ABSTRACT The ability to modify the environment through the transport of tools has been instrumental in shaping the evolutionary success of humans. Understanding the cause-and-effect

relationships between hominin behavior and the environment ultimately requires understanding of how the archaeological record forms. Observations of living primates can shed light on these

interactions by investigating how tool-use behaviors produce a material record within specific environmental contexts. However, this requires reconciling data derived from primate behavioral

observations with the time-averaged nature of the Plio-Pleistocene archaeological record. Here, we use an agent-based model to investigate how repeated short-distance transport events,

time. As such, these results elucidate the niche construction processes associated with this pattern of tool transport. Finally, the structure of the subsequent material record largely

depends on the interaction between tool transport and environmental conditions over time. Though these results have implications for inferring hominin tool transports from hominin

archaeological assemblages. Furthermore, they highlight the difficulties with connecting specific behavioral processes with the patterning in the archaeological record. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING

VIEWED BY OTHERS LONG-TERM BEHAVIORAL ADAPTATION OF OLDOWAN TOOLMAKERS TO RESOURCE-CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENTS AT 2.3 MA IN THE LOWER OMO VALLEY (ETHIOPIA) Article Open access 01 September

2023 STEAK TOURNEDOS OR BEEF WELLINGTON: AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF STONE AGE TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNIQUES Article Open access 18 November 2021 PHYSIOGRAPHY, FORAGING MOBILITY, AND

THE FIRST PEOPLING OF SAHUL Article Open access 23 April 2024 INTRODUCTION The human ability to habitually manipulate and reorganize landscapes is the most ubiquitous example of niche

construction on earth1. Evidence of this trait can be seen as early as the Plio-Pleistocene when hominins began directly moving stones over of kilometers to gain access to otherwise

inaccessible resources2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Over time, accumulations of discarded stone material at various locations would become sources of tools themselves, enhancing the availability of raw

material across the landscape9,10. This interaction between tool behavior and the environment has been argued to enhance access to raw materials as well as influenced the mobility of

hominins over the long term4,9,11. While these interactions may have been potent drivers in the evolution of hominin behavior5, our understanding of this process ultimately relies on

understanding how the archaeological record forms12,13,14,15,16. Traditionally our understanding of the behaviors associated with the formation of stone tool assemblages is derived from

hunter-gatherers17,18,19,20,21. However, primate studies have generated new hypotheses regarding hominin behavior and the formation of Plio-Pleistocene sites22,23,24,25,26,27,28. Western

chimpanzees (_Pan troglodytes verus_), for example, transport stone hammers to facilitate the cracking of nuts22,23,24,29,30,31. In contrast with early hominins2,6,8,32,33,34,35,36, primate

stone tools are moved comparatively shorter distances22,27,29,31. Individual bouts of hammer transport are normally expedient and occur when stone and nut-bearing trees are conveniently

situated near one another29,31. While each tool transport bout is comparatively short, researchers have argued that the accumulated effects of repeated transport over time could move tools

over greater distances1,2. Studies show that stone hammers used for _Panda oleosa_ nut cracking have been documented as far as two kilometers from the nearest known source of naturally

occurring stone31. Landscape-scale patterns of hammer mass and utilization have been shown to follow distinct distance-decay patterns that are often found in the early Pleistocene

record8,31,35. The accumulation of stone hammers at nut-cracking localities has been argued to increase the number of tool use opportunities at any given site, creating a tool-using

niche37,38. These lines of evidence suggest that the primate model of stone tool transport is a potentially relevant analog for the formation of the Plio-Pleistocene record22. The primate

behavioral record is not equivalent to the early archaeological record. The majority of early hominin archaeological sites record the accumulation of behavioral events over hundreds, if not

thousands, of years6,35,39,40,40,41,42,43 whereas modern primate studies represent significantly shorter time frames29,44. When considering longer time frames, tools eventually break, become

unusable due to repeated reuse and therefore will no longer be moved45. In addition, the number and location of resources that require tool use will inevitably change over time, influencing

the patterning of the archaeological record46. With respect to nut-cracking, the locations of nut-bearing trees will change due to the death of old trees and the growth of new ones. The

interaction of tool re-use and diachronic spatial patterning of trees may create disconnects between observed nut-cracking behavior and the chimpanzee archaeological record45. Archaeological

investigations at the chimpanzee nut-cracking site of Panda 100 recovered no functional tools, even though chimpanzees were observed using stone hammers at the site up until the Panda tree

died45. Thus, to understand the relevance of the primate tool transport model for hominin behavior, an understanding of the environmental conditions that facilitate long-distance movement of

