From Stone Tools to Chatbots: A Brief History of Humans and Technology

Author’s Note: From Lauren Powell, Archaeologist & Paleoanthropologist

A mouthful of titles but: An archaeologist is someone who spends their time analysing objects left behind by humans who lived before us. A paleoanthropologist is a long word for someone who studies people from the past. I am both. I am also a coloured woman from Cape Town who has been passionate about the past since the age of nine. I was privileged enough to do an undergraduate degree in Archaeology, and then further specialised in topics such as human migration & admixture, as well as primate hybridisation, during my post-graduate degrees.

The aim of these pieces is to highlight the ways we use what we know about our own history to enhance and highlight the benefits of this digital revolution, as well as mitigate some of its’ harms. Our history, our humanness, and our heritage, are deeply woven into how we show up and innovate.

What First Comes To Mind When You See The Word “Technology”?

This is one of my favourite questions, and we usually think about our digital devices. But what if technology is more than digital? What if technology is anything and everything we have altered from its natural form to benefit our lives? It means that we have been making technology longer than we imagined.

I remember sitting in an introductory class to Human Evolution, and as an exercise we all had to write down things that we thought made us human. One of the most common things listed was ‘technology’ or ‘tool-making’, an answer that I’ve heard people use on social media, while chatting to friends, and one that I have used myself. The misconception that we are the only species that makes tools or types of technology. For the purpose of this written piece we will use the definition of technology as the development or crafting of tools to simplify or benefit lives. But by this definition, many animals craft tools to simplify or benefit their lives.

• In the 1960s, Jane Goodall watched a chimpanzee select a branch, pick off the leaves, and use it to ‘fish’ termites out of a mound 1. They have been choosing specific trees that are shown to bend to the intricate tunnel systems of termites, and not using the trees found closest to the termite mound 2.
• Gorillas use thicker sticks to aid their walking (a walking stick), to test the depths of water, and can fashion logs into bridges to cross waterlogged areas 3.

Point being, tool-making (or technology) is not an indicator of our humanness but a problem solving reaction we do observe in some animals.

What seems to make us human is a combination of things that include complex tool-making and a large range in social and cultural organisation. Through time, humans have made a variety of technologies. We have evidence of stone tool technology stretching as far back as 2.6 millions years ago 4 , then we moved on to making tools from metals like iron and bronze. Every era of new technology has historically made an impact on society and human behaviours. Imagine how learning to control fire made the days feel longer and made us safer from predators. Today we turn the lights on at night, and ‘burn the midnight oil’. The invention of light changed when we worked and lengthened the time we spent socialising - this meant more time exchanging knowledge and necessary story-telling. As is with the invention of farming and irrigation, it became advantageous for some to stay in one place, our ideas of land-ownership changed, and social structures and conflict resolution started to look different. Additionally, we learnt the importance of crop rotation and unfortunately how fast human diseases spread when we live in larger communities.

The technologies we have created were not just for function but also became symbolic and meaningful. Whether it was a cave painting depicting a hunt, decorative detailing on the handle of a sword, or Van Gogh’s iconic ‘Starry Night’. The technology we craft is art, a creative statement. All types of technology also inevitably became a social status symbol: the sharpest ax, the name brand jacket, the latest iPhone, or which search engine you deem to be elite. We make it mean something about ourselves. Our technology is an extension and expression of ourselves, of the human experience. Now our technology is digital. We aren’t shaping stone tools, we are refining code. Although we still pass on knowledge around the campfire, paint art on walls, put pen to paper and store it on shelves, we have now begun to add our thought-pieces on LinkedIn. We store knowledge online, and with e-books and audiobooks we now curate our own digital collections.

What Does It Mean To Have Digital Technology In Our Pocket?

Humans have the habit of anthropomorphizing, meaning we project human-like attributes onto the things we interact with. I regularly ask my washing machine where it hid my sock, we plead with our laptops, and some of us greet and thank the Chatbots we use. It’s not a far stretch to assume humans shouted at the stone tools they were making, but for the first time, our technology talks back to us. It changed the nuance of how we communicate human-to-human. We have adapted our texts to match our tone, constantly finding ways to better convey our emotions. When emoji’s felt too static, we added GIF’s and stickers.

