/planos-de-manejo. Accessed 25 April 2022.
35. Lepot, M., 1993. Approche techno fonctionnelle de l'outillage lithique moustérien: essai de classification des parties actives en terme d'efficacité technique. Unpublished Masters thesis. University of Paris X, Nanterre.
36. Lorenzi, H., Noblick, L.R., Kahn, F., Ferreira, E., 2010. Flora Brasileira Lorenzi: Arecacea (palmeiras). Nova Odessa, SP.
37. Luncz, L.V., Mundry, R., Boesch, C., 2012. Evidence for cultural differences between neighboring chimpanzee communities. Curr. Biol. 22 (10), 922-926. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.031.
38. Luncz, L.V., Sirianni, G., Mundry, R., Boesch, C., 2018. Costly culture: differences in nut- cracking efficiency between wild chimpanzee groups. Anim. Behav. 137, 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.12.017.
39. Luncz, L.V., Gill, M., Proffitt, T., Svensson, M.S., Kulik, L., Malaivijitnond, S., 2019. Group-specific archaeological signatures of stone tool use in wild macaques. Elife 8, e46961. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0271-4.
40. Luncz, L.V., Arroyo, A., Falótico, T., Quinn, P., Proffitt, T., 2022. A primate model for the origin of flake technology. J. Hum. Evol. 171, 103250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhevol.2022.103250.
41. Mendes, F.D.C., Cardoso, R.M., Ottoni, E.B., Izar, P., Villar, D.N.A., Marquezan, R.F., 2015. Diversity of nut-cracking tool sites used by Sapajus libidinosus in Brazilian Cerrado. Am. J. Primatol. 77 (5), 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22373.
42. Mercader, J., Panger, M., Boesch, C., 2002. Excavation of a chimpanzee stone tool site in the African rainforest. Science 296 (5572), 1452-1455. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.107026.
43. Monteza-Moreno, C.M., Dogandžić, T., McLean, K.A., Castillo-Caballero, P.L., Mijango- Ramos, Z., Del Rosario-Vargas, E., Barrett, B.J., 2020. White-Faced Capuchin, Cebus capucinus imitator, Hammerstone and Anvil Tool Use in Riparian Habitats on Coiba Island, Panama. Int. J. Primatol. 41 (3), 429-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764- 020-00156-5.
44. Ottoni, E.B., Izar, P., 2008. Capuchin monkey tool use: overview and implications. Evol. Anthropol. 17 (4), 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20185.
45. Paixão, E., Pedergnana, A., Marreiros, J., Dubreuil, L., Prévost, M., Zaidner, Y., Carver, G., Gneisinger, W., 2021. Using mechanical experiments to study ground stone tool use: exploring the formation of percussive and grinding wear traces on limestone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Rep. 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jasrep.2021.102971.
46. Plummer, T.W., Oliver, J.S., Finestone, E.M., Ditchfield, P.W., Bishop, L.C., Blumenthal, S.A., Lemorini, C., Caricola, I., Bailey, S., Herries, A.L.R., Parkinson, J. A., Whitfield, E., Hertel, F., Kinyanjui4, R.N., Vincent, T.H., Li, Y., Louys, J., Frost, S. R., Braun, D.R., Reeves, J.S., Early, E.D.G., Onyango, B., Lamela-Lopez, R., Forrest, F. L., He, H., Lane, T.P., Frouin, M., Nomade, S., Wilson, E.P., Bartilol, S., Kiprono, Rotich N., Potts, R., 2023. Expanded geographic distribution and dietary strategies of the earliest Oldowan hominins and Paranthropus. Science 379 (6632), 561-566. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo7452.
47. Proffitt, T., Luncz, L.V., Falótico, T., Ottoni, E.B., de la Torre, I., Haslam, M., 2016. Wild monkeys flake stone tools. Nature 539 (7627), 85-88. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature20112.
48. Proffitt, T., Luncz, V.L., Malaivijitnond, S., Gumert, M., Svensson, M.S., Haslam, M., 2018. Analysis of wild macaque stone tools used to crack oil palm nuts. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5 (3), 171904.
49. Proffitt, T., Reeves, J.S., Braun, D.R., Malaivijitnond, S., Luncz, L.V., 2023a. Wild macaques challenge the origin of intentional tool production. Sci. Adv. 9 (10), eade8159. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade8159.
50. Proffitt, T., Reeves, J.S., Falótico, T., Arroyo, A., de la Torre, I., Ottoni, E.B., Luncz, L.V., 2023b. Identifying intentional flake production at the dawn of technology: a technological and 3D geometric morphometric study. J. Archaeol. Sci. 152, 105740 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105740.
51. Sirianni, G., Mundry, R., Boesch, C., 2015. When to choose which tool: multidimensional and conditional selection of nut-cracking hammers in wild chimpanzees. Anim. Behav. 100, 152-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.11.022.
52. Visalberghi, E. and Fragaszy, D., 2012. What is challenging about tool use? The capuchin's perspective.
53. Visalberghi, E., Fragaszy, D., Ottoni, E., Izar, P., de Oliveira, M.G., Andrade, F.R.D.D., 2007. Characteristics of hammer stones and anvils used by wild bearded capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) to crack open palm nuts. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.: Off. Publ. Am. Assoc. Phys. Anthropol. 132 (3), 426-444. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ajpa.20546.
54. Visalberghi, E., Sabbatini, G., Spagnoletti, N., Andrade, F.D., Ottoni, E., Izar, P., Fragaszy, D., 2008. Physical properties of palm fruits processed with tools by wild bearded capuchins (Cebus libidinosus). Am. J. Primatol.: Off. J. Am. Soc. Primatol. 70 (9), 884-891. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20578.
55. Visalberghi, E., Spagnoletti, N., Da Silva, E.D.R., Andrade, F.R., Ottoni, E., Izar, P., Fragaszy, D., 2009. Distribution of potential suitable hammers and transport of hammer tools and nuts by wild capuchin monkeys. Primates 50 (2), 95-104. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10329-008-0127-9.
56. Visalberghi, E., Sirianni, G., Fragaszy, D., Boesch, C., 2015. Percussive tool use by Taï Western chimpanzees and Fazenda Boa Vista bearded capuchin monkeys: a comparison. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 370 (1682), 20140351. https://doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0351.
57. Wilmsen, E.N., 1970. Lithic analysis and cultural inference: a Paleo-Indian case. University of Arizona Press (Tucson AZ).
58. Zupancich, A., Cristiani, E., 2020. Functional analysis of sandstone ground stone tools: arguments for a qualitative and quantitative synergetic approach. Sci. Rep. 10 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72276-0.