Structural continuity and technological change in Lower Pleistocene toolkits

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e13

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

Structural continuity and technological change in Lower Pleistocenetoolkits

Eudald Carbonell a, b, c, Deborah Barsky a, b, *, Robert Sala b, a, Vincenzo Celiberti d

a IPHES, Institut Catal�a de Paleoecologia Humana i Evoluci�o Social, c/Marcelli Domingo s/n, Campus Sescelades URV, Edifici W3, 43007 Tarragona, Spainb Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV), Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002 Tarragona, Spainc Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of Beijing (IVPP), Chinad Centre Europ�een de Recherches Pr�ehistoriques de Tautavel, Universit�e de Perpignan Via Domitia, UMR 7194 du CNRS, Ave. L�eon Jean Gr�egory,Tautavel 66720, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:Lower PleistoceneOldowanAcheulianStone toolsTechnologyTypology

* Corresponding author. IPHES, Institut Catal�a dEvoluci�o Social, c/Marcelli Domingo s/n, Campus SesceTarragona, Spain.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Barsky).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.0081040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Carbonell,International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.10

a b s t r a c t

A structural foundation has recently been laid down to describe early stone industries using a four-phaseevolutionary sequence: Homogeneity, Variability, Diversity, and Multiplicity. Homogeneity refers to a hy-pothetical phase predating the earliest recognizable industries (>2.6 Ma) during which stones could havebeen used for pounding or throwing but controlled knapping was not practiced. The Variability phase,already explored in previous publications, refers to a subsequent stage wherein simple knapping stra-tegies were discovered and tested. It precedes the innovation of shaped tools in Africa and Eurasia withinlargely divergent timeframes. This paper explores the Diversity phase, during which standardized shapedtools and relatively complex flake production strategies occurred. Presently, flake-core assemblageslacking configured tools are referred to as ‘Oldowan’ or ‘Mode 1’ and those with handaxes and/or cleaversare named ‘Acheulian’ or ‘Mode 2’. The model described here does not propose to replace existing ter-minology, but presents an alternative approach to the ways in which we perceive of technological changeand explores why analogous techno-typological changes occurred diachronically in different areas of theglobe where contact between populations was unlikely. The Diversity phase, characterized by techno-typological expansion in stone toolkit components, translates improved hominin capacities to accessresources, compete with other carnivores and widen their range of activities. This process intensifiedexchange between an increasingly complex lifestyles and growing cognitive capacities, leading to Mul-tiplicity; the final phase of this conceptual model for understanding change in early human technologies.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

At the roots of technology and innovation, the first intentionallymodified stones served as an extension of our biological selves thatcould be moulded to adapt to different situations according humanwill. They reflect expedient but relatively sophisticated knappingsystems that were oriented towards the production of small, non-standardized flakes. The archeological record indicates that tech-nical proficiency increased over time, leading to the production ofstandardized forms. These early artifacts are sometimes interpretedas first reflections of human tradition. This process, initiated in

e Paleoecologia Humana ilades URV, Edifici W3, 43007

reserved.

E., et al., Structural continuit16/j.quaint.2015.04.008

Africa, followed a complex diachronic and evolutionary trend thatlead globally from simple flake production to preconceived, shapedtools (Stout, 2011). In all areas of the world where early humanactivity has been evidenced, a remarkably similar pathway seemsto have led from one to another major technological achievement.Specific technological inventions are used to define the first twotechno-complexes that are commonly referred to as ‘Oldowan’ and‘Acheulian’ (de Mortillet, 1872; Leakey, 1951) or ‘Mode 1’ and ‘Mode2’ (Clark, 1969, 1977). This paper explores the four-phase structuralmodel of early human techno-adaptation systems introduced byCarbonell et al. (2009) (Fig. 1). This branching evolutionary modelemploys the concepts: Homogeneity, Variability, Diversity and Mul-tiplicity to describe stone tool assemblages; from their appearancein Africa 2.6 Ma (Semaw et al., 1997, 2009a; Semaw, 2000, 2005)and, indirectly, perhaps even earlier (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al.2010; McPherron et al., 2010), up to their diversification around

y and technological change in Lower Pleistocene toolkits, Quaternary

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.008



Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the four-phase branching evolutionary model forearly human technology (modified after Carbonell et al., 2009). Homogeneity (or Mode0) is at the roots of the system and is defined as a phase wherein stones were simplyused but there was no formal modification. This phase is followed by the discovery ofeffective unidirectional and orthogonal stone flaking strategies, presenting somemorpho-technological Variability. Within this pool of variability, typically referred to as‘Oldowan’, some of the more innovative techniques (notably bifacial and multifacialstrategies) were selected to be developed and standardized. Hominins were thus led tocreate the Diversity of forms and techniques that are the hallmarks of the Acheulian. Inthe final, Multiplicity phase, the capacity to effectively manufacture ever more complextoolkits continued to progress and the exponential development of human technologywas underway.

E. Carbonell et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e132

1.75 Ma (Asfaw et al., 1992; Lepre et al., 2011; Beyene et al., 2013).The first phases of this model e Homogeneity and Variability e

already developed in Carbonell et al. (2009), are briefly reviewed inthe introductory section of this paper, whose main aim is to discussthe emergence of Diversity in stone tool technologies, a phasewhich is roughly correspondent to the ‘Oldowan/Acheulian tran-sition’. The final phase of this model: Multiplicity, will be describedin future work.

From the beginning of the Pleistocene, hominins selected thecapacity to make and use tools as a viable adaptive response to dealwith environmental pressures and to access resources. Thisaccomplishment has since increased exponentially and become anindispensable ‘human’ survival strategy. Since its earliest mani-festations in Africa 2.6 Ma, stone tool technology expanded at anever increasing rate, perhaps by way of cumulative cultural evo-lution (Tomasello, 1999). Although other species, including apes,birds and even fish have been observed to modify and/or use ob-jects as tools (Whiten et al., 2011), no other species has developedtechnology on a comparatively wide scale as humans, nor reachedsuch a high degree of reliance upon them for survival (Stout, 2011).While chimpanzees provide probing evidence of tool use andmanufacture (Haslam et al., 2009), their percussion processescannot be adequately compared to human tool production (de laTorre, 2010). Defining tool making as: intentionally shaping ob-jects according to a preconceived plan for use in a future project, wemay concur that pre-humans probably practiced tool-use over along period of time before actually making recognizable tools(Panger et al., 2002).

2. First expressions of human technology

Less than half a century ago, little was known about the oldeststone tool technologies in Africa and only a handful of sites hadyielded ‘pre-Acheulian’ industries from reliable stratigraphical se-quences: Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Members E and F of the

Please cite this article in press as: Carbonell, E., et al., Structural continuitInternational (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.008

Shungura Formation in the Lower Omo Valley in Ethiopia, theLower Busidima Formation in Ethiopia, the Koobi Fora Formationeast of Lake Turkana in Kenya (Leakey, 1971; Isaac, 1976; Roche andTiercelin, 1977; Harris, 1983; Howell et al., 1987). From a historicalpoint of view (de la Torre, 2011), Olduvai Gorge was the first amongthese earliest African sites to be documented with hominins, stoneindustries and faunal remains in a reliably dated stratigraphicalcontext (Leakey, 1951; Leakey et al., 1961, 1964). Subsequently, themonographic and greatly influential work accomplished there byMary Leakey (1971) was firmly established as the reference formany forthcoming techno-typological works referring to thisperiod. Olduvai Gorge therefore quite naturally became the epon-ymous site for early hominin behavioral and technological refer-ence. The denomination ‘Oldowan’, coined by Louis Leakey (1951),came into use to classify stone toolkits containing non-standardized cores and flakes. Although there is some overlap,the latter toolkits were found to pre-date the more standardized‘Acheulian’ toolkits, containing handaxes, cleavers and retouchedtools.

More recently, more sites situated both inside and outside ofAfrica have yielded analogous ‘core-flake industries’ within largelyvariable chronologies, somewhat clouding the definition of theOldowan (Barsky, 2009). Since the 1990's, however, new method-ologies for the study of these assemblages have somewhat broad-ened our constructed vision of first human technologies (Hoversand Braun, 2009), enabling to better accommodate dataemanating from new sites pre-dating Olduvai Bed I, such as KadaGona and Ounda Gona, in Ethiopia or Lokalalei 2C, in Kenya (Semawet al., 1997, 2003, 2009a; Semaw, 2000, 2005; Delagnes and Roche,2005). There have also been important new studies of some of thewell known sites (Olduvai Gorge, Omo, de la Torre, 2004; de la Torreand Mora, 2005).

Early research at Olduvai Gorge (Leakey et al., 1964) alsoentrenched a long-standing hypothesis that Homo habilis was thefirst hominin in Africa to systematically knap stone, and that thiswould have occurred some 2 Ma. Notwithstanding, over the years,both robust and gracile Australopiths have been discovered inpossible or probable associationwith stone tools in various East andsouth African sites (Leakey, 1971; Isaac and Harris, 1978; Howellet al. 1987; Sussman, 1991; de Heinzelin et al., 1999; Kuman andClark, 2000; McPherron et al., 2010). For example, in Member5 at Sterkfontein (South Africa), evidence is documented of stoneindustries associated with Paranthropus robustus fossils dating tobetween 2 and 1.7 Ma (Kuman and Clark, 2000). Also, herbivorelong-bones bearing cut marks attributed to sharp stone edges havebeen reported near the Gona localities, in broad territorial associ-ation with Australopithecus garhi fossils (ca. 2.5 Ma, Hata Member,Bouri Formation, Middle Awash, Ethiopia, de Heinzelin et al., 1999;Asfaw et al., 1999). Furthermore, probing findings of long-bonefragments with possible cut marks dating to 3.39 Ma wererecently reported from Dikika (Lower Awash, Ethiopia byMcPherron et al. (2010)), although some authors have attributedthe traces to trampling (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2010). A juvenileAustralopithecus afarensis skeleton from within this timeframe hasbeen found in the region (3.3 Ma, Alemseged, et al. 2006) but anyrelationship to the purported cut-marked bones needs to be moreamply demonstrated.

