Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature
  • Article
  • Published:

3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya

Naturevolume 521, pages310–315 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Human evolutionary scholars have long supposed that the earliest stone tools were made by the genusHomo and that this technological development was directly linked to climate change and the spread of savannah grasslands. New fieldwork in West Turkana, Kenya, has identified evidence of much earlier hominin technological behaviour. We report the discovery of Lomekwi 3, a 3.3-million-year-old archaeological site wherein situ stone artefacts occur in spatiotemporal association with Pliocene hominin fossils in a wooded palaeoenvironment. The Lomekwi 3 knappers, with a developing understanding of stone’s fracture properties, combined core reduction with battering activities. Given the implications of the Lomekwi 3 assemblage for models aiming to converge environmental change, hominin evolution and technological origins, we propose for it the name ‘Lomekwian’, which predates the Oldowan by 700,000 years and marks a new beginning to the known archaeological record.

This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Subscription info for Japanese customers

We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go tonatureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Geographic location of the LOM3 site.
Figure 2: LOM3 lithological context.
Figure 3: Chronostratigraphic framework for LOM3.
Figure 4: Photographs of selected LOM3 artefacts.
Figure 5: Photographs of selected LOM3 artefacts.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leakey, L. S. B., Tobias, P. V. & Napier, J. R. A new species of the genusHomo from Olduvai Gorge.Nature202, 7–9 (1964).

    Article CAS PubMed ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Harris, J. W. K. Cultural beginnings: Plio-Pleistocene archaeological occurrences from the Afar Rift, Ethiopia.Afr. Archaeol. Rev.1, 3–31 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Quinn, R. L. et al. Pedogenic carbonate stable isotopic evidence for wooded habitat preference of early Pleistocene tool makers in the Turkana Basin.J. Hum. Evol.65, 65–78 (2013).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bobe, R. & Behrensmeyer, A. K. The expansion of grassland ecosystems in Africa in relation to mammalian evolution and the origin of the genusHomo.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.207, 399–420 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Roche, H. & Tiercelin, J.-J. Découverte d’une industrie lithique anciennein situ dans la formation d'Hadar, Afar central, Ethiopie.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris D284, 1871–1874 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Semaw, S. et al. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia.Nature385, 333–336 (1997).

    Article CAS PubMed ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Prat, S. et al. First occurrence of earlyHomo in the Nachukui Formation (West Turkana, Kenya) at 2.3–2.4 Myr.J. Hum. Evol.49, 230–240 (2005).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kimbel, W. H. et al. Late PlioceneHomo and Oldowan tools from the Hadar formation (Kada Hadar member), Ethiopia.J. Hum. Evol.31, 549–561 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Antón, S. C., Potts, R. & Aiello, L. C. Evolution of earlyHomo: An integrated biological perspective.Science345, 1236828 (2014).

    Article PubMed CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Panger, M., Brooks, A. S., Richmond, B. G. & Wood, B. Older than the Oldowan? Rethinking the emergence of hominin tool use.Evol. Anthropol.11, 235–245 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roche, H., Blumenschine, R. J. & Shea, J. J. inThe First Humans — Origin and Early Evolution of the Genus Homo (eds Grine, F. E., Fleagle, J. G. & Leakey, R. E.) 135–147 (Springer, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Semaw, S. et al. 2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia.J. Hum. Evol.45, 169–177 (2003).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Campisano, C. J. Geological summary of the Busidima Formation (Plio-Pleistocene) at the Hadar paleoanthropological site, Afar Depression, Ethiopia.J. Hum. Evol.62, 338–352 (2012).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. de la Torre, I. Omo revisited: evaluating the technological skills of Pliocene hominids.Curr. Anthropol.45, 439–465 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roche, H. et al. Early hominid stone tool production and technical skill 2.34 Myr ago in West Turkana, Kenya.Nature399, 57–60 (1999).

    Article CAS PubMed ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Delagnes, A. & Roche, H. Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: the case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya.J. Hum. Evol.48, 435–472 (2005).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stout, D., Semaw, S., Rogers, M. J. & Cauche, D. Technological variation in the earliest Oldowan from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia.J. Hum. Evol.58, 474–491 (2010).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harmand, S. inInterdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan (eds Hovers, E. & Braun, D. R) 85–97 (Springer, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldman-Neuman, T. & Hovers, E. Raw material selectivity in Late Pliocene Oldowan sites in the Makaamitalu Basin, Hadar, Ethiopia.J. Hum. Evol.62, 353–366 (2012).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McPherron, S. P. et al. Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia.Nature466, 857–860 (2010).

