The Emergence of the Acheulean in East Africa and Beyond by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783319759852
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

6.2 The Oldowan–Acheulean Transition

Over the past fifty or so years, a large number of early Paleolithic sites, within the time interval between ~2.6 and 1.5 Ma, have been documented in much of East, North, and South Africa (e.g., Leakey 1971; Howell et al. 1987; Kimbel et al. 1996; Isaac and Harris 1997; Semaw et al. 1997, 2003, 2009a; de Heinzelin et al. 1999; Plummer et al. 1999; Roche et al. 1999; Chavaillon and Piperno 2004; de la Torre and Mora 2005, 2014; Boisserie et al. 2008; de la Torre et al. 2008, 2012; Delagnes et al. 2011; Lepre et al. 2011; Blumenschine et al. 2012; Beyene et al. 2013; Sahnouni et al. 2013a, b; Gallotti 2013; Diez-Martín et al. 2014, 2015; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2014; Granger et al. 2015, and references therein). However, the nature and characteristics of the archaeological transition from the Oldowan to the Acheulean, as well as the identity of the makers of the earliest Acheulean and contemporaneous Oldowan in East Africa, are still poorly understood. The remarkable work by Leakey (1971) could be singled out as the most seminal in attempting to show the behavioral evolution of Oldowan–Acheulean ancestors. Based on the materials she excavated at Olduvai, Leakey saw the “Developed Oldowan ” as an intermediary between the two stone industries. However, based on our current state of knowledge (with the ~1.75 Ma Konso and Kokiselei, and the 1.7 Ma FLK West discoveries), it appears that the earliest Acheulean was contemporaneous with, or actually preceded, Leakey’s Developed Oldowan (with the earliest such assemblages from Olduvai dated ~1.7 Ma), making this “artifact tradition” unlikely to have been the transitional phase toward the Acheulean (Stiles 1979; de la Torre and Mora 2005; see Semaw et al. 2009b for details).

Beyond questions related to changes in the artifact forms themselves, the question of why ancestral hominins began making purposefully shaped large cutting tools (LCTs) beginning ~1.75 Ma, is also poorly understood (Lepre et al. 2011; Beyene et al. 2013). Although the early Acheulean LCTs are labeled as handaxes, picks , and cleavers , archaeologists are still grappling with basic questions regarding their respective functions. Much of our knowledge of the function of the early Acheulean was primarily derived from experimental butchery studies (e.g., Schick and Toth 1993; Jones 1994). Earlier investigations on microwear studies have shown meat and plant processing on Karari implements dated to 1.5 Ma (Keeley and Toth 1981). Further, woodworking has been proposed based on phytoliths traced on LCTs excavated at Peninj , in Tanzania (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2001). However, exactly the sorts of woodworking /plant-processing activities accomplished either with the Karari or using these LCTs during the early Acheulean, and how these products were utilized, have yet to be unequivocally demonstrated based on the archaeological evidence. Advances in fat-residue and use-wear studies on late Acheulean bifaces and scrapers from Revadim in Israel have shown evidence of elephant butchery for meat (Solodenko et al. 2015).

A recent report from FLK West has provided spatially associated Acheulean stone assemblages and fauna suggesting exploitation of meat resources (Diez-Martín et al.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.