The complexity of this “who dunnit” scenario continues to in-crease in pace with new discoveries and enhanced typo-technological studies of early stone industries. The new finding ofa hominin mandible with teeth from the Ledi-Geraru research area(Afar Regional State, Ethiopia) now establishes the presence of earlyHomo at 2.8e2.75 Ma (Villmoare et al., 2015). Still, the so-calledParanthropus/Homo dichotomy certainly merits further explora-tion (Sussman, 1991; Wood and Strait, 2004) and we may concede


E. Carbonell et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e13 3

at present that both old and new evidence indicates (with somelikelihood) that other pre-or non-Homo hominins known to beliving in Africa at the onset of the Pleistocene could also have beenresponsible for at least some of the stone tools found there (Fig. 2).

Today, there is evidence that hominins demonstrated relativesophistication and mastery in the mechanics of stone breakage fromat least 2.6 Ma, for example at Kada Gona EG 10 and EG 12 (Semawet al.,1997, 2009a; Semaw, 2000, 2005; Stout et al., 2005) and OundaGona OGS 6 andOGS 7 (Semaw et al., 2003; Stout et al., 2010), aswellas at a handful of other sites (Lokalalei 2C, 2.3 Ma, Delagnes andRoche, 2005). In these assemblages, well-struck flakes were pro-duced using organized stone reduction strategies and homininsselected raw materials taking into consideration qualitative andmorphometric parameters (Semaw et al., 1997, 2009a; Semaw, 2000,2005; Stout et al., 2005; Goldman-Neuman and Hovers, 2009). All ofthese discoveries have renewed discussions about the chronological,environmental and the behavioral conditions under which homininsbegan to make tools, thus having important repercussions on whichhominin that might have been. Evidence has not however sufficedyet to unseat Homo as the first toolmaker and H. habilis is still mostoften cited as the first hominin to demonstrate a real capacity tomake and use tools on a significantly large scale.

The ways in which technological skills permitting planned,sequential flake removal were acquired and transmitted remains an

Table 1African sites dating to between 3.39 and 1.95 Ma that have yielded stone tool assemblages and/or traces of hominin activity on bones. These sites contribute to understandingthe variability of the earliest techno-complexes. The industries comprise small-sized, non-standardized flakes producedmostly from unidirectional and orthogonal cores. Theymay contain hammerstones, heavy-duty tools and/or bones with or without evidence of tool use (cut marks, intentional fractures).

Geographical/geological situation Site Age (Ma) Hominin Largevertebratefossils

Human traceson bones

Debitage Heavy-dutytools

Retouchedtools

Technologicalphase

East Turkana, Upper Burgi Member,Koobi Fora Formation, Kenya

FwJj20 1,95 N Y Y Y Y N Variability

Lake Victoria Basin, Southern Memberof the Kanjera Formation, Kenya

Kanjera South 2,1e2 N Y ? Y N? NKS 1eKS-3

OmoeTurkana basin, Ethiopia Fejej FJ-1 1,96 Y Y Y Y Y NWest Turkana, Kalochoro Member,

Nachukui Formation, KenyaLokalalei 2C 2,34 N N N Y N? N

Hadar, Makaamitalu basin, Ethiopia AL 666 & AL 894 2,33e2,36 Homo sp. Y ? Y N? N NascentVariability(AL 666)

Omo Basin, Shungura Formation,Member F, Ethiopia

Omo 57 & 123 2,34 P. aethiopicus;Homo sp.?

Y ? Y N N

Busidima Formation, Gona, Ethiopia Kada Gona 2,6 N N N Y Y NEG 10 & EG 12

Busidima Formation, Gona, Ethiopia Ounda Gona 2,6 N Y Y Y Y NOGS 6 & OGS 7

Middle Awash, Hata Member, Ethiopia Bouri 2,5 A. garhi Y Y N N N Homogeneityh Hiatus of direct or indirect cultural evidence …

Lower Awash, Ethiopia Dikika 3,39 N Y Y? N N N

Dikika, Lower Awash, Ethiopia (McPherron et al., 2010). Bouri, Middle Awash, Ethiopia (Asfaw et al., 1999; de Heinzelin et al., 1999). OGS 6 and OGS 7, Busidima Formation,Gona, Ethiopia (Semaw et al., 1997, 2003, 2009a; Semaw, 2000, 2005; Stout et al., 2010; Campisano, 2012). AL 666 and AL 894, Hadar, Ethiopia (Kimbel et al., 1996, 1997;Hovers et al., 2002; Hovers, 2003; Goldman-Neuman and Hovers, 2009). Omo 57, 123, 71, Omo Basin, Ethiopia (Chavaillon, 1970, 1976; Merrick et al., 1973; Merrick,1976; Howell et al., 1987; Feibel et al., 1989; de la Torre, 2004). FwJj20, East Turkana Basin, Kenya, (Braun et al., 2010). Fejej FJ-1, OmoeTurkana Basin, Ethiopia (Lumleyand Beyene, 2004; Echassoux et al., 2004; Barsky et al., 2006, 2011; Chapon et al., 2011). Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya (Kibunjia, 1994; Roche et al., 1999, 2003;Delagnes and Roche, 2005). Kanjera South, southwestern Kenya (Behrensmeyer et al., 1995; Plummer et al., 1999, 2001; Plummer, 2004; Bishop et al., 2006; Braun et al., 2009).*Y ¼ Yes, N No, I ¼ Indeterminate.

open debate. It now seems a likely setting that the earliest knownindustries such as those from Gona would have been preceded by aless sophisticated phase of technical experimentation and discov-ery wherein stones were simply thrown or used for pounding, butwere not formally modified (Panger et al., 2002; Haslam et al.,2009). This kind of behavioral scheme, situated chronologicallyjust prior to the onset of the Quaternary (~3.5e2.5 Ma), could havebeen practiced by any or all of the hominin species present in thelandscape. The climatic trends noted within this timeframe arecharacterized by progressively cooler and dryer conditions


(Gibbard et al., 2007). There were a number of hominin speciespresent in East Africa at the time (A. afarensis, A. bahrelghazali,A. africanus, Kenyanthropus platyops) (Fig. 2).

This ‘initializing’ phase of stone use, presently invisible in thearcheological record, is best described as a period of morpho-structural homogeneity (Homogeneity: … uniform throughout incomposition or structure … lacking diversity or variation {©2014Merriam-Webster Inc.}) (Fig. 1). Without a doubt, used or acci-dentally broken stone ‘artifacts’ ensuing from the presumedpercussive activities would be extremely difficult to recognizearcheologically. Still, the likelihood of such a scenario allows us tofurther hypothesize that stone-using hominins could inadvertentlyhave produced sharp-edged products that were then found to bepotentially useful for tool-mediated food acquisition and/or pro-cessing. This could have led them to experiment and test stonebreakage with intensified frequency until they discovered andfinally mastered the mechanics of conchoïdal fracture. Advantagesfound in tool-mediated activities would thus have further stimu-lated the desire to make and use tools until the first controlledknapping systemic was achieved (in Africa 2.6e2.0 Ma (Table 1)).Whether it was gradual or progressive, the systematic making ofstone tools was a pivotal behavioural among hominins and one thatcertainly required a weighty time investment for learning andtransmission.

However likely this scenario for the emergence of the firsttechnologies may appear, we can consider another picture inwhichthe mechanics of effective stone knapping were spontaneouslydiscovered. Hominins could have invented the unidirectional andorthogonal stone reduction methods typically observed in firstassemblages because they are the logical mechanical solutions fornon-prepared core management (Carbonell et al., 2009). Unidi-rectional knapping involves the use of a recurrent gesture to extractflakes from a single platform. The variability of the resulting coremorphologies (Carbonell et al., 2009) results from different cobble


Fig. 2. Hominins present in Africa throughout the early phases of stone tool techno-logical evolution: Homogeneity, Variability, Diversity and Multiplicity. The sophisticationof the earliest tools from Gona (Semaw et al., 1997) suggests that the technologicalknowhow necessary to effectively produce stone tools could have been achieved evenprior to the appearance of early Homo (Villmoare et al., 2015).


shapes and the length of knapping episodes. Orthogonal knappingstrategies concern the use of a previous removal negative as aplatform for the extraction of one or more flakes. Cores that wererotated following each removal tend to be polyhedron in shape. Asdescribed in this paper, this strategy also expresses a range of coremorphologies whose transience depends on adjustments made tothe extraction angle separating the initial platform and the subse-quent removal(s), on the arrangement of removals in relation toone another and also on the length of knapping episodes.

During the Oldowan, hominins demonstrated the capacity tocarefully select cobbles/blocks with suitable angles for flakeextraction using these simple methods, thus avoiding the need forplatform preparation. According to this premise, morpho-typespresent in the oldest stone industries should be anticipated asprobable models. It assumes that, once acquired, the principles ofcontrolled flake extraction would have led predictably to the kindsof ‘redundant core morphologies’ known in the oldest assemblages(Hovers, 2012). In Africa, a handful of sites bear witness to this earlyphase of technological achievement (Table 1) sometimes referredto as ‘Pre-Oldowan’ (Roche,1996). These sites are located in the EastAfrican Rift Valley where ongoing research has been concentratedfor over half a century. They have yielded core-flake industrieswhose morphologies reflect a dominant use of unidirectional andorthogonal knapping methods.

The unidirectional knapping strategies involved applying arecurrent gesture to a single surface. Contrastingly, orthogonal corereduction was effectuated by creating a plane surface by a removalor a fracture and then using this surface as a platform for furtherextractions. Orthogonal knapping therefore involves two removalsurfaces oriented perpendicularly to one another. Direct hammer


and bipolar on an anvil methods are documented for both of thesebasic reduction sequences. The choice of reduction strategy andknappingmethod apparently fluctuated according to parameters ofraw material quality, initial cobble/block morphology and thelength of knapping episodes (Braun et al., 2009; Barsky et al., 2011).