    Article CAS ADS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mora, R. & de la Torre, I. Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania): implications for early human activities.J. Anthropol. Archaeol.24, 179–192 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Diez-Martín, F., Sánchez Yustos, P., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Mabulla, A. Z. P. & Barba, R. Were Olduvai hominins making butchering or battering tools? Analysis of a recently excavated lithic assemblage from BK (Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania).J. Anthropol. Archaeol.28, 274–289 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Blumenschine, R. J. & Selvaggio, M. M. Percussion marks on bone surfaces as a new diagnostic of hominid behaviour.Nature333, 763–765 (1988).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Marchant, L. & McGrew, W. inStone Knapping: the Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior (eds Roux, V. & Brill, B.) 341–350 (Cambridge McDonald Institute, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Carvalho, S., Cunha, E., Sousa, C. & Matsuzawa, T.Chaînes opératoires and resource-exploitation strategies in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) nut cracking.J. Hum. Evol.55, 148–163 (2008).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harris, J. M., Brown, F. H. & Leakey, M. G. Stratigraphy and paleontology of Pliocene and Pleistocene localities west of Lake Turkana, Kenya.Contr. Sci. Nat. Mus. Los Angeles399, 1–128 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leakey, M. G. et al. New hominin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages.Nature410, 433–440 (2001).

    Article CAS PubMed ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wood, B. & Leakey, M. G. The Omo-Turkana Basin fossil hominins and their contribution to our understanding of human evolution in Africa.Evol. Anthropol.20, 264–292 (2011).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McDougall, I. & Brown, F. H. Geochronology of the pre-KBS Tuff sequence, Turkana Basin.J. Geol. Soc. Lond.165, 549–562 (2008).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McDougall, I. et al. New single crystal40Ar/39Ar ages improve time scale for deposition of the Omo Group, Omo-Turkana Basin, East Africa.J. Geol. Soc. Lond.169, 213–226 (2012).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lourens, L. J., Hilgen, F. J., Laskar, J., Shackleton, N. J. & Wilson, D.The Neogene Period. A Geological Time Scale 2004 (eds Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G. & Smith, A. G.) 409–440 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cerling, T. E. et al. Woody cover and hominin environments in the past 6 million years.Nature476, 51–56 (2011).

    Article CAS PubMed ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Quade, J. et al. Paleoenvironments of the earliest stone toolmakers, Gona, Ethiopia.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.116, 1529–1544 (2004).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Crabtree, D. E. An introduction to flintworking. Part 1. An introduction to the technology of stone tools.Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum28, (Idaho State Univ. Museum, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mourre, V., Jarry, M., Colonge, D. & Lelouvier, L.-A. Le débitage sur enclume aux Bosses (Lamagdalaine, Lot, France).Paleo (special issue). 49–62 (2010).

  36. Diez-Martin, F. et al. New insights into hominin lithic activities at FLK North Bed I, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.Quat. Res.74, 376–387 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. de la Torre, I. & Mora, R. A technological analysis of non-flaked stone tools in Olduvai Beds I & II. Stressing the relevance of percussion activities in the African Lower Pleistocene.Paleo (special issue). 13–34 (2010).

  38. Alimen, M. H. Enclumes (percuteurs dormants) associées à l'Acheuléen supérieur de l'Ougartien (Oued Farès, Sahara occidental).Bull. Soc. Préhist. Fr.60, 43–47 (1963).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Leakey, M. D.Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3. Excavations in Beds I and II 1960–1963 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mercader, J. et al. 4,300-year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA104, 3043–3048 (2007).

    Article CAS ADS PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sakura, O. & Matsuzawa, T. Flexibility of wild chimpanzee nut-cracking behavior using stone hammers and anvils: an experimental analysis.Ethology87, 237–248 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Haslam, M. et al. Primate archaeology.Nature460, 339–344 (2009).

    Article CAS PubMed ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Visalberghi, E., Haslam, M., Spagnoletti, N. & Fragaszy, D. Use of stone hammer tools and anvils by bearded capuchin monkeys over time and space: construction of an archeological record of tool use.J. Archaeol. Sci.40, 3222–3232 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Matsuzawa, T. inGreat Ape Societies (eds McGrew, W. et al.) 196–209 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Leakey, L. S. B. inEssays Presented to C. G. Seligman (eds Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Firth, R. Malinowski, B. & Schapera, I.) 143–146 (K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1934).