stone via aggregated small scale transport bouts, and how it structures the time-averaged archaeological record is needed. Such work can also identify the general mechanisms through which

tool use behavior, the environment, and the formation of the archaeological record interact. Thus, this would also generate more nuanced expectations to investigate behavioral patterns and

processes in the Plio-Pleistocene archaeological record. However, such an endeavor requires an understanding of how behavioral and environmental processes produce patterns that emerge over

timescales that cannot be observed in the natural world. Generative modeling provides a means by which to investigate how the interaction between the environment with known behaviors

produces patterning in the material record over time47,48,49,50. Here, we present a spatially explicit agent-based model (ABM), to address the primary research questions: (1) Under what

environmental conditions do repeated bouts of small-scale transport result in long-distance movement of tools, and (2) how does such transport structure the resulting material record over

time? In doing so, we modeled short-distance tool transport after real-world observations of chimpanzee nut-cracking behavior29,51 in landscapes with varying numbers of resources requiring

tool use and raw material sources to understand their effect on the displacement of tools. In doing so, we illustrate the conditions in which cumulative short-distance bouts transport move

tools distances far greater than during any observed individual transport event. Such insights are important as there is a growing consensus that extant non-human primate tool-use may have

been the precursor to the current earliest physical evidence of tool-use and transport in the archaeological record of hominins46. MATERIALS AND METHODS The model was designed and

implemented using Python 3 and the ABM library Mesa52. The version of the model present here is actively maintained and available for download at a git-hub page (see SOM). A full description

of the variables, design, justification, and implementation of the model following Grimm et al.53 is provided as supplementary material. The model consists of a 250 × 250 grid-cell space

that is populated with four entities: _Primates_, _Sources_, _Trees_, and _Pounding Tools_. This grid space can be thought of as a forest that _Primates_ move through, transporting stone

tools over small distances as they encounter locations where they can crack nuts. _Primates_ are agents who move around the landscape using tools to crack nuts at any opportunity. _Sources_

reflect places where _Pounding Tools_ can be acquired (e.g. inselbergs and cobble beds). _Sources_ also possess a fragility score which determines how likely an acquired _Pounding Tool_ is

to break during use (see below). _Pounding Tools_ represent hammers used to crack nuts and have the attributes size and fragility. The size of the _Pounding Tool_ is determined by randomly

drawing from a normal distribution with a mean and standard distribution equivalent to the mass (grams) of the Panda nut hammers recovered in the Tai Forest (5). The fragility of the

_Pounding Tool_ is inherited from the _Source_ it was acquired from and, thus, determines the likelihood it will break during use and subsequently lose mass. Each tool has a baseline 25%

chance of breaking plus its fragility score. For example, if the tool’s fragility score is 25, then its probability of breaking is 50%. When the _Pounding Tool_ breaks the size of the tool

decreases to simulate fragmentation associated with breakage. The amount that is subtracted from the original size is based on the observed size distribution of fragments detached from

_Pounding Tools_ during modern chimpanzee nut-cracking events in which most breakages result in the production of small fragments but in rare cases, fragments can also be large45. _Pounding

Tools_ can be continuously re-used (and reduced in size through use) until they are considered unusable when their size decreases below 2000 g. This size threshold is modeled after the

smallest Panda nut cracking hammer in the Taï Forest31. _Trees_ represent locations of resources that can only be accessed through the use of tools. _Trees_ exist only at fixed locations.

Over time frames relevant to the formation of archaeological sites, however, the death and growth of trees can restructure where the resources are located46. To investigate the effect of

this process on cumulative tool transport distances, the death of old _Trees_ and the growth of trees at new locations are considered in the simulation. _Trees_ increase in age by a unit of

1 after each time-step and will die when their age is equal to 10,000 time-steps. When a _Tree’s_ age reaches 10,000 time-steps, tool use no longer occurs at this location. A new location

within a 10 grid-cell radius is randomly chosen as a place for a new _Tree_ to “grow.” This ensures that the number of trees remains constant throughout the simulation. When the model is

instantiated, _Trees_, _Sources_, and _Primates_ are randomly placed within the grid-cell space. Each _Source_ is randomly assigned a value of 0, 25, 50, or 75. To prevent every _Tree_ from

dying at the same time-step, _Trees_ present at the start of the simulation are randomly assigned an age between 1 and 10,000. New _Trees_ that grow after the model is initialized begin with

an age of 0. The population of _Primates_ was held constant at 100 for each run of the model. To investigate the effect of the density of resources requiring tool-use (_Trees_) on the