In spite of the differences in core types and morphologies thatresulted from unidirectional and orthogonal knapping schemes, acertain morpho-technical equilibrium is said to characterize Old-owan stone toolkits (Stout et al., 2010). Their morpho-technologicalVariability underpins this idea of equilibrium, defining a phasewherein change occurred as a “… slight difference in condition,amount, or level, typically within certain limits {©2014 Oxford Uni-versity Press}”. Technological variability should therefore be seen asa continuous process wherein potentially innovative morpho-typeswere occasionally produced out of existing technologies. Theconcept of Potential refers here to the occasional production ofinnovative morpho-types from within an existing range of tech-nical variability. Potential is therefore a source of innovation and, assuch, constitutes an essential element for understanding thestructural evolution of early stone tool technologies.

The key to understanding the earliest phases of technologicalevolution lies precisely in the changeable nature of unidirectionaland orthogonal knapping strategies, the practice and mastery ofwhich eventually led hominins to discover and test new technol-ogies.While the criteria bywhich hominins chose to develop one oranother technique or morpho-type evades us, we may hypothesizethat specific forms were favored when they were found to improveor facilitate the realization of a desired activity. Morpho-typespermitting higher efficiency in task performance would havebeen repeatedly manufactured until they entered into the norms ofhuman productivity. New technologies could have been imple-mented at first by specific groups, and then socially transmitted orindependently developed by different groups (Tomasello, 1999;Henrich and McElreath, 2003). The (limited) range of possibilitiesdictated by existing variability within unidirectional and orthog-onal knapping strategies explains the uniformity of change that weobserve in each progressive form (Figs. 3 and 4). Technological in-novations existed therefore as potential within stable technicalsystems, until they emerged from within a sort of “technologicalgene pool”. The structural limits provided from within this poolimposed the range of formal variation, thus explaining why anal-ogous technological achievements were acquired diachronically inspatially distinct areas of the globe where contact between pop-ulations in this timeframe was unlikely. As new forms appeared,potential was renewed and the spiral of human industrialcomplexity was underway. Over time, tool-making demanded evergreater technical prowess and more arduously acquiredmanufacturing knowhow and the reliance upon tools for per-forming survival-related tasks increased exponentially.

3. The emergence of technological diversity

Industries classified as ‘Acheulian’ or ‘Mode 2’ emerged in Africaaround 1.75 Ma (Kenya, Kokiselei 4, Texier et al., 2006; Lepre et al.,2011; Ethiopia, Konso Gardula, Asfaw et al., 1992; Beyene et al.,2013) and also in India in a similar timeframe (Pappu et al., 2011).In Africa by around 1.5 Ma a number of sites attest to the prolifer-ation of awidening range of techno-morphological features relativeto earlier assemblages. This phase of advanced Diversity (… thecondition of having or being composed of differing elements {©2014Merriam-Webster Inc.}) is exemplified in a number of sites: inTanzania at Olduvai Gorge in Middle and Upper Bed II; in Kenya inthe upper part of the Koobi Fora Formation (Okote Tuff, KarariComplex, FxJj11, FxJj16, FxJj17, FxJj18GL); in Ethiopia at MelkaKuntur�e Garba IV and Gadeb; and in Ouganda at Kisegi-


Fig. 3. Potential refers to the occasional production of new forms from within a stabletechnical system. It enables entrenched technical structures to evolve and develop intonew systems by providing a source of innovation. This concept is demonstrated byexamples of nascent forms observed in early lithic assemblages. (Above) Trachyte corefrom Kada Gona EG 10 knapped by orthogonally oriented removals (2.6 Ma, Stout et al.,2010, photo D. Barsky). The acute flaking angle created a sinuous edge that brings tomind more recent bifacial reduction strategies. In this case, the edge did not serve as aguide for further flaking and exists only as a budding morpho-type. Such morpho-types may have been observed for centuries before developing their full potentialand contributing to branching Diversity. (Below) Core and refitting flakes from Fejej FJ-1a demonstrating nascent multiplatform knapping (1.96 Ma, Lumley and Beyene, 2004,Barsky et al., 2006, 2011, photo D. Barsky). Multiplatform cores are not typical in the FJ-1a assemblage. In this example, a quartz cobble was knapped by successive changes instriking platforms and the core was rotated after each removal. This technique wasdeveloped at a number of African sites, especially after around 1.8 Ma (Leakey, 1971;Sahnouni, 1998). Practice and mastery of multiplatform knapping strategies ledeventually to the systematic production of more complex morpho-types, such aspolyhedrons and spheroids.


Nyabusosi (Leakey, 1971; Piperno and Bulgarelli-Piperno, 1974;Chavaillon, 1976; Clark and Kurashina, 1976, 1979; Harris and Isaac,1976; Isaac and Harris, 1978; Texier, 1995; de la Torre and Mora,2005; de la Torre, 2011). Sites with continuous stratigraphical se-quences (Olduvai Gorge, Melka Kuntur�e) bear witness to thegeneralization of major transitions which occurred (synchronicallyor not) during this phase:

1) Technological innovation

Newly generated structures were created and tested byexploring alternative technological solutions. Bifacial and


multiplatform knapping strategies are among the important in-novations that were selected and willingly transformed from alatent state into socially transmitted norms. Practice andmastery ofthese technological advances led to the invention of hierarchicalknapping strategies involving predetermination and formalstandardisation. For still unknown reasons, newly acquired tech-nological capacities were especially oriented towards large flakeproduction (see Sharon, 2009 for a synthetic description of thesemethods). The sustained practice of unidirectional and orthogonalflaking methods alongside newly acquired technologies underlinescontinuity within the system. A loss of structural coherence signalsthe bifurcation to the Diversity phase (Fig. 1).

2) Standardization

The systematization of bifacial, multiplatform and other stoneknapping strategies, formal predetermination and large flake pro-duction are not the only milestones marking the beginning of theDiversity phase. For the first time in the archeological record, formtook on importance relative to function and the repeated produc-tion of specific morpho-types illustrates the strengthening of theconcept of tradition. Cutting tools on large flakes (LCT's) areemblematic of innovative standardized morpho-types and theirgeneralization underlines the importance of this technologicalbreakthrough. It should be underlined that, among standardizedtypes, handaxes were produced and reproduced for a cumulativetime period of nearly 2 million years in almost every area of theworld occupied by Homo. However profound the cultural implica-tions attached to handaxe forms may be, it should be rememberedthat they were not the only standardized tool-types to appearduring this phase.

A progressively widening range of heavy-duty and light-dutytools developed once the equilibrium of the previous phase ofmore limited variability was breached. Amongst the heavy-dutyitems, choppers become easier to distinguish from cores andconverging-edge tools, as well as heavy-duty scrapers, emerge anddiversify. Chopping-tools increase in frequency relative to chop-pers, perhaps in synch with the generalization of bifacial knappingstrategies. An assortment of light-duty tools appears, dominated atfirst by notched and denticulate types (perhaps initially linked tosecondary knapping of flakes, Zaidner, 2013) and then by scrapertypes (Barsky et al., 2013). Retouched tools with converging edgesemerge and proliferate. Compared with former assemblages(Variability phase), the standardization of large and small formattools was as an important conceptual leap signalling behavioural aswell as techno-typological change. The concept of formal stan-dardization representative of the Diversity phase is rooted in thediachronic spiral of acquired and learned skills wherein techno-logical knowhow was transformed into tradition through therepeated production of specifically modeled forms.

3) Mobility and petro-typological specificity

The adaptive success of tool-mediated food acquisition/pro-cessing combined with anatomical and cerebral developmentscertainly favored more sophisticated tool-making (Braun andHovers, 2009). This process could have been additionally fuelledby increased meat-eating, a behaviour now thought to havebecome significant among hominins prior to around 1.5 Ma in Af-rica (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2012). By elaborating their toolkits,hominins would have invested less time and effort in the tasksdirectly related to survival, thus gaining free-time to roam thelandscape. Greater mobility and, along with it, newly developedwants and needs, somehow led hominins to find advantage inmaking and using large flakes. This activity had major implications


Fig. 4. Potentially innovative morpho-types are observed in the Western European Oldowan of Fuente Nueva 3 and Barranco Le�on, dated respectively to 1.3 and 1.4 Ma (Toro-Moyano et al., 2010, 2013). (Left) A limestone core from Fuente Nueva 3 knapped by successive series of recurrent orthogonal removals creating a roughly sinuous edge (PhotoJordi Mestre). (Right) A limestone sub-spheroid from Barranco Le�on (Photo Jordi Mestre).


upon raw material procurement and transport patterns. The linkbetween large flake production and mobility is that boulder corescannot be (easily) transported and there would have been a greaterenergy investment in carrying large flakes across the landscape.These could have been knapped elsewhere from very large sizedcores, transported into the site(s) and then shaped and/or re-knapped. The archeological record tells us that the transport ofexotic raw materials from relatively large distances away wasestablished only after the engagement of these features of the Di-versity phase (Ambrose, 2001).

Discernment in raw material quality and shape is documentedeven for the earliest toolkits (Stout et al., 2005), but greaterpetrographical diversity tends to be developed later during theDiversity phase. The invention of pre-conceived tool ‘types’ ac-companies this behavioural change as site-specific raw material/tool category relationships were established (Leakey, 1971; Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993). Raw material/tool-type distinctionwas consequential to both the development of typological normsand the increase in the range of exploited raw materials.

The continuous and diachronic nature of the shift towards typo-technological diversity could explain why some assemblages maypresent features that do not fit nicely into a progressive evolu-tionary scheme, such as: fluctuating handaxe/cleaver indexes,retouched tool frequencies and/or the presence of spheroids andsub-spheroids. In the 1970's, M. Leakey (1971) sought to surmountthe incongruities she encountered at Olduvai Gorge's Lower Bed IIby coining the term ‘Developed Oldowan’. She distinguished twotypes: 1) ‘Developed Oldowan A’, denoting assemblages withtypical ‘Oldowan’ features but with relatively more spheroids andsub-spheroids and a greater quantity and diversity of smallretouched tools and 2) ‘Developed Oldowan B’, denoting assem-blages with a low handaxe and cleaver index (Kleindienst, 1962;Leakey, 1971). Over time, this terminology has proved insufficientto explain why Early Acheulian and Developed Oldowan industriesco-existed or occurred alternately within single archeostrati-graphical units (Olduvai Gorge, Koobi Fora, Gadeb, Ubeidiya,Leakey,1971,1994; Clark and Kurashina,1979; Bar-Yosef and Goren-


Inbar, 1993; de la Torre and Mora, 2005; de la Torre, 2011). Thisterminology has been abandoned by some authors who prefer tounderline the significance of innovations like the capacity to pro-duce large flakes and LCT's (de la Torre andMora, 2005). In their re-examination of the industries from Olduvai Gorge's Beds I and IIand following Isaac (1986), de la Torre and Mora (2005) note theimportance of new technological behaviors “… that could haveincluded preconceived rules for design for the first time” (Isaac, 1986),appearing together with an increase in retouched tools.