    Google Scholar 

  46. de la Torre, I. The origins of stone tool technology in Africa: a historical perspective.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.366, 1028–1037 (2011).

    Article PubMed PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Shea, J. Lithic modes A-I: a new framework for describing global-scale variation in stone tool technology illustrated with evidence from the East Mediterranean Levant.J. Archaeol. Method Theory20, 151–186 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hovers, E. inOrigins of Human Innovation and Creativity (ed. Elias, S.) 51–68 (Elsevier, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Toth, N., Schick, K. & Semaw, S. inThe Oldowan: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age (eds Toth, N. & Schick, K. D.) 155–222 (Stone Age Institute Press, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Piperno, M. inHominidae: Proc. 2nd Intl Congr. Human Paleontol. 1987 189–195 (Jaca Books, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kirschvink, J. L. The least-squares line and plane and the analysis of palaeomagnetic data.Geophys. J. Int.62, 699–718 (1980).

    Article ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. White, F. The vegetation of Africa, a descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO vegetation map of Africa. UNESCO.Nat. Resour. Res.20, 1–356 (1983).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fox, D. L. & Koch, P. L. Carbon and oxygen isotopic variability in Neogene paleosol carbonates: constraints on the evolution of the C4-grasslands of the Great Plains, USA.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.207, 305–329 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Levin, N. E., Quade, J., Simpson, S. W., Semaw, S. & Rogers, M. J. Isotopic evidence for Plio-Pleistocene environmental change at Gona, Ethiopia.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.219, 93–110 (2004).

    Article CAS ADS  Google Scholar 

  55. Levin, N. E. Compilation of East Africa soil carbonate stable isotope data.Integrated Earth Data Applicationshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1594/IEDA/100231 (2013).

  56. Cerling, T. E., Bowman, J. R. & O’Neil, J. R. An isotopic study of a fluvial-lacustrine sequence: the Plio-Pleistocene Koobi Fora sequence, East Africa.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.63, 335–356 (1988).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Levin, N. E., Brown, F. H., Behrensmeyer, A. K., Bobe, R. & Cerling, T. E. Paleosol carbonates from the Omo Group: isotopic records of local and regional environmental change in East Africa.Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol.307 75–89 (2011)CrossRef.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wynn, J. G. Influence of Plio-Pleistocene aridification on human evolution: evidence from paleosols from the Turkana Basin, Kenya.Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.123, 106–118 (2004).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kingston, J. D.Stable isotopic evidence for hominid paleoenvironments in East Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univ. (1992).

  60. Aronson, J. L., Hailemichael, M. & Savin, S. M. Hominid environments at Hadar from paleosol studies in a framework of Ethiopian climate change.J. Hum. Evol.55, 532–550 (2008).

    Article PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wynn, J. G. et al. Geological and palaeontological context of a Pliocene juvenile hominin at Dikika, Ethiopia.Nature443, 332–336 (2006).

    Article CAS PubMed ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. Semaw, S., Rogers, M. J. & Stout, D. InThe Cutting Edge: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Human Origins (eds Schick, K. D. & Toth, N.) 211–246 (Stone Age Institute Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hovers, E. InThe Cutting Edge: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Human Origins (eds Schick, K. D. & Toth, N.) 137–150 (Stone Age Institute Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  64. de la Torre, I. & Mora, R.Technological Strategies in the Lower Pleistocene at Olduvai Beds I & II. ERAUL 112. (2005).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the office of the President of Kenya, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, the National Council for Science and Technology (NCST/RCD/12B/012/25) and the National Museums of Kenya for permission to conduct research. Funding was provided by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (N°681/DGM/ATT/RECH, N°986/DGM/DPR/PRG), the French National Research Agency (ANR-12-CULT-0006), theFondation Fyssen, the National Geographic Society (Expeditions Council #EC0569-12), the Rutgers University Research Council and Center for Human Evolutionary Studies, and INTM Indigo Group France. We thank the Turkana Basin Institute and Total Kenya Limited for logistical support and the GeoEye Foundation for satellite imagery; the Turkana communities from Nariokotome, Kokiselei and Katiko for field assistance, and the 2011-12 WTAP team, S. Kahinju, P. Egolan, L. P. Martin, D. Massika, B. K. Mulwa S. M. Musyoka, A. Mutisiya, J. Mwambua, F. M. Wambua, M. Terrade, A. Weiss, R. Benitez, S. Feibel. M. Leakey and F. Spoor supplied information on hominin fossils, and I. de la Torre and E. Hovers provided lithic assemblage data. We are very grateful to A. Brooks, I. de la Torre, J. Shea, R. Klein and M. Leakey for comments on earlier drafts. We also thank the Zoller & Fröhlich GmbH company, Ch. Fröhlich and M. Reinköster, Autodesk and Faro (T. O’Mahoney, K. Almeida Warren and T. Gichunge) for technical support with scanning and J. P. Chirey for photographic assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Turkana Basin Institute, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, 11794-4364, New York, USA