distance _Pounding Tools_ were moved from their _Source_, the number of _Trees_ varied between 100, 500, 1000, or 2000. In addition, to examine the effect of raw material abundance on this

pattern, the number of _Sources_ was also varied between 10, 100, 500. To further understand the influence of changing _Tree_ locations (due to death and growth) on _Pounding Tool_ transport

distance, we also varied whether _Trees_ could change location. The duration of the model run is 75,000 time-steps. 75,000 time-steps allows for the majority of model runs to “fixation” in

which _Pounding Tools_ cannot be displaced any further from their _Sources_. In some cases, the model did not achieve fixation by 75,000 timesteps (see Fig. 2). However, 75,000 is used as a

cut-off point as the additional information gained by allowing the model to reach fixation does not influence the general patterns described in the results. A single time step is

approximately equivalent to the amount of time it takes for an individual primate to carry out a nut-cracking episode. During each time-step, _Primates_ move a length of 1 grid cell in a

random direction. If the _Primate_ moves into a grid-cell that neighbors or is occupied by a _Tree_, the _Primate_ will check to see if a _Source_ or _Pounding Tool_ is within a radius of 2

grid-cells around its location. If there is none, then the _Primate_ does nothing for the rest of the time-step. If a _Source_ is within the search radius of the _Primate_, the _Primate_

will acquire a _Pounding Tool_ from this location. If a previously used _Pounding Tool_ is found within the search area, then the _Primate_ will re-use the _Pounding Tool_ provided that it

is 2000 g or greater in size. If multiple _Sources_ and _Pounding Tools_ are found within the search radius then the _Primate_ will choose the _Pounding Tool_ or _Source_ that is nearest to

its location. If multiple _Pounding Tools_ or _Sources_ are equally near, then the choice is random. The _Primate_ then moves the acquired _Pounding Tool_ to the location of the _Tree_ or

one of its eight neighboring grid-cells where it is used and discarded. This ensures that the maximum distance a _Source_ and/or _Pounding Tool_ can be from a _Tree_ and still be moved is 3

grid-cells. Each time a _Pounding Tool_ breaks during use, an additional _Pounding Tool_, representing the fragment (hereafter referred to as fragments), is discarded at its location. During

the simulation, data regarding the grid space, and the individual agents is recorded. The model monitors the number of tool-use locations that exist on the landscape during each time-step.

A tool use location is defined as a _Tree_ that is within a distance of 3 grid cells from a _Source_ or a usable _Pounding Tool_. In iterations where _Trees_ can die and grow, the locations

_Trees_ are recorded through time. In addition, each _Pounding Tool_ records the _Source_ that it originated, the number of times it was used, its initial size, its current size, as well as

its location at the end of the simulation. At the end of the simulation, the model provides data on the location of each _Pounding Tool_, _Sources_, and _Trees_ as well as their attributes.

This provides a means to examine the relationship between where tool use occurs and the location of _Sources_ and _Trees_ from both systemic and archaeological perspectives. RESULTS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF TOOL DISPLACEMENT At the beginning of each model run, tool-use can only occur in places where a _Tree_ is located within 3 grid cells of a _Source_. Simply

increasing both the number of _Sources_ and/or _Trees_ increases the number of places where tool use initially is possible (SOM Fig. S1: left, Kruskal–Wallis, chi-squared: 225.4, _p_-value 

< 2.2e−16). After 75,000 time-steps, however, we find that _Pounding Tools_ were moved to _Trees_ greater than 3 grid cells from the nearest source in 95% of the runs. When a _Pounding

Tool_ is moved from a _Source_, it becomes a secondary source of material for tool use at other _Trees_, allowing it to be move from _Tree_ to _Tree_ away from its _Source_. In conditions

where the number of _Trees_ is low, _Pounding Tools_ are not displaced far from their _Sources_. _Pounding Tools_ move greater maximum distances when _Trees_ are more plentiful (Fig. 1,

Kruskal–Wallis, chi-squared: 1667, _p_-value < 2.2e−16). In conditions with high _Tree_ densities, the distance a _Pounding Tool_ is moved becomes a function of time. The longer the model

runs, the farther _Pounding Tools_ will be displaced from their _Source_ (Fig. 2). This redistribution of tools consequently increases the number of tool-use locations across a wider

landscape. At the end of 88% of all runs, there are more places where tool-use can occur than at the beginning (Fig. 2, see SOM Table 3 for cases where is this is not the case). The

landscape-scale redistribution of _Pounding Tools_ is facilitated by the use-lives of _Pounding Tools_. The small size of detached fragments in combination with their potentially large size