The higher frequency and greater density of archeological oc-currences evidenced after around 1.5 Ma translate demographicgrowth that may be related to adaptive successes acquired fromnewly developed technologies. Analogous formal and behavioraldiversity also appear diachronically in different parts of Eurasiaaround 1.5 Ma, at Ubeidiya in the Levant and Attirampakkam inIndia, for example (Horowitz et al., 1973; Tchernov, 1992; Bar-Yosefand Goren-Inbar, 1993; Martínez-Navarro et al., 2009, 2012; Pappuet al., 2011). This acquired knowhow then spread more markedlyafter around 0.9e0.8 Ma, as at Gesher Benet Ya'akov in the Levantand Yunxian in China (Goren-Inbar and Saragusti, 1996; Goren-Inbar et al., 2000, 2008; Goren-Inbar and Sharon, 2006; Lumleyand Tianyuan, 2008; Sharon et al., 2011). It remains unclearwhether the tool-making hominins present at these sites werenative populations developing new technologies (convergence) orif technological innovation was brought in by arriving groups(replacement/exchange).

A state of fully achieved technological Diversity (as definedabove) is recognized at Attirampakkam in southeast India with apooled average age of 1.5 Ma (Pappu et al., 2011). The industriescomprise a range of LCT's and retouched tools made primarily fromquartzite cobbles and boulders (Pappu et al., 2011). They bearwitness to a chronologically equivalent emergence of analogoustechnical systems to those documented in Africa. This situationlends credence to the convergence hypothesis, especially giventhat hominins were also present in Pakistan and China prior toaround 1.8 Ma (Rendell et al., 1989; Dennell, 2004; Bo€eda and Hou,2011). But different modes of cultural transmission are not



mutually exclusive and more than one scenario is possible,depending on the region considered. The case for replacement orexchange, however, appears unlikely for vastly separategeographical regions (Africa and India, for example) where contactand cultural transmission within a relatively short time-span areimplausible (1.75e1.5 Ma).

We propose that populations existing in these regions couldhave achieved analogous expressions of techno-morphological di-versity when structurally similar models were developed out ofpotentially viable morpho-types latent in their existing technicalsystems. This hypothesis provides an alternative explanation tohow similar developments could have occurred diachronically indifferent areas of the globe (Fig. 5).

4. Emerging techno-morphological diversity: the example ofUbeidiya

Some features of industries from the different levels of Ubeidiyaillustrate how, on a structural level, techno-typological changecould have emerged from potential within existing technical sys-tems. Located in the Levant's northerly extension of the East AfricanRift Valley, Ubeidiya lies in the heart of themost probablemigrationroute for African hominins entering Eurasia (Agustí andLordkipanidze, 2011; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2013). Followingdefinitions outlined for the Olduvai Gorge industries (Leakey,1971),the bulk of the industries fromUbeidiya have been attributed to the‘Developed Oldowan B’, excepting the K-30 assemblage which hasbeen attributed to the ‘Early Acheulian’ (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar,1993; Shea and Bar-Yosef, 1999). Overall, the assemblages showconsistency in tool types and inter-assemblage type frequency (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993). The age of the Ubeidiya site has beenevaluated at 1.6e1.4 Ma (Tchernov, 1992; Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993; Martínez-Navarro et al., 2009, 2012; Bar-Yosef andBelmaker, 2011) and it is often considered to be among the oldest‘Acheulian’ occurrences outside of Africa (Dennell, 2003; Lycett,2009). This multi-level site has yielded industries knapped fromlimestone, flint and basalt, consisting of knapping waste, alongsidesmall and large shaped tools. The large tools assemblages include

Fig. 5. Map showing the age of some of the oldest occurrences of Acheulian industries in d(Lepre et al., 2011) and Ternifine (Geraads et al., 1986). In Western Europe, la Boella (1 Ma, VaNotarchirico (Piperno, 1999). In Israel at Ubeidiya (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993). In souChina at Yunxian, Lantian (Lumley and Tianyuan, 2008) and Bose (Hou et al., 2000). In Ind


numerous picks, with handaxes, as well as spheroids (Bar-Yosef andGoren-Inbar, 1993).

The Ubeidiya industries provide an example with which toempirically illustrate the morpho-technological continuitydescribed above. Our aim is not to provide a quantitative analysis ofthe Ubeidiya industries, but rather to demonstrate how potentiallynew technical systems could have developed out of specificmorpho-types existing within the range of the orthogonal knap-ping systemic. Orthogonal knapping methods are commonlyobserved in the Ubeidiya industries (Fig. 6), and they wereemployed not only for flake production, but also for shaping outtools from each of the different raw materials (limestone, flint, andbasalt). At Ubeidiya, orthogonal knapping and shaping methodswere performed regardless of the raw material type or originalmatrix size:

1) Orthogonal shaping was used to manufacture large pointedtools including picks and handaxes (Fig. 6, n� 1). These trian-gular or pointed tools constitute a new mental template,demonstrating a rupture with former right-angled or cube-shaped forms and opening up a whole new array of formalpossibilities. Pre-conceived triangular forms are a particularityof emerging diversity and represent an important step forwardin breaching the homeostasis of earlier technical systems.

2) The clearest expression of orthogonal stone reduction at Ubei-diya is provided by the simple orthogonal cores which vary insize (Fig. 6, n� 2). They are characterized by a series of flakesremoved from a prepared striking platform (removal negative,fracture plane, cortical surface). Knapping was carried out in aslicing manner, making it is difficult to ascertain the originalcore size and, by extension, the length of the knappingsequences.

3) On other cores, the use of more or less obtuse striking angleswas a strategywhich produced adjacent orthogonal cores (Fig. 6,n� 3).

4) More acute-angled cores show morphologies analogous tobifacial discoid cores, because of the presence of a sinuous edge(abrupt or oblique) (Fig. 6, n� 4, 5) separating two knapping

ifferent areas of the world. In Africa at Konso Gardula (Beyene et al., 2013), Kokiselei 4llverdú et al., 2014) la Noira (Moncel et al., 2013), la Caune de l'Arago (Barsky, 2013) andthern Asia Attirampakkam (Pappu et al., 2011). In Korea at Chongokni (Lee, 2001). Inonesia at Sangiran and Ngebung (S�emah et al., 1992; Lumley et al., 1993).


Fig. 6. Orthogonal knapping and shaping strategies at Ubeidiya (after Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993, Photos J. Mestre). (Centre) A striking platform is used to extract one or moreflakes from a perpendicular plane. 1. (Layer I26) Flint pick or trihedral tool shaped by a few invasive removals. The angle separating the knapping plane and the extraction surface isclose to 90� . 2. (Layer I15) Flint cores demonstrate that simple orthogonal knapping was repeatedly employed regardless of the core's size. 3. (Layer I15) Flint adjacent platform corewith emerging sinuous edge. A new striking platform was created adjacent to the first. The orientation of the second platform is sloped relative to the initial platform, so that thenew series of removals produced a change in the orientation of the sinuous edge. 4. (K5 (K29) Layer) Flint abrupt sinuous edge core. Multiple adjacent orthogonal platforms and anabrupt extraction angle were used to effectively produce short, fine flakes. Depending upon their orientation, these cores show formal similarities to polyhedrons. 5. (Layer I26) Flintoblique sinuous edge core. Opening up multiple adjacent platforms and applying a more obtuse striking angle accentuated the sinuous edge. This edge was occasionally employedas a striking platform while obtusely oriented crests guided subsequent flake removals-as in bifacial discoidal knapping. 6. (I15 Complex) Flint cubic core. Orthogonal strikingplatforms situated opposite to one another created new morphologies because of the sinuous edges created by intersecting distal removal negative crests. 7. (I15 Complex)Limestone spheroid. The stone knappers at Ubeidiya combined opposite orthogonal knapping (7) and/or abrupt sinuous edge strategies (5) to obtain spherical shaping.


surfaces. Bifacial knapping, observed here as a buddingmorpho-type, was to develop into a key technological breakthroughduring the Acheulian. These adjacent orthogonal cores providedsome of the evolutionary potential needed to make the transi-tion towards bifacial technologies.

5) Cores knapped by opposing orthogonally oriented extractions(Fig. 6, n� 6, 7), gave way to cubic morphologies created byintersecting distal removal negative crests. The confluence ofthese crests generated sinuous edges that were potentiallyuseful as guides for new extractions. At Ubeidiya, the trans-formation from orthogonally knapped cube-shaped cores intopolyhedrons and spheroids demonstrates how the shift towardsAcheulian diversity was achieved by exhausting all aspects offormal variability provided from within the orthogonal knap-ping system.

It is comparatively significant that at Ubeidiya and at Konsomany of the large pointed tools (in particular picks) were not in factcrafted by the bifacial strategies that are so widely considered to bethe hallmark of the Acheulian (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993;Beyene et al., 2013) (Figs. 7e9). This indicates that there could havebeen technological continuity in the orthogonal systemic whosevariability is seen here to have techno-morphological links to themanufacture of trihedral and even quadrahedral-morpho-types(Fig. 9). Orthogonal knapping could thus have provided onepathway to the production of pointed tools and later even tosymmetrical forms. These examples illustrate how bifacial knap-ping and shaping methods could evolved out of the techno-


morphological variability maintained within the orthogonal sys-tem: by varying extraction angles, modeling triangular morpho-types, exploiting edges created by conjoining distal crests (Fig. 6,n� 7). This structural continuity suggests that handaxes could havebeen among the forms that emerged as a structural likelihood outof existing technologies. This provides a working hypothesis forwhy morphologically similar LCT's are present in different areas ofthe globe where contact between populations was unlikely. Theexamples from Ubeidiya demonstrate how hominins maximallyexploited the techno-morphological potential latent in orthogonalknapping strategies until they gave way to branching technicaldiversity. On a structural level, the Ubeidiya assemblage reflectsemerging bifacial discoid knapping and/or shaping strategies. Infuture, it will be interesting to recognize, quantify, and comparesuch features that are perhaps budding in other sites.