    Sonia Harmand, Jason E. Lewis & Louise Leakey

  2. CNRS, UMR 7055, Préhistoire et Technologie, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, 21 allée de l’Université, Nanterre Cedex, 92023, France

    Sonia Harmand, Adrian Arroyo, Nicholas Taylor & Hélène Roche

  3. West Turkana Archaeological Project, P.O. Box 40658-00100, Ngara Rd, Nairobi, Kenya

    Sonia Harmand, Jason E. Lewis, Craig S. Feibel, Christopher J. Lepre, Sandrine Prat, Arnaud Lenoble, Xavier Boës, Rhonda L. Quinn, Nicholas Taylor, Sophie Clément, Jean-Philip Brugal, Sammy Lokorodi, Christopher Kirwa & Hélène Roche

  4. Department of Anthropology and Center for Human Evolutionary Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 08901, New Jersey, USA

    Jason E. Lewis & Craig S. Feibel

  5. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, 08854, New Jersey, USA

    Craig S. Feibel, Christopher J. Lepre, Rhonda L. Quinn, Richard A. Mortlock, James D. Wright & Dennis V. Kent

  6. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, 10964, New York, USA

    Christopher J. Lepre & Dennis V. Kent

  7. CNRS, UPR 2147, Dynamique de l’Evolution Humaine, 44 rue de l’Amiral Mouchez, Paris, 75014, France

    Sandrine Prat & Xavier Boës

  8. CNRS, UMR 5199 PACEA, Université de Bordeaux, Pessac, 33615, France

    Arnaud Lenoble & Michel Brenet

  9. Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, Seton Hall University, South Orange, 07079, New Jersey, USA

    Rhonda L. Quinn

  10. Inrap, Centre Mixte de Recherche Archéologique, Domaine de Campagne, Campagne, 24620, France

    Michel Brenet

  11. Inrap, 34-36 avenue Paul-Vaillant Couturier, La Courneuve, 93120, France

    Sophie Clément

  12. IPHEP, Institut de Paléoprimatologie, Paléontologie Humaine: Évolution et Paléoenvironnements, CNRS, UMR 7262, Université de Poitiers, Bât. B35 – TSA 51106, 6 rue Michel Brunet, Poitiers Cedex 9, 86073, France

    Guillaume Daver

  13. Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, MCC, UMR 7269, LAMPEA, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2, 13094, France

    Jean-Philip Brugal

  14. Department of Earth Sciences, National Museums of Kenya, Archaeology Section, P.O. Box 40658-00100 Ngara Rd, Nairobi, Kenya

    Christopher Kirwa

Authors
  1. Sonia Harmand
  2. Jason E. Lewis
  3. Craig S. Feibel
  4. Christopher J. Lepre
  5. Sandrine Prat
  6. Arnaud Lenoble
  7. Xavier Boës
  8. Rhonda L. Quinn
  9. Michel Brenet
  10. Adrian Arroyo
  11. Nicholas Taylor
  12. Sophie Clément
  13. Guillaume Daver
  14. Jean-Philip Brugal
  15. Louise Leakey
  16. Richard A. Mortlock
  17. James D. Wright
  18. Sammy Lokorodi
  19. Christopher Kirwa
  20. Dennis V. Kent
  21. Hélène Roche

