I'll go out on a limb and speculate that the part of the origin of human beings was when groups of missing link species discovered general "peace" like the group of non-human primates discussed here, replacing the chimp/ape fighting shennanigans described in the article. This gave them a leap in adaptive advantage over groups that still practiced the monkeyshines described in the article.
With the rise of class exploiting society, humans have gone backwards to acting more like chimp/ape ancestors with their fighting and aggression (except for bonbons :>)). The cult of individualism which reaches its height with bourgeois society is actually a devolution back to the state of our apish/monkey ancestors.
I'll say a group of living non-human primates has culture when they have _names_ for themselves and form living kingroups based on descent from common named ancestors who are dead. Full culture must be based on learning with symbols like names , not imitation , as seems the basis for the "traditions" in these primate groups. Tool style traditions can be imitated and passed down through generations by that imitation.
Charles
^^^^^^
Chuck Grimes cgrimes
Actually no, the real core example is nearer to the end -- the story about the Forest Troop, taken from his own research.
Michael
-------------
This part(?):
Soon afterward, tuberculosis, a disease that moves with devastating speed and severity in nonhuman primates, broke out in Garbage Dump Troop. Over the next year, most of its members died, as did all of the males from Forest Troop who had foraged at the dump.[See Footnote #1] The results were that Forest Troop was left with males who were less aggressive and more social than average and the troop now had double its previous female-to-male ratio.
The social consequences of these changes were dramatic. There remained a hierarchy among the Forest Troop males, but it was far looser than before: compared with other, more typical savanna baboon groups, high-ranking males rarely harassed subordinates and occasionally even relinquished contested resources to them. Aggression was less frequent, particularly against third parties. And rates of affiliative behaviors, such as males and females grooming each other or sitting together, soared. There were even instances, now and then, of adult males grooming each other -- a behavior nearly as unprecedented as baboons sprouting wings.
This unique social milieu did not arise merely as a function of the skewed sex ratio; other primatologists have occasionally reported on troops with similar ratios but without a comparable social atmosphere. What was key was not just the predominance of females, but the type of male that remained. The demographic disaster -- what evolutionary biologists term a "selective bottleneck" -- had produced a savanna baboon troop quite different from what most experts would have anticipated.
But the largest surprise did not come until some years later. Female savanna baboons spend their lives in the troop into which they are born, whereas males leave their birth troop around puberty; a troop's adult males have thus all grown up elsewhere and immigrated as adolescents. By the early 1990s, none of the original low aggression/high affiliation males of Forest Troop's tuberculosis period was still alive; all of the group's adult males had joined after the epidemic. Despite this, the troop's unique social milieu persisted -- as it does to this day, some 20 years after the selective bottleneck.In other words, adolescent males that enter Forest Troop after having grown up elsewhere wind up adopting the unique behavioral style of the resident males. As defined by both anthropologists and animal behaviorists, "culture" consists of local behavioral variations, occurring for nongenetic and nonecological reasons, that last beyond the time of their originators. Forest Troop's low aggression/high affiliation society constitutes nothing less than a multigenerational benign culture.
Continuous study of the troop has yielded some insights into how its culture is transmitted to newcomers. Genetics obviously plays no role, nor apparently does self-selection: adolescent males that transfer into the troop are no different from those that transfer into other troops, displaying on arrival similarly high rates of aggression and low rates of affiliation. Nor is there evidence that new males are taught to act in benign ways by the residents. One cannot rule out the possibility that some observational learning is occurring, but it is difficult to detect given that the distinctive feature of this culture is not the performance of a unique behavior but the performance of typical behaviors at atypically extreme rates.
To date, the most interesting hint about the mechanism of transmission is the way recently transferred males are treated by Forest Troop's resident females. In a typical savanna baboon troop, newly transferred adolescent males spend years slowly working their way into the social fabric; they are extremely low ranking -- ignored by females and noted by adult males only as convenient targets for aggression. In Forest Troop, by contrast, new male transfers are inundated with female attention soon after their arrival. Resident females first present themselves sexually to new males an average of 18 days after the males arrive, and they first groom the new males an average of 20 days after they arrive (normal savanna baboons introduce such behaviors after 63 and 78 days, respectively). Furthermore, these welcoming gestures occur more frequently in Forest Troop during the early post-transfer period, and there is four times as much grooming of males by females in Forest Troop as elsewhere. From almost the moment they arrive, in other words, new males find out that in Forest Troop, things are done differently.
At present, I think the most plausible explanation is that this troop's special culture is not passed on actively but simply emerges, facilitated by the actions of the resident members.
------
The problem is this example was long and a little more complex. The key point is social environment provides the `cast' into which behaviors are `molded'.
But I won't insist.
What I found fascinating about the forest example above was the role that `history' played---the death of all the aggressive males, plus the retention of the more `peaceful' culture by females.
I also don't think that the later resident females habit of engaging newcomer males with early and often sex was just a fortuity. I think I would want to study that little detail a lot more closely to figure out how much of the grooming and sex was female control as a means to `calm' the anxious young males---subverting the dominance paradigm.
The amusing parallel: the (dead) nasty and brutish males reminded me of the US righwing preceding over our garbage dump neoliberal paradise (public trough). They were obviously a Repugnant leadership who maintained their dominance by either attacking or mounting their subordinate Demicraps---who to protect their butts (and feed at the same trough) had to shit on themselves or fight---usually choosing the former over the latter. I guess Nathan would call this tactic `practical'.
Anyway it was funny.
CG