5. Discussion

The terms Developed Oldowan and Early Acheulian werecreated to define distinct industries or assemblages, but it has longbeen recognized that there is no clear evolutionary progressionfrom one to another of these categories (Leakey, 1971; Semaw et al.,2009b). For example, the ‘Oldowan’ industry from the ST SiteComplex of Peninj (Tanzania, 1.4e1.6 Ma) is described as showingadvanced technical characteristics reflecting planning and deter-mination of flake size and shape (de la Torre et al., 2003) while theuse of bifacial centripetal strategy is also noted. This incongruityhas been described as “… unexpected for the Oldowan technology”


Fig. 7. Basalt pick from Ubeidiya, (Layer I15, Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993. Photo J.Mestre). Blocks with naturally pointed forms required little modification in order tocreate such triangular morpho-types. Invasive removals were used to shape pointedtools.

Fig. 9. Flint handaxe from Ubeidiya, with a quadrahedral pointed extremity: anotherexpression of orthogonal shaping (Layer K6, Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993. Photo J.Mestre).


(de la Torre et al., 2003). The authors underline the importance ofrecognizing and maintaining an “artificial edge of configuration”and, perhaps more importantly, the separation of core preparationand extraction surfaces (hierarchization), while noting their con-ceptual closeness to Levallois methods. It is also remarkable thatthe assemblage includes polyhedral morpho-types knapped frommultiple striking surfaces, as well as a significant proportion ofretouched elements. However, the lack of large flakes, handaxes,

Fig. 8. Basalt large pointed flake from Ubeidiya (K30 (K6) Layer, Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993. Photo J. Mestre). Large flakes provided a new range of possibilities forhominins manufacturing new morpho-types such as picks and handaxes (Kleindienst,1962; Sharon, 2009). “Rough-outs” were obtained through planned extraction sys-temic and provided ideal supports for transformation into LCT's with minimal need forshaping.


and cleavers make it unfitting to class this industry as ‘Acheulian’,thus explaining its attribution to an advanced Oldowan.

Also, even though some occurrences at Konso predate the Peninj‘Oldowan’ industries, some of their main features indicate that thebifurcation towards large flake production and LCT's was underway,justifying their attribution to (emerging) ‘Acheulian’ by Beyeneet al. (2013). The authors also note that large flake and LCT pro-duction is in fact intimately linked to volumetric hierarchization (asdocumented at Peninj). It seems that problems related to theexclusiveness of ‘cultural’ categories might be avoided if weconsider these hierarchical knapping systems as representative of adistinct or partial move towards the new paradigm (Diversity),occurring through the exploitation of potentially innovative tech-nologies from within the existing structural unit (Variability).

Looking to the earliest Acheulian at Konso, Beyene et al. (2013)have further remarked that there is a significant proportion ofboth unifacial and bifacial LCT's at locality KGA6, dating to1.74 ± 0.03 Ma, while noting that the KGA4 and -11 occurrenceswhich predate these assemblages (~1.9 Ma) are lacking LCT's. AtKonso, it is only after around 1.6 Ma that “… a more typical EarlyAcheulian with abundant large bifacial tools occurs” (Beyene et al.,2013). At both Konso KGA6-A1 and Ubeidiya, picks are the domi-nant tool type rather than handaxes. These tools show “… asym-metric converging sides with a thick pointed tip … formed by abruptflaking” (Beyene et al., 2013). It therefore appears that there may besome formal and technical analogies in these toolkits in so far asthis “lack of a clearly bifacial tool component” is concerned (Beyeneet al., 2013).

Although geographically distant from each other, these excep-tionally rich sites offer the opportunity to observe the transitionfrom the Oldowan to the Acheulian techno-complexes withinstructurally analogous limits that fit well with the model we pre-sent here. These examples serve to demonstrate: 1) that the in-vention of bifacial knapping technology was only one amongstseveral features of an emerging cultural complex which we mostcommonly call “Acheulian” and 2) that a given stone tool assem-blage presenting one, several or all of these features may bedescribed as ‘Acheulian’ and 3) that common technical and formalcharacteristics were predictably selected and developed (retouchedtools, discoidal flaking, refined bifacial tools) because they occurredwithin a given set of pre-existing structural limits (Oldowan Vari-ability). Therefore, the shift to the Diversity phase constitutes abreak with an earlier paradigm wherein a set of changes occurreddiachronically within a single and coherent structural system(Fig. 10). Raw material diversity and the choice to develop one or


Fig. 10. Schemes representing different phases of early human technological achievement: 1. The hypothetical Homogeneity phase (prior to 2.6 Ma in Africa only) where homininsexperimented with percussion. 2. Nascent Variability (2.6e2.3 Ma in Africa only) where rudimentary knapping systems were developed into systematic. 3. The Variability phase(2e1.9 Ma in Africa) where a few simple knapping strategies were accomplished. Different morphologies were obtained by unidirectional and orthogonal knapping strategies. Newformal potential evolved during this phase, mainly out of orthogonal knapping systems but also from developing multiplatform strategies. 4. The Diversity phase (~1.5 Ma in Africa,the Levant, India) was achieved by exhaustive testing of the orthogonal knapping system's potential until new technologies emerged. The Diversity phase illustrates the so-calledOldowan/Acheulian transition in both Africa and Eurasia and explains the diachronic nature of Mode 2 achievement in different areas of the globe.


another structural unit makes the initial metamorphic phasesappear formally divergent: but the finality (hierarchical flake pro-duction and LCT's) is surprisingly similar in all geographic areasdocumented so far as having yielded Early Acheulian or DevelopedOldowan industries (Roche, 2005; de la Torre and Mora, 2005;Sharon, 2009; Stout, 2011).

6. Conclusions

The structural synthesis described in this paper refers to humantechnology as it materialized from its earliest expressions up to thesystematic production of pre-conceived, standardized forms(~2.5e1.75 Ma in Africa). This non-linear, procedural evolutionspread diachronically throughout Eurasia after around 1.5 Mathrough convergence, replacement, or both. In its emergent stage,technology produced by the genus Homo or by Australopiths wasHomogenous: used or slightlymodified stones weremaintained in astable techno-functional condition for a long period of time. These‘industries’ are presently invisible in the archeological record. Thishomeostatic system collapsed when the first technical systemswere innovated and systematized. This phase (Variability, Carbonellet al., 2009) is characterized by unidirectional and orthogonalknapping strategies that gave way to a limited number of non-standardized core/flake morpho-types. Within the context ofrestricted formal Variability, these simple but organized knappingsystems provided evolutionary potential by occasionally providingnew forms. This caused early human technologies to mute


progressively in structurally similar ways in different parts of theglobe. These innovations were then transformed from their latentstate into culturally transmitted norms.

The proliferation of standardized tools such as handaxes,cleavers and retouched tools in Lower Pleistocene toolkits world-wide does indeed suggest that hominins were carrying out “… newactivities or new solutions to existing activities …” (Beyene et al.,2013). The appearance of new tool types, coupled with biologicalmodifications (Homo ergaster, Homo erectus) and increaseddemography (spread throughout Eurasia), signal the success of thisimportant behavioral transition. In different areas of the globe theensuing technological and typological changes (Diversity) gave wayto surprisingly similar formal features in spite of chrono-geographical variation because they reflect a coherent processstemming from a shared technical foundation. Evolution from theso-called ‘Oldowan’ or ‘Mode 1’ to the ‘Acheulian’ or ‘Mode 2’ maythus be explained as a series of linked occurrences (continuity)creating an exponential growth factor in a sort of domino effect.Emergence and consolidation of new technologies are not thereforerevolutions but rather bifurcations inside systemic continuity(Fig. 1). The proposed branching model explains both why earliermorpho-types persisted into new technical systems as well as howparallel technological developments could have occurred inspatially distant areas of the globe.

Some elements of the stone tool assemblage from Ubeidiyaprovide examples to illustrate the flexibility inherent to orthogonalknapping methods, serving to demonstrate this continuity in early



technological development. The orthogonal “aggregate” providedtechnological and typological potential that was used for bothknapping (flake production) and shaping (picks, spheroids). Itscentral place in systemic Diversity reveals an evolutionary trenddeeply rooted within pre-existing knapping strategies. Unidirec-tional and orthogonal reduction schemes were maintained along-side the innovations characterizing the diversity of humantechnical evolution (bifacial centripetal and hierarchical knappingschemes, large flake production, standardized tool-making). AtUbeidiya, hominins experimenting with orthogonal knappingcombined technical skill with the acquired innovation of triangularmorpho-types, ultimately producing newly conceived, standard-ized tool forms. The technological schemes and standardizedshaping modes observed in their nascent form at Ubeidiya(Developed Oldowan B and Early Acheulian, Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993) are also present in Africa and Eurasia at widelydifferent time-frames during the Lower and Middle Pleistocene.The exponential development of these new, standardized morpho-types typifies the next stage in our four-phase model: the Multi-plicity phase (Carbonell et al., 2009) which will be described insubsequent works.