Contributions

S.H. and J.E.L. directed field research and co-wrote the overall paper. C.S.F., C.J.L., A.L. and X.B. recorded sedimentological and stratigraphic data, conducted geological mapping, and wrote sections of the paper. C.S.F. interpreted tephra data. C.J.L. interpreted paleomagnetic data. S.P., J.-Ph.B., S.L., C.K. and L.L. conducted paleontological survey. S.P., J.-Ph.B. and L.L. analysed and interpreted fossil material. L.L. directed scanning of artefacts. S.P. laser scanned artefacts and excavation surfaces, and wrote sections of the paper. R.L.Q. interpreted isotopic data and wrote sections of the paper. C.S.F., C.J.L., R.L.Q., R.A.M., J.D.W. and D.V.K. analysed geological samples. G.D. developed protocols for tool replication experiments and wrote sections of the paper. S.H., H.R., N.T., M.B., S.C., S.L. and C.K. conducted archaeological survey and excavation. S.H., H.R., A.A., N.T. and M.B. analysed and interpreted lithic material and wrote sections of the paper. M.B. performed lithic replication experiments. S.C. provided spatial data. S.L. discovered the LOM3 site.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toSonia Harmand orJason E. Lewis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Map and schematic section at LOM3.

a, Map showingxy coordinates of artefacts and fossils recoveredin situ and from the surface at the site in 2011 and 2012.b, Schematic section showing vertical distribution ofin situ artefacts and those located in the slope deposit at the excavation. Key is the same for both figures.

Extended Data Figure 2 Geology of the LOM3 site.

a, Stratigraphic sections around LOM3 (locations inb), showing relationship of site to marker tuffs and lithofacies. Sections aligned relative to top of flat-pebble conglomerate unit.b, GPS coordinates of stratigraphic sections (WGS84 datum).

Extended Data Figure 3 Paleomagnetic data.

a, Representative vector end-point plots of natural remanent magnetism thermal demagnetization data from specimen Toroto Tuff, tt2, wt59, wt50, wt45, wt36. Open and closed symbols represent the vertical and horizontal projections, respectively, in bedding coordinates. TD treatment steps: NRM, 100°, 150°, 200°, 250°, 300°, 350°, 400°, 450°, 475°, 500°, 525°, 550°, 575°, 600°, 625°, 650°, 660°, 670°, 675°, 680°, 690°, and 700°. V/M = 10 denotes a∼10 cc cubic specimen.b, Equal-area projections for Section 1 (left) and Section 2 (right) of the lower Lomekwi Member (seeFig. 3a). Open and closed symbols are projected onto the upper and lower hemisphere, respectively, in bedding coordinates. Plotted are ChRM sample-mean directions for accepted samples only (that is, those with MAD values <15°). Overall mean directions were calculated after inverting the northerly (normal) directions to common southerly (reverse) polarity.

Extended Data Figure 4 Paleoenvironmental reconstruction through pedogenic carbonate stable carbon isotopic analysis.

a, LOM3 paleosol δ13CVPDB values (‰) ± 1σ, number of analyses, fraction woody canopy cover (ƒwc) and percent C4 biomass contribution to soil CO2. Asterisk denotes nodules sampled at the LOM3 site, 2011-2b (seeExtended Data Fig. 2a).b, Schematic box and whisker plots of ƒwc from the LOM3 (3.3 Ma, this study) and Gona33,54,55 (Busidima Fm, 2.5–2.7 Ma) lithic sites and other East African hominin localities from 3.2–3.4 Ma34,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 relative to UNESCO structural categories of African vegetation32,52. Grey box denotes 25th and 75th percentiles (interquartile range); whiskers represent observations within upper and lower fences (1.5 × interquartile range); black line shows mean value; grey line equals median value; black circles indicate mild outliers.c, Summary statistics of paleosol δ13CVPDB values and ƒwc from LOM3 (3.3 Ma) and Gona33,54,55 (2.5–2.7 Ma) lithic sites and other East African hominin localities from 3.2–3.4 Ma54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61. LOM3 δ13CVPDB values are significantly lower than those from the Busidima Formation at Gona (t-test,P < 0.001) and have a mean value that indicate 18% more woody canopy cover. When compared to paleosol δ13CVPDB values of the Koobi Fora, Nachukui, Chemeron, and Hadar formations from 3.2 to 3.4 Ma, LOM3 δ13CVPDB values are not significantly different (one-way ANOVA,P > 0.05).