allows _Pounding Tools_ to be moved and used 171 to 835 times before exhaustion. These long use-lives allow _Pounding Tools_ regardless of fragility to be moved substantial distances from

their _Source_. Nevertheless, material that break less tend to move greater maximum distances under conditions when (SOM Fig. S2). The interplay between changing _Tree_ locations over time

and the extended use-life of _Pounding Tools_ further facilitates the distribution of tool materials across the landscape. If _Tree_ locations are static, the increase in the number of

tool-use locations, over time, eventually plateaus far below the number of _Trees_ in the grid space (Fig. 2). By contrast, when _Tree_ locations change through time, a greater number of

tool-use locations become available. The number of tool use locations would likely continue to increase until all _Trees_ in the simulation became available for tool use (Fig. 2, SOM Figs.

S3, S4). MATERIAL SIGNATURE The modeled transport behavior creates a material record that is comprised predominantly of fragments detached from _Pounding Tools_ but also exhausted and usable

_Pounding Tools_ in substantially smaller quantities. The extent to which _Pounding Tools_ can be displaced from their _Sources_ influences the structure and composition of material

assemblages at the landscape scale. When the number of _Trees_ is low, material assemblages create localized concentrations at _Trees_ nearest to _Sources_ as they cannot be displaced

further (Fig. 3a, SOM Figs. S6, S7). As a result, usable _Pounding Tools,_ exhausted _Pounding Tools,_ and fragments are all found within these localized concentrations. As the number of

_Trees_ increases, so do the distances that _Pounding Tools_ can move, causing the material record to become more widespread (Fig. 3b). The changing locations of _Trees_ have the greatest

effect on the distribution of the archaeological record across space (Fig. 3c). In addition, this wider displacement of _Pounding Tools_ also causes the density of discard material and the

size of _Pounding Tools_ to decrease, following distance-decay pattern, as the distance from a source increases (Fig. 4, SOM Figs. S5, S6). The total number of materials (_Pounding Tools_

and fragments) per grid cell is greatest at locations nearest to _Sources_ and decreases exponentially as distance between an assemblage and the nearest source increases (Fig. 4a, SOM Fig.

S5). In addition, _Pounding Tool_ size is also negatively correlated with the distance to _Source_ locations (Fig. 4b, SOM Fig. S6). The representation of useable _Pounding Tools_ is also

influenced by the extent to which tools can be displaced. Under conditions in which tools move greater distances, as little as 2.5% of the total assemblages. The preponderance of assemblages

lacking _Pounding Tools_ is explained in part by the fact that while usable _Pounding Tools_ may be transported to a different tree, small fragments are not and remain at the location where

they were produced. DISCUSSION Primate tool use and material culture have become an increasingly useful framework for investigating the behavior of past hominins25,28,31,38,45. However,

maximizing the utility of primate models requires reconciling the relatively brief temporal scale of ethological studies with the time-averaged nature of the early hominin behavioral record.

By modeling the accumulated effects of primate tool transport events, it is possible to identify conditions that promote the landscape wide displacement of tools over time. In doing so, we

can illustrate the potential effects of primate tool transport on the landscape distribution of tool-use locations as well as the archaeological patterns that emerge due to time-averaging.

The results of our model highlight the capacity for short-distance tool transport events, repeated over many generations, to modify the availability of stone at a landscape scale. _Primates_

only engaged in tool-use when usable _Pounding Tools_ coincided in time and space (i.e. within 3 grid cells) with _Tree_ locations. We found that when _Tree_ density is low, _Pounding

Tools_ seldom moved beyond the few grid cells from their sources. However, the long-use of pounding tools permits repeated short-distance transports to move farther away from their sources

when _Trees_ and _Sources_ exist at higher densities. In turn, this increases the number of locations where tool use can occur during the simulation, decoupling the availability of stone

from the natural environment over time. Furthermore, this process can work in tandem with the changing distribution of tool-use localities over time. This further increase the spread of tool

material and access otherwise inaccessible resources across the landscape. The number of places where tool use can occur on the landscape at time-step 0 is markedly different from those

present at time-step 75,000. The model is not a direct reproduction of any single primate context. However, the similarities between the model and the environmental context of primate

nut-cracking allow us to discuss its results in the context of primate behavior. These results highlight the niche constructing capacity of primate tool-using behaviors as it demonstrates

how the residue of previous tool-using events can act as facilitators of future events in places where tool-use was previously not possible38. While it has been suggested that the

aggregation of hammers at specific sites creates new tool use opportunities for future generations38, the relatively short tool transport distances limits tool use to places where both tool