We have focused here on the technological changes palpable inthe archeological record up to the Diversity phase but it is obviousthat multiple factors (climate change, anatomical development,cerebral increase) contributed not only to this techno-behavioralshift but also to its integration and proliferation. Transitionalforms such as those ‘budding’ at Ubeidiya could have been adoptedand standardized into specific tool types because they presentedadaptive advantages. Indeed, the rapid diffusion of newly acquiredtechnological skills could reflect improved capacities accorded tohominins seeking to gain control over their environment. Social-ization and intensified technological learning could then havefavored rapid technological development observed in the archeo-logical record (increased mobility in raw material sourcing, thedevelopment of hierarchical knapping strategies, the production oflarge flakes, the appearance of large and small standardized tooltypes). Our structural model suggests that this shift, sometimesreferred to as the ‘Oldowan/Acheulian transition’, was most likelynot a short-term technological revolution but rather it should beunderstood as symptomatic of techno-adaptative systems in con-stant flux. When cultural transition (as reflected by technology) isperceived as a continuum in which newly acquired technologicaltendencies are punctually selected and developed over generationsaccording to their adaptive advantages before being transformedinto cultural norms, then the co-existence or alternating presence/absence of specific tool types or production modes is no longeranomalous. Rather, it is the natural expression of branching Di-versity at the very root of structural change within human tech-nological systems.

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their gratitude to Professors Ofer Bar Yosefand Naama Goren-Inbar for giving permission to examine theUbeidiya material and for the warm reception they provided at theInstitute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem inDecember 2011. We are also most grateful for valuable aid providedbyGadi Herzlinger during ourworkwith the archeological material.We sincerely thank Dr. Gonen Sharon from Tel Hai College whointroduced us to some important Pleistocene sites of the Jordanregion, namely: Ubeidiya and Gesher Benot Yaaqov. We are verygrateful to him for sharing his time and expansive knowledge tohelp us to better understand the complexity of this importantarcheological and paleontological record. The paleoanthropologicaldata presented in this paper has been supervised by Dr. Carlos


Lorenzo from the University Rovira i VirgilieInstitut de Paleo-ecologia Humana i Evoluci�o Social. This research was funded by:“Hominid Eco-social Behaviour at the Sierra de Atapuerca duringQuaternary II”, Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spanish Gov-ernment, MCI-DGICYT-CGL2009-12703-C03-02 and “Social andTechnological Development during Early and Middle Pleistocene”,AGAUR Agency, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, 2009 SGR188.

References

Agustí, J., Lordkipanidze, D., 2011. How “African” was the early human dispersal outof Africa? Quaternary Science Reviews 30, 1338e1342.

Alemseged, Z., Spoor, F., Kimbel, W.H., Bobe, R., Geraads, D., Reed, D., Wynn, J.G.,2006. A juvenile early hominin skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature 443,296e301.

Ambrose, S.H., 2001. Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291,1748e1753.

Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Suwa, G., Walter, R.C., White, T.D., WoldeGabriel, G.,Yemane, T., 1992. The earliest Acheulian from Konso-Gardula. Nature 360,732e735.

Asfaw, B., White, T., Lovejoy, O., Latimer, B., Simpson, S., Suwa, G., 1999. Austral-opithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284,629e635.

Barsky, D., 2009. An overview of some African and Eurasian Oldowan sites: eval-uation of Hominin cognition levels, technological advancement and adaptiveskills. In: Hovers, E., Braun, D. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Old-owan. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 39e48.

Barsky, D., 2013. The Caune de l'Arago stone industries in their stratigraphicalcontext. Comptes Rendus Palevol 12, 305e325.

Barsky, D., Cauche, D., Celiberti, V., Pleurdeau, D., Beyene, Y., de Lumley, H., 2006. Lesindustries lithiques archaïques du site de Fejej, Ethiopie. In: XIVe Congr�es del'UISPP, (Septembre 2001). Li�ege, pp. 1e9.

Barsky, D., Chapon-Sao, C., Bahain, J.J., Beyene, Y., Cauche, D., Celiberti, V.,Desclaux, E., Lumley, H., de, Lumley, M.A., Marchal, F., Moull�e, P.E., Pleurdeau, D.,2011. The Early Oldowan Stone-tool assemblage from Fejej FJ-1a (Ethiopia).Journal of African Archaeology 9 (2), 207e224.

Barsky, D., Garcia, J., Martínez, K., Sala, R., Zaidner, Y., Toro-Moyano, I., 2013. Flakemodification in Early and Early-Middle Pleistocene stone tool assemblages.Quaternary International 316, 140e154.

Bar-Yosef, O., Goren-Inbar, N., 1993. The Lithic Assemblage of Ubeidiya. A LowerPaleolithic Site in the Jordan Valley. Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2013. Following Pleistocene road signs of humandispersals across Eurasia. Quaternary International 285, 30e43.

Bar-Yosef, O., Belmaker, M., 2011. Early and Middle Pleistocene faunal and homininsdispersals through Southwestern Asia. Quaternary Science Reviews 30,1318e1337.

Behrensmeyer, A.K., Potts, R., Plummer, T., Tauxe, L., Opdyke, N., Jorstad, T., 1995. ThePleistocene locality of Kanjera, Western Kenya: stratigraphy, chronology andpaleoenvironments. Journal of Human Evolution 29, 247e274.

Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriele, G., Hart, W.K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M.,Hyodo, M., Renne, P.R., Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., 2013. The characteristics andchronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 110 (5), 1584e1591.

Bishop, L.C., Plummer, T.W., Ferraro, J.V., Braun, D., Ditchfield, P.W., Hertel, F.,Kingston, J.D., Hicks, J., Potts, R., 2006. Recent research into Oldowan homininactivities at Kanjera South, Western Kenya. African Archeological Review 23,31e40.

Bo€eda, E., Hou, Y.M., 2011. �Etude du site de Longgupo-Synth�ese. L'Anthropologie 115(1), 176e196.

Braun, D., Plummer, T.W., Ditchfield, P.W., Bishop, L.C., Ferraro, J.V., 2009. Oldowantechnology and raw material variability at Kanjera South. In: Hovers, E.,Braun, D. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Springer, Dor-drecht, pp. 99e110.

Braun, D.R., Harris, J.W.K., Levin, N.E., McCoy, J.T., Herries, A.I.R., Bamford, M.K.,Bishop, L.C., Richmond, B.G., Kibunjia, M., 2010. Early hominin diet includeddiverse terrestrial and aquatic animals 1.95 Ma in East Turkana, Kenya. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 10002e10007.

Braun, D., Hovers, E., 2009. Current issues in Oldowan research. In: Hovers, E.,Braun, D.R. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Springer, NewYork, pp. 1e14.

Carbonell, E., Sala, R., Barsky, D., Celiberti, V., 2009. From homogeneity to multi-plicity: a new approach to the study of archaic stone tools. In: Hovers, E.,Braun, D. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan. Springer, Dor-drecht, pp. 25e38.

Campisano, C.J., 2012. Geological summary of the Busidima Formation (Plio-Pleis-tocene) at the Hadar paleoanthropological site, Afar depression, Ethiopia.Journal of Human Evolution 62, 338e352.

Chapon, C., Bahain, J.J., Beyene, Y., Bilcot, J.-B., Guy, C., Jullien, M., Lumely, H., de,Provitina, O., 2011. Geochemistry of the tuffs from Fejej (South-Omo) and their


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00267-0/sref1


































































































tephrostratigraphical correlations with the Plio-Pleistocene formations in theOmo-Turkana Basin. Comptes Rendus Palevol 10 (4), 251e258.

Chavaillon, J., 1970. D�ecouverte d'un niveau Oldowayen dans la basse vall�ee del'Omo (Ethiopie). Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française 67, 7e11.

Chavaillon, J., 1976. Evidence for the technical practices of early Pleistocene homi-nids. In: Coppens, Y., Howell, F.C., Isaac, G., Leakey, R.E. (Eds.), Earliest Man andEnvironments in the East Rudolf Basin: Stratigraphy, Paleoecology, and Evolu-tion. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 565e573.

Clark, J.G.D., 1969. World Prehistory: a New Outline. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Clark, J.G.D., 1977. World Prehistory in New Perspective. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Clark, J.D., Kurashina, H., 1976. New Plio-Pleistocene Archeological Occurrencesfrom the Plain of Gadeb, Upper Webi Shebele Basin, Ethiopia, and a StatisticalComparison of the Gadeb Sites with Other Early Stone Age Assemblages. IXe

Congr�es UISPP, Colloque V, Nice, pp. 158e216.Clark, J.D., Kurashina, H., 1979. Hominid occupation of the East-Central Highlands of

Ethiopia in the Plio-Pleistocene. Nature 282, 33e38.Dennell, R.W., 2003. Dispersal and colonisation, long and short chronologies: how

continuous is the Early Pleistocene record for hominids outside East Africa?Journal of Human Evolution 45 (6), 421e440.

Dennell, R.W., 2004. Early Hominin Landscapes in Northern Pakistan: Investigationsin the Pabbi Hills. In: British Archaeological Research International Series, vol.1265. Archeopress, Oxford.

Delagnes, A., Roche, H., 2005. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the caseof Localalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48 (5),435e472.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T.R., Bunn, H.T., 2010. Configurational approachto identifying the earliest hominin butchers. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 107 (49), 20929e20934.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T.R., Diez-Martín, F., Mabulla, A., Musiba, C.,Trancho, G., Baquedano, E., Bunn, H.T., Barboni, D., Santonja, M., Uribelarrea, D.,Ashley, G.M., Martínez-�Avila, M., Barba, R., Gidna, A., Yravedra, J., Arriaza, C.,2012. Earliest porotic hyperostosis on a 1.5-million-year-old Hominin, OlduvaiGorge, Tanzania. PLoS One 7 (10), e46414, 1e7.

Echassoux, A., Moull�e, P.E., Desclaux, E., Alemseged, Z., 2004. Les faunes plio-pl�eistoc�enes du site de Fejej FJ-1. In: de Lumley, H., Beyene, Y. (Eds.), Les sitespr�ehistoriques de la r�egion de Fejej, Sud-Omo, Ethiopie, dans leurcontexte stratigraphique et pal�eontologique. Association pour la diffusion de lapens�ee française (ADPF), Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, Paris,pp. 203e340.

Feibel, C.S., Brown, F.H., McDougall, I., 1989. Stratigraphic context of fossil hominidsfrom the Omo group: Northern Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 78, 595e622.

Geraads, D., Hublin, J.J., Jaeger, J.J., Sen, S., Tong, H., Toubeau, P., 1986. The Pleisto-cene hominin site of Ternifine Algeria: new results on the environment, age andhuman industries. Quaternary Research 25, 380e386.