Extended Data Figure 5 Gradual uncovering of core I16-3 fromin situ pliocene sediment.

a, Photograph showing square I16 at the beginning of excavation. Yellow line indicates north wall of square (July 16, 2011, 12.14 p.m.).b, Close-up of square I16 indicating complete burial of as-yet-uncovered artefact I16-3 (12.14 p.m.).c, Square I16 after excavation had begun and artefact I16-3 was initially exposed (2:11 p.m.).d, Close-up of artefact I16-3 after being initially exposed (2.12 p.m.).e, Close-up of artefact I16-3 after further excavation (3.02 p.m.).f, Square I16 after further excavation (5.32 p.m.).g, Close-up of artefact I16-3 after further excavation (5.34 p.m.).h, Close-up of artefact I16-3 after being completely freed from the surrounding matrix and flipped over for inspection (5.36 p.m.).i, Close-up of impression from under artefact I16-3 (5.47 p.m.).

Extended Data Figure 6 Photos of selected LOM3 artefacts compared with similar experimental cores.

Together with the technological analysis of the archaeological material, our replication experiments suggest that the LOM3 knappers were using passive hammer technique, in which the core, usually held in both hands, is struck against a stationary object that serves as the percussor34 (also referred to as on-anvil, block on block orsur percuteur dormant35) and/or bipolar technique, in which the core is placed on an anvil and struck with a hammerstone34.a, Unifacial passive hammer cores. Left is archaeological piece LOM3-2012 surf 106 (2.04 kg); right is experimental piece Expe 55 (3.40 kg) produced using the passive hammer technique. Selection of relatively flat blocks with natural obtuse angles. The flake removal process starts from a slighly prominent part of the block (white arrows show the direction of removals). The removals tend to be invasive. The flaked surface forms a semi-abrupt angle with the platform surface. A slight rotation of the block ensures its semi-peripheral exploitation.b, Unifacial bipolar cores. Left are archaeological pieces LOM3-2012-H18-1 (left, 3.45 kg) and LOM3-2012 surf 64 (right, 2.58 kg); right are experimental pieces Expe 39 (left, 4.20 kg) and Expe 24 (right, 2.23 kg) produced using the bipolar technique. The block selected are thicker and more quadrangular in shape with natural angles ≈90°. Flakes are removed from a single secant platform (white arrows show the direction of removals). The flaked surface forms an abrupt angle with the other faces of the block. Impacts due to the contrecoups (white dots) are visible on the opposite edge from the platform.

Extended Data Figure 7 Photographs of selected LOM3 artefacts.

a, Passive element/anvil (LOM3-2012 surf 50,15 kg). Heavy sub-rectangular block displaying flat faces and therefore a natural morphology and weight which would enable stability.b, Hammerstone showing isolated impact points (LOM3-2012 surf 33, 3.09 kg) andc, Hammerstone showing isolated impact points (LOM3-2012 surf 54, 1.63 kg), associated with a flake-like fracture on one end.

Extended Data Table 1 Numerical data on the LOM3 lithic assemblage (2011, 2012).
Extended Data Table 2 Comparison of whole flake and core dimensions between LOM3, early Oldowan sites and chimpanzee stone tool sites
Extended Data Table 3 Comparison of anvils and percussors dimensions found at LOM3 site with anvils and percussors used by non-human primates in Bossou (wild chimpanzees,Pan troglodytes verus from ref.41)

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text, Supplementary Tables 1-3 and Supplementary References. (PDF 615 kb)

Rights and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harmand, S., Lewis, J., Feibel, C.et al. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya.Nature521, 310–315 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14464

Download citation

This article is cited by

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Editorial Summary

The dawn of technology just got earlier

When Louis Leakey and colleagues found stone tools associated with early human fossils (now accepted to be 1.8 million years old) at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania more than 50 years ago, it was assumed that tool-making was unique to our genus. Since then the antiquity of tool-making has gone ever deeper and less exclusively associated withHomo. For a while, the earliest-known sharp-edged stone tools, at around 2.6 million years old, have been from Ethiopia. Cut marks found on animal bones from Ethiopia dated to around 3.3 million years ago were — controversially — associated with tool use among non-human hominins. This earlier beginning to the archaeological record is now affirmed by the discovery reported by Sonia Harmandet al. of the Lomekwi 3 tools, dated to 3.3 million years old, about half a million years older than the current earliest known (2.8 million years old)Homo fossils, reported a few weeks ago. The new finds differ from the 'Oldowan' tools found at Olduvai and elsewhere, and may constitute a pre-Homo tool culture, which the authors suggest calling the 'Lomekwian'.

Associated content

Collection

100 years of Australopithecus

Collection

Human Evolution

Tools go back in time

  • Erella Hovers
NatureNews & Views

Advertisement

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for theNature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox.Sign up for Nature Briefing
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp