My impression is that they are very Machiavellian in their choice of recipients and “cuts” of meat involved, however that may be the bias of the particular authors I read on the subject.

I know Goodall was probably over-enthusiastic in her early conclusions regarding meat-sharing (“chimps always share meat while never sharing anything else”; paraphrase), but there is much evidence for meat sharing and a good deal of speculation (and debate) regarding the origins/motivations.

A quick search located The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees, as well as Meat sharing among the Gombe chimpanzees: harassment and reciprocal exchange. The latter attempts to demonstrate that meat sharing is primarily in response to harassment.

While searching, I also discovered Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit, which documents sharing of plant food by males. This appears to be limited to human crops “raided” by parties of males, who clearly take risks and know it in making these raids.

Somewhat in line with the article’s conclusions, I would suggest that in general food is shared when its acquisition involves status-enhancing activity, as a means of trading individual demonstrations of prowess for enhanced status within the community. This is roughly parallel with similar food-sharing by human hunters (no time to find links, but see various descriptions of San lifestyles). Indeed, one description I read of responses to successful hunters involved verbal harassment to encourage sharing that was very analogous to that described by Gilby (see link above).

My suggestion, then, is that chimpanzees (and bonobos) posses the same Machiavellian sharing impulses as humans, including the recognition that contributions to the group welfare can be traded for enhanced status within the group.

This may venture a bit deeply into evolutionary psychology; but here goes.

With the increased time of socialization, the small group developed more complex communication tools over time. I’m thinking language here. Would it have also created the sort of mechanical solidarity that engenders the growth of larger groups into tribes and bands?

Do we know enough about neandertals to say whether or not they cooked their food? If not, would that help explain the ascendancy of the cro-magnons?

But seriously, interesting point.

They get non-food enrichment items (blankets, clothing, stuffed animals) and one of the girls might carry an item around for hours or even days. But when she puts it down and another chimp picks it up … nothing. No reaction. No trying to get it back. I’ve never seen them get emotional about stuff.

consider that in most mammals, the female stops being sexually receptive as soon as she becomes pregnant. This does not happen like that in humans.

Two things strike me as very different in humans: 1) the aforementioned ability cooperate effectively and 2) very long period of dependency for the young.

Whereas in a non social but intelligent mammal (racoon for instance) having the male around would just be more resources required, and the mother can survive reduced food intake long enough to get the young mobile, with humans, keeping the male around can inprove reproductive success. Perhaps then, females who did not ‘turn off’ had a reproductive advantage over those that did. Bingo ‘long term mating’

Darwin had noticed that while in most animals males competed for females, there seems to be some female competition in humans. My understanding is that he seemed to think of it as a reversal, but in essence it is a parallel competition. Males compete for the scarce resource (a fertile female) females compete for a scarce resource (a male who will actually stick around and provide resources for the young). This would suggest that makup, hair dressing, jewelry and killer heels are actually an indirect byproduct of this long term mating strategy.

No, they don’t bring stuff ‘home’ .. the weannies attempt to take the food from mom (right out of her mouth often) and mom tolerates it to varying degrees.

..and in a broader sense, this differs from Homo sapiens weenies, how?

Damned weenies.