Gibbard, P.L., Boreham, S., Cohen, K.M., Moscariello, A., 2007. Global Chronostrati-graphical Correlation Table for the Last 2.7 Ma. Subcommission on QuaternaryStratigraphy. Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

Goldman-Neuman, T., Hovers, E., 2009. Methodological issues in the study ofOldowan raw material selectivity: Insights from A. L. 894 (Hadar, Ethiopia). In:Hovers, E., Braun, D. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan.Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 71e84.

Goren-Inbar, N., Saragusti, I., 1996. An Acheulian biface assemblage from the site ofGesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel: indications of African affinities. Journal of FieldArchaeology 23, 15e30.

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., 2006. Invisible handaxes and visible Acheulian bifacetechnology at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.),Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London,pp. 111e136.

Goren-Inbar, N., Feibel, C.S., Verosub, K.L., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M.E., Tchernov, E.,Saragusti, I., 2000. Pleistocene milestones on the Out-of-Africa corridor atGesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Science 289, 944e974.

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Laschiver, I., 2008. The Acheulianmassive scrapers of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov-an associated product of the largecutting tools Chaîne Op�eratoire. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 702e712.

Harris, J.W.K., 1983. Cultural beginnings: Plio-Pleistocene archeological occurrencesfrom the Afar, Ethiopia. African Archeological Review 1, 3e31.

Harris, J.W.K., Isaac, G.L., 1976. The Karari Industry: Early Pleistocene archaeologicalevidence from the Terrain East of Lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 262, 102e107.

Haslam, M., Hernandez-Aguilar, A., Ling, V., Carvalho, S., de la Torre, I., DeStefano, A.,Du, A., Hardy, B., Harris, J., Marchant, L., Matsuzawa, T., McGrew, W.,Mercader, J., Mora, R., Petraglia, M., Roche, H., Visalberghi, E., Warren, R., 2009.Primate archaeology. Nature 460, 339e344.

de Heinzelin, J., Clark, J.D., White, T., Hart, W., Renne, P., WoldeGabriel, G., Beyene, Y.,Vrba, E., 1999. Environment and behaviour of 2.5-million-year-old Bouri hom-inids. Science 284, 625e629.

Henrich, J., McElreath, R., 2003. The evolution of cultural evolution. EvolutionaryAnthropology 12, 123e135.

Horowitz, A., Seidner, G., Bar-Yosef, O., 1973. Radiometric dating of the UbeidiyaFormation, Jordan Valley, Israel. Nature 242, 186e187.

Hou, Y.M., Potts, R., Baoyin, Y., Zhengtang, G., Deino, A., Wei, W., Clark, J.,Guangmao, X., Weiwen, H., 2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone tech-nology of the Bose basin, South China. Science 287 (5458), 1622e1626.


Hovers, E., 2003. Treading carefully: site formation processes and Pliocene lithictechnology. In: Martinez, J., Mora, R., de la Torre, I. (Eds.), Oldowan: Rather Morethan Smashing Stones. Treballs D'Arqueologia, vol. 9, pp. 145e164.

Hovers, E., 2012. Invention, reinvention and innovation: the makings of Oldowanlithic technology. In: Elias, S. (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity.In: van der Meer (Ed.), J.J.M. (Ed.), Developments in Quaternary Science, vol. 16.Elsevier, pp. 51e68.

Hovers, E., Braun, D., 2009. Interdisciplinary approaches to the Oldowan. In:Hovers, E., Braun, D. (Eds.), Vertebrate Paleobiology and PaleoanthropologySeries. Springer.

Hovers, E., Schollmeyer, K., Goldman, T., Eck, G., Reed, K., Kimbel, W., 2002. LatePliocene archaeological sites in Hadar. Journal of Human Evolution 42, A17.

Howell, F.C., Haesaerts, P., de Heinzelin, J., 1987. Depositional environments,archaeological occurrences and hominids from Members E and F of the Shun-gura Formation (Omo Basin, Ethiopia). Journal of Human Evolution 16 (7e8),665e700.

Isaac, G.L., 1976. Plio-Pleistocene artefact assemblages from East Rudof, Kenya. In:Coppens, Y., Howell, F.C., Isaac, G., Leakey, R.E.F. (Eds.), Earliest Man and Envi-ronments in the Lake Rudolf Basin. University of Chicago Press, pp. 552e564.

Isaac, G.L., Harris, J.W.K., 1978. Archaeology. In: Leakey, M.G., Leakey, R.E. (Eds.),Koobi Fora Research Project, vol. 1. Clarendon, Oxford, pp. 64e85.

Isaac, G.L., 1986. Foundation stones: early artifacts as indicators of activities andabilities. In: Bailey, G.N., Callow, P. (Eds.), Stone Age Prehistory: Studies inMemory of Charles McBurney. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 221e241.

Kibunjia, M., 1994. Pliocene archaeological occurrences in the Lake Turkana basin.Journal of Human Evolution 27, 159e171.

Kimbel, W.H., Walter, R.C., Johanson, D.C., Reed, K.E., Aronson, J.L., Assefa, Z.,Marean, C.W., Eck, G.G., Bobe, R., Hovers, E., Rak, Y., Vondra, C., Yemane, T.,York, D., Chen, Y., Evensen, N.M., Smith, P.E., 1996. Late Pliocene Homo andOldowan tools from the Hadar Formation (Kadar Hadar Member), Ethiopia.Journal of Human Evolution 31 (6), 549e561.

Kimbel, W.H., Johanson, D., Rak, Y., 1997. Systematic position of a maxilla of Homofrom Hadar, Ethiopia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 103 (2),235e262.

Kleindienst, M.R., 1962. Component of the East African Acheulian assemblage: ananalytic approach. In: Mortelmans, G., Nenquin, J. (Eds.), Actes du IV Congr�esPanafrican de Pr�ehistoire et de l'�etude du Quaternaire, L�eopoldville, 1959.Mus�ee Royal de l'Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgie Annalen, pp. 81e108.

Kuman, K., Clark, R.J., 2000. Stratigraphy, artefact industries and hominid associa-tions for Sterkfontein, Member 5. Journal of Human Evolution 38 (6), 827e847.

Leakey, L.S.B., 1951. A Report on the Evolution of the Hand-axe Culture in Beds IeIV.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Leakey, L.S.B., Evernden, J.F., Curtis, G.H., 1961. The age of Bed I, Olduvai Gorge,Tanganyka. Nature 191, 478e479.

Leakey, L.S.B., Tobias, P.V., Napier, J.R., 1964. A new species of the genus Homo fromOlduvai Gorge. Nature 202, 7e9.

Leakey, M., 1971. Olduvai Gorge. In: Excavations in Bed I and II, 1960e1963, vol. 3.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Leakey, M.D., 1994. Olduvai Gorge. In: Excavations in Bed III, IV and the Masek Beds,1968e1971, vol. 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lee, H.W., 2001. The Palaeolithic Industries of Korea: Chronology and Related NewFindspots. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.).

Lepre, C.J., Roche, H., Kent, D.V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R.L., Brugal, J.P., Texier, P.J.,Lenoble, A., Feibel, C.S., 2011. An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature 10372doi:10.1038.

de Lumley, H., Beyene, Y., 2004. Les sites pr�ehistoriques de la r�egion de Fejej, Sud-Omo, Ethiopie, dans leur contexte stratigraphique et pal�eontologique. EditionsRecherche sur les civilisations. Association pour la diffusion de la pens�eefrançaise (ADPF), Paris.

de Lumley, H., Tianyuan, L., 2008. Le site de l’homme de Yunxian. CNRS Editions,Paris.

de Lumley, H., S�emah, F., Simanjutak, H.T., 1993. Les outils du Pith�ecanthrope. In:S�emah, F., Grimaud-Herv�e, D. (Eds.), Le Pith�ecanthrope de Java e a la d�ecouvertedu chaînon manquant, Les Dossiers de l'Arch�eologie, vol. 184, pp. 62e67.

Lycett, S.J., 2009. Understanding ancient hominin dispersals using artefactual data:a phylogeographic analysis of Acheulean handaxes. PLoS One 4 (10), e7404, 1e6.

Martínez-Navarro, B., Belmaker, M., Bar-Yosef, O., 2009. The large carnivores fromUbeidiya (early Pleistocene, Israel): biochronological and biogeographical im-plications. Journal of Human Evolution 56 (5), 514e524.

Martínez-Navarro, B., Belmaker, M., Bar-Yosef, O., 2012. The Bovid assemblage(Bovidae, Mammalia) from the Early Pleistocene site of Ubeidiya, Israel: bio-chronological and paleoecological implications for the fossil and lithic bearingstrata. Quaternary International 267, 78e97.

McPherron, S.P., Alemseged, Z., Marean, C.W., Wynn, J.G., Reed, D., Geraads, D.,Bobe, R., B�earat, H.A., 2010. Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption ofanimal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature 466,857e860.

Merrick, H.V., 1976. Recent archaeological research in the Plio-Pleistocene depositsof the Lower Omo, southwestern Ethiopia. In: Isaac, G.L., McCown, E.R. (Eds.),Human Origins: Louis Leakey and the East African Evidence. Staples Press,Menlo Park, California, pp. 461e482.

Merrick, H.V., de Heinzelin, J., Haeserts, P., Howell, F.C., 1973. Archaeological oc-currences of Early Pleistocene age from the Shungura Formation, Lower OmoValley, Ethiopia. Nature 242, 572e575.






























































































































































































































































Moncel, M.H., Despri�ee, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moreno, D., Bahain, J.J.,Courcimault, G., Falgu�eres, C., 2013. Early evidence of Acheulean settlement inNorthwestern Europe e La Noira Site, a 700 000 year-old occupation in thecenter of France. PLoS One 8 (11), e75529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075529.

de Mortillet, G., 1872. Classification des diverses p�eriodes de l'Age de la pierre. In:Congr�es international pr�ehistorique. Mat�eriaux pour l'Histoire primitive etnaturelle de l'Homme, huiti�eme ann�ee, 2� s�erie, T. 3, pp. 464e465.

