Your search
Results 2 resources
-
Before 2.6 million years ago (Ma), no archaeological record has been securely documented, and therefore there is no evidence of hominin tool use. Then, at 2.6–2.58 Ma, there is widespread evidence for tool manufacture and use at several archaeological sites, with undisputed stone tools and fossil fauna at Gona, Ethiopia. Additionally, the evidence from the earliest archaeological sites at Gona shows that the earliest stone tool makers were skilled flintknappers and were able to select high quality stone raw materials. The possible reasons behind this seeming abrupt transition from the absence of stone tools to the presence thereof include sampling biases, paleogeographic influences, gaps in the geological record, paleoenvironmental change, and changes in the record of hominin evolution.Based on our observations at Gona, the earliest use of flaked stone tools is likely to be slightly older than 2.6 Ma. These stone tools represent a significant change in behavior that set the stage for subsequent hominin evolution. The paleogeographic and paleoenvironmental evidence points to the earliest use of stone tools in certain settings: usually (but not always) close to raw material sources, and ecotones between riparian woodlands and open grasslands. The earliest stone tool makers were proficient, selective, and flexible in their reduction strategies. The variability we see in Pliocene artifact assemblages has much to do with different raw material sources.
-
The phrase “Developed Oldowan” (DO) was originally coined by M. Leakey to describe a technologically “advanced Oldowan” artifact tradition, that preceded the Acheulian Industry. M. Leakey further identified three stages of the DO which she labeled as the DOA, DOB and DOC. The DO (sensu lato) has been generally recognized as transitional to the Acheulian, but the status of the DOB and the DOC remains unclear. In addition to a lack of clarity in terms of classification, the DO also suffers from a lack of secure radiometric dates, even at Olduvai where it was first identified. Despite such shortcomings, archaeologists still assign assemblages into the DO, as supposedly “intermediate” or transitional between the Oldowan and the Acheulian. However, a closer look at the DO assemblages from Olduvai Gorge and other sites in Africa and the Middle East shows that the artifacts assigned into this tradition are not technologically drastically different from the preceding Oldowan. Probably the flaking characteristics of the raw material types (e.g., quartzite and limestone, and to a lesser extent basalt) and the original shape of the cobbles used by hominins may have played a major role in the final shape of the “distinctive” artifact types (such as spheroids/subspheroids) used for assigning assemblages into the DO. Further, both the DOB and the Acheulian appeared ˜1.7 million years ago (Ma) in the archaeological record, making it unlikely that the DO is a transitional artifact tradition that preceded the Acheulian. Our preliminary evaluation of the archaeological record at Gona, Ethiopia and elsewhere suggests a fairly abrupt appearance of the Acheulian after a temporally rapid transition from the Oldowan.