We have more recently progressed to asking ChatGPT to help us craft socially acceptable emails to our bosses. A tool that adapts and responds, arguably, faster than what we can. It mimics us and offers us emotional support, a space to be understood and validated. What human values have we taught it to mirror? What inherent biases have we coded into the system that talks back to us? Biases we may not even be aware of.

Creating technology that can harm us is not novel. We still use beneficial and harmful technology today, we just create safety mechanisms and structures around it. Think of raising a toddler around a sharp knife. We keep it out of reach, we give them spoons and forks. They graduate to butter knives, and when they are old enough we teach them where to safely place their fingers. Still, we run the risk of hurting ourselves. As social creatures, what are the harms of outsourcing emotional support to machines? We can’t predict and mitigate all the harmful possibilities, but we can attempt to centre the most vulnerable people in the room while building out new technology.

How do we navigate around our biases and help create digital interventions that are specifically geared towards helping vulnerable people? As I branch off into the sector of digital anthropology, I keep being brought back to answers that I see echoed in paleoanthropological and genetic studies: Variation and adaptability are strengths. If the team building out the solutions are diverse and come from a variety of lived-experiences, the compounding solutions are better adapted to different disadvantaged communities. This is precisely what separates Citizen Code from other Tech for Social Impact companies. Variation is the foundation of this company, not just a performative slogan seen in companies shaped by colonial dominance. Citizen Code enables nuance. No stone tool was made exactly the same, even by the same tool-maker, but all were created to solve a problem. We may receive our phones at factory settings, but we all curate them as it works best for us individually. Similarly, solutions should be curated for each community. Communities that have their own culture, their own way of adapting for survival, and their own history. Remember, what makes us human is the complexity and variety of tool-making (read technical solutions), as well as our complex and varying types of social and cultural structures.

So Why Chatbots?

Humans are wired for connection, it’s partly how we survived. Using technology that speaks back to us in a language we understand, and can adjust to our emotions seamlessly, would undoubtedly change the way we relate to it. In a world where we are increasingly pushed towards individualism, a tool that can provide personal any-time responses to our emotional needs and 3 a.m. thoughts can be soothing. Human-to-human interaction needs more care, consideration, and has more social consequences. There are levels of inflexibility around human-to-human interactions. We hold and project shame and judgement, and cannot always provide a safe space for others to verbally process events. This could be the first time that technology has moved from a physical extension of ourselves, like stone tools, to intellectually reflecting back to us. The obvious gains and pitfalls of human-chatbot relationships are continually debated and highlighted. But chatbots are just tools, it's how we choose to wield them that matters. If history is anything to go by, I think this will change our social habits, how we relate to ourselves, and how we relate to each other.

Chatbots For Change (Reflections from the Founder of Citizen Code)

Citizen Code is a technology design partner to Girl Effect and have partnered on technology builds in their focus regions across Africa and East Asia to build, maintain and discover technologies for impact. At the center of this technology partnership is Lisa Adams, founder of Citizen Code, and Karina Rios Michel, CCO and CTO of Girl Effect. For over a decade they have shared a mission to bring digital technology to women and girls. They not only drew from their lived experiences as women from marginalized communities, but from their technical expertise and understanding of the possible role technology can play in the social impact world. This combination shapes the way they approach building solutions that are both effective and sustainable.

Prior to all of this, in 2018, Girl Effect had reached a redefining moment for their technology ecosystems. Lisa reflects back to the time this ideation began in a workshop in London. This was hosted by the Girl Effect Team and included other digital creatives & consultants. Together they threw out ideas and searched for a way to expand how Girl Effect showed up for girls in the digital space. Girl Effect had already spent years creating spaces in over 80 countries, primarily within the Global South, where girls could find trusted information about their body changes, sexuality, and romance. The technologies Girl Effect used included magazines, text-in radio shows, and websites, which had opened important doors. However, each time a platform reached scale, it also became saturated. As more girls gravitated toward these safe spaces, the less personalised and timely the responses became. Girl Effect had the research, the experience, and the data. It was time to try something new.

Karina observed a clear pattern, from working on the ground over the years: Girls were not only looking for answers, they were looking for someone safe to talk to. Fear of judgment from nurses, teachers or even parents often silenced them. The answer pointed toward a new tool. What followed was a phase of innovation, collaboration and trust in the lived experiences of girls themselves.

That tool came in the form of Big Sis, a WhatsApp chatbot initially co-designed with South African girls and later expanded to other regions across Africa and East Asia. It offered culturally relevant guidance around sensitive health topics and quickly proved its value. Big Sis grew and inspired new adaptations like Bol Behen in India and Wazzi in Kenya. Each version showed the power of cultural relevance and language to create familiarity and trust. When girls felt seen in their own context, they opened up about sex, romantic relationships and gender based violence in ways that had not been possible before.

The shift from magazines, radio, and websites to chat marked more than just a change in medium. In Lisa’s words, “chat had the potential to become the internet of the emerging market.”. It was direct, accessible, and more human in its feel when compared to typing questions into Google.

Karina led in modelling traditional concepts of “Agony Aunts” into these new digital spaces, creating virtual companions that could hold girls’ questions and fears with safety and care. Girl Effect described “...its chatbots as digital companions: tools that could sit at an adolescent girl’s fingertips as she navigated complex health and life challenges.”5.

Big Sis was only the beginning. The success of these chat-based companions showed what was possible when technology, research and different lived experiences came together with purpose. From South Africa to India to Kenya, the work proved that digital tools could adapt, scale and stay rooted in cultural relevance. For a social impact organisation like Girl Effect & a technology for impact organisation like Citizen Code, this is a blueprint for how to collaborate: pairing technical expertise with deep understanding of what shapes women’s and girls’ lives. In this industry, partnerships appear to be key: finding the right collaborations that can grow into a sustained effort to build, maintain and evolve technologies that carry real impact. This proves that when the right tools are placed in the right hands, change follows.

In many ways, Girl Effect had recreated the campfire in digital form. A place of warmth, trust, and sharing knowledge needed to survive, that was reimagined for girls navigating modern pressures. This was not only about innovative technology. It was about building the most human of tools for connection and protection, shaped by empathy and lived experience, and guided by a shared mission to make sure no girl faced her questions alone.

A Simple Summary To End

To round this all off and bring us back to the basics: our problem-solving behaviours are moulded by our environments. Our diverse environments and life experiences create a wealth of different problem-solving behaviours. The technology we create is as expansive and diverse as we are.

As we shape technology, so does it shape us.

Feeling inspired? Curious about how this kind of thinking could shape tech, AI, or even archaeology — or wondering if a chatbot is the right fit for your work? Reach out to Lauren at lauren@citizencode.co.za

We love great chats and building things together.

References

1. Goodall, J., 1964. Tool-Using and Aimed Throwing in a Community of Free-Living Chimpanzees. Nature 201, 1264–1266. https://doi.org/10.1038/2011264a
2. Pascual-Garrido, A., Carvalho, S., Mjungu, D., Schulz-Kornas, E. and van Casteren, A., 2025. Engineering skills in the manufacture of tools by wild chimpanzees. iScience, 28(4). https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2589-0042%2825%2900419-5
3. Breuer T, Ndoundou-Hockemba M, Fishlock V.,2005. First Observation of Tool Use in Wild Gorillas. PLOS Biology 3(11): e380. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380
4. Plummer, T.W., Oliver, J.S., Finestone, E.M., Ditchfield, P.W., Bishop, L.C., Blumenthal, S.A., Lemorini, C., Caricola, I., Bailey, S.E., Herries, A.I. and Parkinson, J.A., 2023. Expanded geographic distribution and dietary strategies of the earliest Oldowan hominins and Paranthropus. Science, 379(6632), pp.561-566. https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abo7452
5. Kaakpema Yelpaala and Tiff Jiang, "Girl Effect," Yale School of Public Health Case Study PH-25-101, August 7, 2025 https://cases.som.yale.edu/index.php/girl-effect/access?cases-access-redirect=1