Panger, M.A., Brooks, A.S., Richmond, B.G., Wood, B., 2002. Older than the Oldowan?Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use. Evolutionary Anthropology 11,235e245.

Pappu, S., Gunnell, Y., Akhilesh, K., Braucher, R., Taieb, M., Demory, F., Thouveny, N.,2011. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in South India. Science331, 1596e1599.

Piperno, M. (Ed.), 1999. ., Notarchirico: un sito del Pleistocene medio antico nelbacino di Venosa. Osanna, Venosa.

Piperno, G.M., 1974. First Approach to the Ecological and Cultural Significance of theEarly Paleolithic Occupation Site of Garba IV at Melka Kuntur�e (Ethiopia).Quaternaria XVIII, Rome, pp. 347e382.

Plummer, T., 2004. Flaked stones and old bones: biological and cultural evolution atthe dawn of technology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125,118e164.

Plummer, T., Bishop, L.C., Ditchfield, P., Hicks, J., 1999. Research on Late PlioceneOldowan sites at Kanjera South, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 36,151e170.

Plummer, T., Ferraro, J., Ditchfield, P., Bishop, L., Potts, R., 2001. Late Pliocene Old-owan excavations at Kanjera South, Kenya. Antiquity 75, 809e810.

Rendell, H., Dennell, R., Halim, M.A., 1989. Pleistocene and Palaeolithic In-vestigations in the Soan Valley, Northern Pakistan. In: British ArchaeologicalReports International Series. Oxford.

Roche, H., 2005. From simple flaking to shaping: stone knapping evolution amongearly hominins. In: Roux, V., Bril, B. (Eds.), Stone Knapping: the NecessaryConditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior. McDonald Institute for Archaeo-logical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 35e48.

Roche, H., 1996. Remarques sur les plus anciennes industries en Afrique et enEurope. In: Facchini, D. (Ed.), Lithic Industries, Language and Social Behaviour inthe First Human Forms, 13th International Congress of Prehistoric and Proto-historic Sciences, Colloquium 8, ABACO, Forli, pp. 55e68.

Roche, H., Tiercelin, J.J., 1977. D�ecouverte d’une industrie lithique ancienne in situdans la Formation du l'Hadar, Afar Central, �Ethiopie. Comptes Rendus Hebdo-madaires des S�eances de l'Acad�emie des Sciences 284, 1871e1874.

Roche, H., Delagnes, A., Brugal, J.P., Feibel, C., Kibunjia, M., Mourre, V., Texier, P.J.,1999. Early Hominid stone tool production and technical skill 2.34 Myr ago inWest Turkana, Kenya. Nature 399, 57e60.

Roche, H., Brugal, J.P., Delagnes, A., Feibel, C., Harmand, S., Kibunjia, M., Prat, S.,Texier, P.J., 2003. Les sites arch�eologiques plio-pl�eistoc�enes de la formation deNachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya : bilan synth�etique 1997e2001. ComptesRendus Palevol 2 (8), 663e673.

Sahnouni, M., 1998. The site of Ain Hanech revisited: new investigations at thisLower Pleistocene site in Northern Algeria. Journal of Archeological Science 25,1083e1101.

S�emah, F., S�emah, A.M., Djubiantono, T., Simanjuntak, H.T., 1992. Did they also makestone tools? Journal of Human Evolution 23, 439e446.

Semaw, S., 2000. The world's oldest stone artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: theirimplications for understanding stone technology and patterns of human evo-lution between 2.6e1.5 million years ago. Journal of Archaeological Science 27,1197e1214.

Semaw, S., 2005. Les plus anciens artefacts lithiques (2,6e2,5 millions d'ann�ees) dessites arch�eologiques du Plioc�ene final de EG-10 et EG-12 �a Gona Est, Afar,�Ethiopie. In: Sahnouni, M. (Ed.), Le Pal�eolithique en Afrique. L'histoire la pluslongue. Guides de la Pr�ehistoire mondiale, Collection Pal�eontologie humaine.�Editions Artcom', Errance, Paris, pp. 13e52.

Semaw, S., Renne, P., Harris, J.W.K., Feibel, C.S., Bernor, R.L., Fesseha, N., Mowbray, K.,1997. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature 385,333e336.

Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Quade, J., Renne, P.R., Butler, R.F., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M.,Stout, D., Hart, W.S., Pickering, T., Simpson, S.W., 2003. 2.6-million-year-oldstone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia.Journal of Human Evolution 45 (2), 169e177.

Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Stout, D., 2009a. Insights into Late Pliocene lithic assem-blage variability: the East Gona and Ounda Gona South Oldowan Archaeology(2,6 million years ago), Afar, Ethiopia. In: Schick, K., Toth, N. (Eds.), The Cutting


Edge: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Human Origins. Stone AgeInstitute Press, Indiana University, Indiana, pp. 211e246.

Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Stout, D., 2009b. The Oldowan-Acheulian transition: is therea ‘Developed Oldowan’? In: Cauhan, P., Camps, M. (Eds.), Sourcebook ofPaleolithic Transitions. Springer Press, pp. 173e193.

Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulian giant-core technology. A worldwide perspective. Cur-rent Anthropology 50 (3), 335e367.

Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Cultural conservatism andvariability in the Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. Journal of Hu-man Evolution 60, 387e397.

Shea, J., Bar-Yosef, O., 1999. Lithic assemblages from new (1988e1994) excavationsat ‘Ubeidiya: a preliminary report. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 28,5e20.

Stout, D., 2011. Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366 (1567), 1050e1059.

Stout, D., Quade, J., Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Levin, N.E., 2005. Raw material selec-tivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of HumanEvolution 48 (4), 365e380.

Stout, D., Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Cauche, D., 2010. Technological variation in theearliest Oldowan from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 58,474e491.

Sussman, R.L., 1991. Who made the Oldowan tools? Fossil evidence for toolbehaviour in Plio-Pleistocene hominids. Journal of Anthropological Research 47(2), 129e151.

Tchernov, E., 1992. The Afro-Arabian component in the Levantine mammalian faunae a short biogeographical review. Israel Journal of Zoology 38, 155e192.

Texier, P.J., 1995. The Oldowan assemblage from NY18 site at Nyabusosi (Toro-Uganda). Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences 320 (IIa), 647e653.

Texier, P.J., Roche, H., Harmand, S., 2006. Kokiselei 5, Formation de Nachukui, WestTurkana (Kenya): un t�emoignage de la variabilit�e ou de l’�evolution des com-portements techniques au Pl�eistoc�ene ancien?. In: XVe Congr�es de l'UISPP,(septembre 2001). Li�ege, pp. 11e22.

Tomasello, M., 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Toro-Moyano, I., Martínez-Navarro, Agustí, J. (Eds.), 2010. Ocupaciones Humanas enel Pleistoceno inferior y medio de la cuenca de Guadix-Baza Memoria Cientifica.Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura, E. P. G. Arqueología Monogr�afico.

Toro-Moyano, I., Martínez-Navarro, B., Agustí, J., Souday, C., Bermúdez deCastro, J.M., Martin�on-Torres, M., Fajardo, B., Duval, M., Falgu�eres, C., Oms, O.,Par�es, J.M., Anad�on, P., Juli�a, R., García-Aguilar, J.M., Moigne, A.M.,Espigares, M.P., Ros-Montoya, S., Palmqvist, P., 2013. The oldest human fossil inEurope, from Orce (Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 65 (1), 1e9.

de la Torre, I., 2004. Omo revisited: evaluating the technological skills of Pliocenehominids. Current Anthropology 45 (4), 439e465.

de la Torre, I., 2010. Insights on the technical competence of the Early Oldowan. In:Nowell, A., Davidson, I. (Eds.), Stone Tools and the Evolution of Human Cogni-tion. University Press of Colorado, pp. 45e65.

de la Torre, I., Mora, R., 2005. Technological Strategies in the Lower Pleistocene atOlduvai Beds I and II. In: ERAUL, vol. 112. Li�ege.

de la Torre, I., Mora, R., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Luque, L., de, Alcal�a, L., 2003. TheOldowan industry of Peninj and its bearing on the reconstruction of the tech-nological skills of Lower Pleistocene hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 44(2), 203e224.

de la Torre, I., 2011. The Early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) andthe developed Oldowan/early Acheulean in East Africa. Journal of HumanEvolution 60 (6), 768e812.

Vallverdú, J., Saladi�e, P., Rosas, A., Huguet, R., C�aceres, I., Mosquera, M., Garcia-Tabernero, A., Estalrrich, A., Lozano-Fern�andez, I., Pineda-Alcal�a, A.,Carrancho, �A., Villalaín, J.J., Bourl�es, D., Braucher, R., Lebatard, A., Vilalta, J.,Esteban-Nadal, M., Benn�asar, M.L., Bastir, M., L�opez-Polín, L., Oll�e, A., Verg�es, J.M.,Ros-Montoya, S., Martínez-Navarro, B., Garcia, A., Martinell, J., Exp�osito, I.,Burjachs, F., Agustí, J., Carbonell, E., 2014. Barranc de la Boella large cutting tools(LCT). PLoS One. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103634.g006.

Villmoare, B., Kimbel, W.H., Seyoum, C., Campisano, C.J., DiMaggio, E., Rowan, J.,Braun, D.R., Arrowsmith, J.R., Reed, K.E., 2015. Early Homo at 2.8 from Ledi-Geraru, Afar, Ethiopia. 2015. Science 347, 1352e1355.

Whiten, A., Hinde, R.A., Stringer, C.B., Laland, K.N., 2011. Culture Evolves. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Wood, B., Strait, D., 2004. Patterns of resource use in Early Homo and Paranthropus.Journal of Human Evolution 46, 119e162.

Zaidner, Y., 2013. Adaptive flexibility of oldowan hominins: secondary use of flakesat Bizat ruhama, Israel. PLoS One 8 (6), 66851.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075529

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075529














































































































































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103634.g006












Structural continuity and technological change in Lower Pleistocene toolkits

Documents

Transcript of Structural continuity and technological change in Lower Pleistocene toolkits