| ▲ | thinkingtoilet 7 hours ago |
| That's wild! Thanks for sharing. I didn't realize these things went so far back. So are you saying these were straight up non-human primates using tools? Or is this all traceable to our lineage? |
|
| ▲ | ryan_j_naughton 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The first identified tools were 3.3 million years ago, which is before the homo genus emerges. Thus, those were either by Australopithecus afarensis or by a yet unidentified hominid species -- they were still very likely our ancestors (but technically TBD). Then around 2-2.5 million years ago you get the first homo species in the genus homo such as Homo habilis and they created the Oldowan tool culture. Both Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis are our ancestors -- however they are also the ancestors of other homo lines that diverged from us that we are not descendents of (which are now extinct). People often forget how widespread and varied the Homo genus was before all our cousin species went extinct (likely in part due to us).[1] Homo erectus colonized the entire old world very effectively 1.5 million years ago! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#/media/File:The_hominin_f... |
| |
| ▲ | zahlman 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The first identified tools were 3.3 million years ago I assume these are made of stone? What kind of tools? | | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Last I knew, the 3.3 mya evidence from the site Lomekwi 3 in Kenya was debatable, though a serious possibility, and the 2.58 mya evidence from the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania was considered the sure thing. Also, more than primates use tools: Many corvids (crows, ravens, etc.) do, as do other animals. Look up New Caledonian Crows in particular. But don't take all this from HN commenters debating each other; find some authoritative sources. A recent review article in a scientific journal would be a great start. Google Scholar lets you search for review articles. | | |
| ▲ | bookofjoe 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most recently (January 19, 2026): cows >Flexible use of a multi-purpose tool by a cow https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(25)... | | | |
| ▲ | layer8 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We are talking about tool manufacture here, however, not just about tool use. | | |
| ▲ | awesome_dude 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a difficult distinction to make - at which point does tool selection differ from modification for use as a tool - any animal that strips the leaves off a twig in order to use it as a tool has manufactured the tool. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The people of the Olduvan industry from 2.58 mya tools (the earliest accepted by consensus [0]) manufactured their tools - that's exactly what archaeologists are talking about. Chimps and New Caledonian Crows (and maybe some other animals) also manufacture their tools, at least sometimes, BTW. IIRC the crows strip sticks and bend them into hooks to grab at objects. Why would someone imply otherwise if they don't know? What are people trying to prove in this discussion? [0] There's strong evidence of 3.3 mya; see other comments. | | |
| ▲ | layer8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not sure what you are asking. My point was that animals using objects as tools is a different thing than the Oldowan stone tool manufacturing “industry”. I wasn’t saying that tool manufacture is exclusive to primates. However, pointing out mere tool use by non-primates is sort of beside the point of the TFA topic, IMO. | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > My point was that animals using objects as tools is a different thing than the Oldowan stone tool manufacturing “industry”. Agreed, though the dividing line is tricky. (Your prior comment didn't say 95% of that; for example, it doesn't mention animals. Because the parent comments were focused on human ancestors, that's what I thought you were addressing.) |
| |
| ▲ | foxglacier 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the whole interest in tool making is we're looking for clues to intelligence and tools are just one of the few things they left behind. It's much less satisfying to discover an animal's tool making is an instinctual behavior like burrowing animals making their own holes to sleep in, than that they worked it out using more generalized thinking. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | thinkingtoilet 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So cool! Thanks for the info. |
|
|
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even today there's plenty of non humans (and non-primate) tool use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans. In terms of tools by homonins, there is a roughly ~3million year history of stone tool use by various species, and the main thing preventing that date from being pushed further back is the difficulty in discerning between stones that have been shaped intentionally and those shaped by natural forces. |
|
| ▲ | throwup238 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Our last common ancestor with our closest non-human primates (Pan genus) diverged about 6-8 million years ago, so what constitutes “human” is murky and I don’t think archaeologists give the matter much thought. “Human” means homo sapiens, “archaic human” means a few subspecies like neanderthals up to about 600 kYA, and the rest are just “hominins”. We have both observational and archaeological evidence of tool use in chimpanzees, macaques, and capuchins so it’s a pretty widespread behavior. I think the archaeological evidence for monkeys only goes back about four thousand years but thats because we havent studied the issue as much in archaeology. |