and food resource coincide in space23,54. Our model, however, provides a proof-of-concept that primates may possess the capacity to increase the number of tool use opportunities through the

landscape-scale redistribution of tool material over time. Increasing tool-use locations would also increase access to potentially valuable food resources which could help mitigate periods

where other food resources are scarce. Furthermore, this increase in tool-use locations also enhances the potential for the acquisition of tool-using skills38,54,55. As a result, this

process may ensure the continuation and spread of tool-using behaviors over time. Given the long use-life of percussive stone tools, it may be that the redistribution of pounding tools

generates feedback in which future generations of primates inherit a landscape where opportunities for tool use are greater than in the past38. Since tool use is considered to be socially

learned56, our results may also imply that primates can increase their accessibility to resources through a culturally learned behavior though this would require further testing empirical

data. The processes described by the model also help to better understand the potential mechanisms responsible for the disconnects between observed primate behavior and the material records

they produce. For example, the chimpanzees of the Taï forest have been observed moving Panda nut hammers between nut trees over multiple decades29,51. However, it has been impossible to

reconcile the widespread distribution of Panda nut hammers in the Taï forest with the relatively short tool transports observed in this field31. Given the similarities between the

distribution of resources in the model and the Taï forest, our results provide a proof of concept that given enough time, the cumulative effects of small-scale tool transport can produce a

landscape-scale pattern (as suggested by Luncz et al.31). This notion is further supported by the fact that the spatial distribution of size and damage intensity of these hammerstones is

consistent with the distance-decay relationship described in the model presented here. The described processes also provide a potential explanation for the absence of hammerstones from the

chimpanzee archaeological assemblage at Panda 10045. Since functional hammerstones can act as raw material sources for nearby tool-using locations, hammerstones can be transported to nearby

trees instead of remaining at a single locus. As a result, hammers are less likely to enter the record at every location where nut-cracking occurred. In this light, the processes that play

an active role in structuring the material record can sometimes obfuscate intuitive connections between past behaviors and their material correlate. These results have implications for the

understanding of hominin behavior and the role that niche construction processes may have played in the formation of the Plio-Pleistocene archaeological record1,5,10,57. Processes described

in our model imply that Plio-Pleistocene hominins could increase their access to resources as soon as they began repeatedly transporting durable materials even over short distances.

Researchers have often argued that the capacity to transport material over large distances (up to 11 km) at a time is fundamental to Oldowan hominin behavior2,3,8. This work shows that

specific conditions exist in which long distance transport events are not needed to move tools across landscapes. In light of this work, it may be possible, on a preliminary basis, to

suggest that the landscape scale patterning in the Oldowan is the aggregation of hundreds if not, thousands of years of short-distance transport events. It is important to consider, however,

that repeated short-distance transport events are most likely to result in the displacement of tools over longer distances where resources are abundant. While the narrow set of conditions

illustrated by the model maybe broadly applicable to stone tool-using primate populations, its direct applicability to hominins may be less so. It remains unclear whether the landscape

distribution of resources exploited by tool-using hominins would have facilitated the movement of tools in the Oldowan, in the same way, as it likely does in the Taï Forest. Moreover,

results indicate that this pattern of tool transport is only possible with tools that have extremely long use-lives. Oldowan core and flake technology are utilized in a fundamentally

different way to primate percussive tools and may have shorter use-lives. Therefore, understanding how interactions between the environment, tool use-life, and tool transport increases

access to resources will provide new insights into the adaptive benefits of tool-use within the hominin clade. Finally, the results of our model illustrate the difficulty in inferring

dynamic processes from time-averaged archaeological patterns. The material records of the modeled processes vary in their structure and composition depending on the availability of resources

on the landscape. In scenarios where the potential tool-using locations are few, lithic assemblages remain localized, with unexhausted Pounding Tools present within each assemblage.

However, when Pounding Tools were moved over large distances, the landscape signature becomes widespread. This results in the formation of distance-decay relationships between the location

of sources and the density of artifacts, as well as the number and size of Pounding Tools. The proportion of assemblages that contain at least one usable Pounding tool after 75,000

time-steps decreases as the density of Trees increases. This is due, in part, to an increase in the number of assemblages. Thus, not only is this behavior represented by a wide range of

varying archaeological patterns but the repeated movement of usable tools, actively leads to the under -representation of the most archaeologically recognizable components of the behavior.

Inferences regarding human–environment interactions are often predicated on the spatial structure of and variation within the archaeological record35,36,57,58,59,60. Here we show that vastly

different spatial patterns can be created by varying the density and stability of resources alone without changing the underlying behavior. In cases, where resources requiring are dense,

archaeological measures such as distance to the raw material source, and relationships between tool-utilization and transport distance become a function of time. Therefore, a single behavior

can produce vastly different patterns depending on the amount of time-averaging and the density of resources in the environment. This work illustrates how time-averaged archaeological

patterns emerge due to the interplay between the environment, behavior, and time19,46. While linking the patterning of the material record to specific behaviors that produced it remains

difficult, the lithic assemblages of the modeled percussive behavior are much simpler than what is found in the hominin archaeological record. Thus, further investigations that are more

tailored specifically to the variability observed in the hominin archaeological record are needed. Nevertheless, developing methods that treat archaeological patterning as an emergent

phenomenon is critical for better linking the interplay of behavioral and environmental process with the patterns described in the archaeological record. CONCLUSION Drawing behavioral

inferences from the archaeological record require robust referential frameworks61. Although primates provide a useful analog for investigating hominin behavior, it is difficult to translate

observable behaviors into a time-averaged archaeological patterns. Agent-based modeling provides a means to investigate how the interaction between behavioral and environmental processes may

influence the formation of material records. The results of our study the conditions in which repeated short-distance tool transport bouts generates causal feedback with resource density

that can promote the spread of tool material and increase the number of opportunities for tool-assisted foraging at the landscape scale. The strength of our approach lies in not only

highlighting the potential niche constructing capacity of primate tool transport but also in explicitly describing the processes likely responsible for patterning of the material record.

Although the links between such processes and archaeological patterns are complex and seemingly opaque, such work is critical to better establishing connections between niche constructing

processes in the past and the record from which we interpret behavior. REFERENCES * Stiner, M. C. The challenges of documenting coevolution and niche construction: The example of domestic

spaces. _Evol. Anthropol._ https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21878 (2020). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Potts, R. Why the Oldowan? Plio-Pleistocene toolmaking and the transport of

resources. _J. Anthropol. Res._ 47, 153–176 (1991). Google Scholar  * Kuhn, S. L., Raichlen, D. A. & Clark, A. E. What moves us? How mobility and movement are at the center of human

evolution. _Evol. Anthropol._ 25, 86–97 (2016). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Haas, R. & Kuhn, S. L. Forager mobility in constructed environments. _Curr. Anthropol._ 60, 499–535 (2019).

Google Scholar  * Iovita, R. _et al._ Operationalizing niche construction theory with stone tools. _Evol. Anthropol._ https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21881 (2021). Article  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Reeves, J. S., Braun, D. R., Finestone, E. M. & Plummer, T. W. Ecological perspectives on technological diversity at Kanjera South. _J. Hum. Evol._ 158, 103029 (2021). PubMed

  Google Scholar  * Finestone, E. M., Braun, D. R., Plummer, T. W., Bartilol, S. & Kiprono, N. Building ED-XRF datasets for sourcing rhyolite and quartzite artifacts: A case study on the

Homa Peninsula, Kenya. _J. Archaeol. Sci._ 33, 102510 (2020). Google Scholar  * Braun, D. R. _et al._ Oldowan behavior and raw material transport: Perspectives from the Kanjera Formation.

_J. Archaeol. Sci._ 35, 2329–2345 (2008). Google Scholar  * Potts, R. Home bases and early hominids. _Am. Sci._ 72, 338–347 (1984). ADS  Google Scholar  * Schick, K. D. Modeling the

formation of Early Stone Age artifact concentrations. _J. Hum. Evol._ 16, 789–807 (1987). Google Scholar  * Binford, L. R. Willow smoke and dogs’ Tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems

and archaeological site formation. _Am. Antiq._ 45, 4–20 (1980). Google Scholar  * Schiffer, M. B. Archaeology as behavioral science. _Am. Anthropol._ 77, 836–848 (1975). Google Scholar  *

Schiffer, M. B. _Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record_ (University of New Mexico Press, 1987). Google Scholar  * Binford, L. R. Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’.

_J. Anthropol. Res._ 37, 195–208 (1981). Google Scholar  * Binford, L. R. The archaeology of place. _J. Anthropol. Archaeol._ 1, 5–31 (1982). Google Scholar  * Braun, D. R. _et al._

Ecosystem engineering in the Quaternary of the West Coast of South Africa. _Evol. Anthropol._ 30, 50–62 (2020). Google Scholar  * Yellen, J. E. _Archaeological Approaches to the Present:

Models for Reconstructing the Past_ (Academic Press, 1977). Google Scholar  * Isaac, G. L. L. The Harvey Lecture Series, 1977–1978. Food sharing and human evolution: Archaeological Evidence

from the Plio-Pleistocene of East Africa Author (s): Glynn Ll Isaac Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable. http://www.jstor.org/sta. 34, 311–325 (1978). * Brooks, A. S. &

Yellen, J. E. The preservation of activity areas in the archaeological record: Ethnoarchaeological and archaeological work in NOrthwest Ngamiland, Botswana. In _Methog and Theory for

Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach_ 63–106 (Columbia University Press, 1987). Google Scholar  * Binford, L. R. _Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology_ (Percheron Press, 2012).

Google Scholar  * Hawkes, K. Ethnoarchaeology and Plio-Pleistocene sites: Some lessons from the Hadza. _J. Anthropol. Archaeol._ 44, 158–165 (2016). Google Scholar  * McGrew, W. _Chimpanzee

Material Culture: Implications for Human Evolution_ (Cambridge University Press, 1992). Google Scholar  * Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C. & Matsuzawa, T. Chaînes opératoires and

resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking. _J. Hum. Evol._ 55, 148–163 (2008). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Whiten, A. Archaeology meets primate technology.

_Nature_ 498, 303–305 (2013). ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Haslam, M. _et al._ Primate archaeology evolves. _Nat. Ecol. Evol._ 1, 1431–1437 (2017). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Biro, D.,

Haslam, M. & Rutz, C. Tool use as adaptation. _Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B_ 368, 20120408 (2013). Google Scholar  * Carvalho, S., Biro, D., McGrew, W. C. & Matsuzawa, T. Tool-composite

reuse in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Archaeologically invisible steps in the technological evolution of early hominins?. _Anim. Cogn._ 12, 103–114 (2009). Google Scholar  * Haslam,

M. _et al._ Primate archaeology. _Nature_ 460, 339–344 (2009). ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Boesch, C. & Boesch, H. Mental map in wild chimpanzees: An analysis of hammer

transports for nut cracking. _Primates_ 25, 160–170 (1984). Google Scholar  * Hannah, A. C. & McGrew, W. C. Chimpanzees using stones to crack open oil palm nuts in Liberia. _Primates_

28, 31–46 (1987). Google Scholar  * Luncz, L. V., Proffitt, T., Kulik, L., Haslam, M. & Wittig, R. M. Distance-decay effect in stone tool transport by wild chimpanzees. _Proc. R. Soc. B_

283, 20161607 (2016). PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Braun, D. R., Harris, J. W. K. & Maina, D. N. Oldowan raw material procurement and use: Evidence from the koobi fora

formation. _Archaeometry_ 51, 26–42 (2009). CAS  Google Scholar  * Plummer, T. W. Flaked stones and old bones: Biological and cultural evolution at the dawn of technology. _Yearb. Phys.

Anthropol._ 47, 118–164 (2004). Google Scholar  * Isaac, G. The archaeology of human origins: Studies of the Lower Pleistocene in East Africa, 1971–1981. _Adv. World Archaeol._ 3, 1–86

(1984). Google Scholar  * Blumenschine, R. J., Masao, F. T., Tactikos, J. C. & Ebert, J. I. Effects of distance from stone source on landscape-scale variation in Oldowan artifact

assemblages in the Paleo-Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. _J. Archaeol. Sci._ 35, 76–86 (2008). Google Scholar  * Blumenschine, R. J. _et al._ Landscape distribution of Oldowan stone artifact

assemblages across the fault compartments of the eastern Olduvai Lake Basin during early lowermost Bed II times. _J. Hum. Evol._ 63, 384–394 (2012). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Visalberghi, E.

_et al._ Distribution of potential suitable hammers and transport of hammer tools and nuts by wild capuchin monkeys. _Primates_ 50, 95–104 (2009). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Fragaszy, D. M.

_et al._ The fourth dimension of tool use: Temporally enduring artefacts aid primates learning to use tools. _Philos Trans R Soc Lond B_ 368, 20120410 (2013). CAS  Google Scholar  * Stern,

N. _et al._ The structure of the lower pleistocene archaeological record: A case study From the Koobi Fora Formation [and Comments and Reply]. _Curr. Anthropol._ 34, 201–225 (1993). Google

Scholar  * Stern, N. The implications of time-averaging for reconstructing the land-use patterns of early tool-using hominids. _J. Hum. Evol._ 27, 89–105 (1994). Google Scholar  *

Blumenschine, R. J. _et al._ Environments and hominin activities across the FLK Peninsula during Zinjanthropus times (1.84 Ma), Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. _J. Hum. Evol._ 63, 364–383 (2012).

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ferraro, J. V. _et al._ Earliest archaeological evidence of persistent hominin carnivory. _PLoS ONE_ 8, e62174 (2013). ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google

Scholar  * Dibble, H. L. _et al._ Major fallacies surrounding stone artifacts and assemblages. _J. Archaeol. Method Theory_ 24, 813–851 (2017). Google Scholar  * Wilson, M. L. Long-term

studies of the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park, Tanzania. In _Long-Term Field Studies of Primates_ (eds Kappeler, P. M. & Watts, D. P.) 357–384 (Springer, 2012). Google Scholar  *

Proffitt, T., Haslam, M., Mercader, J. F., Boesch, C. & Luncz, L. V. Revisiting Panda 100, the first archaeological chimpanzee nut-cracking site. _J. Hum. Evol._ 124, 117–139 (2018). CAS

  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Panger, M. A., Brooks, A. S., Richmond, B. G. & Wood, B. Older than the Oldowan? Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use. _Evol. Anthropol._ 11, 235–245

(2003). Google Scholar  * Premo, L. Agent-based models as behavioral laboratories for evolutionary anthropological research. _Ariz. Anthropol._ 17, 91–113 (2006). Google Scholar  * Premo, L.

S. Exploratory agent-based models: Towards an experimental ethnoarchaeology. In _Digital Discovery. Exploring New Frontiers in Human Heritage. CAA2006. Computer Applications and

Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 34th Conference_ 22–29 (Archaeolingua, 2007). * Faith, J. T. _et al._ Rethinking the ecological drivers of hominin evolution. _Trends

Ecol. Evol._ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.011 (2021). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Wurzer, G., Kowarik, K. & Reschreiter, H. _Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation in

Archaeology_ Vol. 7 (Springer, 2015). Google Scholar  * Boesch, C. _Wild cultures a comparison between chimpanzee and human cultures._ (Cambridge University Press, 2014). * Masad, D. &

Kazil, J. MESA: An agent-based modeling framework. _Proceedings of the 14th Python in Science Conference (SCIPY 2015)_ 53–60 (2015). * Grimm, V. _et al._ The ODD protocol: A review and first

update. _Ecol. Model._ 221, 2760–2768 (2010). Google Scholar  * Koops, K., McGrew, W. C. & Matsuzawa, T. Ecology of culture: Do environmental factors influence foraging tool use in wild

chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus?. _Anim. Behav._ 85, 175–185 (2013). Google Scholar  * Visalberghi, E., Sirianni, G., Fragaszy, D. & Boesch, C. Percussive tool use by Taï Western

chimpanzees and Fazenda Boa Vista bearded capuchin monkeys: A comparison. _Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B_ 370, 20140351 (2015). PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Whiten, A. _et al._

Cultures in chimpanzees. _Nature_ 399, 682–685 (1999). ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Potts, R. Variables versus models of early Pleistocene hominid land use. _J. Hum. Evol._ 27, 7–24

(1994). Google Scholar  * Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A. K. & Ditchfield, P. Paleolandscape variation and early Pleistocene hominid activities: Members 1 and 7, Olorgesailie formation,

Kenya. _J. Hum. Evol._ 37, 747–788 (1999). CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Foley, R. A model of regional archaeological structure. _Proc. Prehist. Soc_ 47, 1–17 (1981). ADS  Google Scholar  *

Maurin, T., Bertran, P., Delagnes, A. & Boisserie, J.-R. Early hominin landscape use in the Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia: Insights from the taphonomical analysis of Oldowan occurrences in

the Shungura Formation (Member F). _J. Hum. Evol._ 111, 33–53 (2017). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Binford, L. R. _Constructing Frames of Reference_ (University of California Press, 2001).

Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the Max Planck Society. JSR thanks Luke Premo for providing feedback and thoughtful discussion on an

earlier version of this work. FUNDING Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary

Anthropology, Technological Primate Research Group, Deutscher Platz 6., 04103, Leipzig, Germany Jonathan S. Reeves, Tomos Proffitt & Lydia V. Luncz Authors * Jonathan S. Reeves View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Tomos Proffitt View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Lydia

V. Luncz View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS J.S.R, T.P. and L.L. designed research; J.S.R performed research; J.S.R analyzed

data; and J.S.R, T.P. and L.L. wrote the paper. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Jonathan S. Reeves. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 1. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 2. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which

permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to

the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless

indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory

regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Reeves, J.S., Proffitt, T. & Luncz, L.V. Modeling a primate technological

niche. _Sci Rep_ 11, 23139 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01849-4 Download citation * Received: 16 July 2021 * Accepted: 22 October 2021 * Published: 30 November 2021 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01849-4 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative