2019
DOI: 10.1007/s12520-019-00800-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Old stones’ song—second verse: use-wear analysis of rhyolite and fenetized andesite artifacts from the Oldowan lithic industry of Kanjera South, Kenya

Abstract: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
37
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
37
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Owing to their ubiquity in the archaeological record since 3.3 Myr (million years ago) (Harmand et al, 2015;Lewis and Harmand, 2016), stone tools have attracted much attention in studies of the technological changes associated with the evolution of members of our lineage. Despite use wear evidence for woodworking (Lemorini et al, 2014(Lemorini et al, , 2019 and bone cutting (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al, 2005), the latter likely resulting from butchery and carcass processing activities, it remains unclear how and when lithic and organic technologies integrated the technical system of our ancestors and how they co-evolved. The origin and early developments of organic technologies remains difficult to apprehend because of their perishable nature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Owing to their ubiquity in the archaeological record since 3.3 Myr (million years ago) (Harmand et al, 2015;Lewis and Harmand, 2016), stone tools have attracted much attention in studies of the technological changes associated with the evolution of members of our lineage. Despite use wear evidence for woodworking (Lemorini et al, 2014(Lemorini et al, , 2019 and bone cutting (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al, 2005), the latter likely resulting from butchery and carcass processing activities, it remains unclear how and when lithic and organic technologies integrated the technical system of our ancestors and how they co-evolved. The origin and early developments of organic technologies remains difficult to apprehend because of their perishable nature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earliest examples of osseous tools include bone digging implements from Southern Africa, an innovation attributed to Australopithecus robustus living in this region some 2.0-1.5 Myr ago as well as bone fragments bearing evidence of intentional flaking, battering and abrasion from Olduvai Beds I and II, East Africa, likely used by early members of our genus, Homo, in hide-working, butchery, digging, knapping, and hunting activities between ~1.8-1.0 Myr d'Errico, 2001, 2004;d'Errico and Backwell, 2009;Stammers et al, 2018; Archaeologists usually make a distinction between two main bone tool categories: formal tools, i.e., faunal remains formally shaped into specific tool type with manufacturing techniques specific to osseous materials, such as grinding, gouging, scraping, notching, incising, etc., and expedient tools, i.e., bone fragments bearing little or no modifications that were used as such (Klein, 2009;Kuhn, 2020). It is probable that activities attested since at least 2.6 Myr such as stone knapping, bone fracturing for marrow extraction (Madrigal and Blumenschine, 2000;Blumenschine and Pobiner, 2007), and woodworking (Lemorini et al, 2014(Lemorini et al, , 2019 have allowed early hominins to recognize the technological potential of discarded carcass processing remains and equipped them with a transferable skillset fit for the manufacture and utilization of osseous material. Through trials and errors, Palaeolithic hominins would have been able to observe how bone responded to static and dynamic loadings, and embody this knowledge for immediate or future or use (sensu Ingold, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unos años más tarde se decidió ampliar el estudio funcional de las piezas de este yacimiento focalizando la atención en dos materias primas diferentes a las ya analizadas con anterioridad: riolita y andesita fenetizada. La selección de las piezas y el método de estudio microscópico fue el mismo que en el caso anterior (Lemorini et al, 2009), aunque en este caso se señala que las piezas no fueron observadas directamente sino a través de moldes de silicona de los filos debido a las restricciones de exportación del material arqueológico (Lemorini et al, 2019). En este nuevo estudio se seleccionaron 39 piezas de riolita y 32 de andesita fenetizada.…”
Section: La Early Stone Age Africanaunclassified
“…Como se puede apreciar, y los propios investigadores señalan en su investigación, en las cuatro materias primas analizadas en sendos artículos (Lemorini et al, 2014; las actividades y materias utilizadas coinciden. Los autores del artículo sugieren la posibilidad de que en el yacimiento primaran las actividades de procesado herbáceo frente a las de consumo cárnico, así como resaltan el hecho de que los homínidos fueran capaces de fabricar palos para cavar y lanzas (Lemorini et al, 2019). Figura 3.12.…”
Section: La Early Stone Age Africanaunclassified
See 1 more Smart Citation