The Current Status of the Kenya Capsian

Abstract

East Africa is home to a rich array of stone-tool traditions that span human prehistory. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the region attracted pioneer prehistorians in the early twentieth century, including L. S. B. Leakey, E. J. Wayland and T. P. O’Brien, who created the first cultural framework for East African prehistory during the 1930s. Although aspects of this framework remain relevant today, others have become misunderstood relics of an old classification system that hinders current research. This is particularly evident in the classification of a Later Stone Age (LSA) culture – the Kenya (East African) Aurignacian, later known as Kenya (East African) Capsian. Although this cultural entity was redressed during the 1970s and 1980s and redefined as the Eburran industry, there is still mystique surrounding the current status of the Kenya Capsian, its original scope and definition, the relationship with the Eburran and its position within a modern understanding of the East African LSA. This is largely due to paradigmatic shifts in researcher attitudes, leading to the use of the Eburran as a false proxy. It is necessary now to completely remove the term Kenya Capsian as an indication of similarity among the different LSA technologies. However, there also needs to be less emphasis on the importance of the Eburran and recognition that it is just one example of a multitude of diverse localised LSA industries. This will open the way for future research into the LSA and facilitate our greater understanding of recent prehistory in East Africa.

Human burials at the Kisese II rockshelter, Tanzania

“…These analyses highlight variation in Late Pleistocene‐early Holocene humans and may indicate that LSA eastern African foragers possibly exhibited greater morphological variation relative to contemporary Africans. These results mirror high levels of material cultural variation observed among LSA sites and potentially support interpretations of increasing regionalization seen in the archeological record (for discussion, see Tryon & Faith, 2013; Tryon & Ranhorn, 2020; Wilshaw, 2016).…”

“…Continued exploration of Kisese II's archival and excavated materials will improve not only our understanding of the burials' archeological context at the site, but also regional variation in human morphology and behavior in eastern Africa among LSA sites. Future research that combines morphological data with other lines of evidence, such as regional differences in how stone or ceramic artifacts were made and used (Ashley & Grillo, 2015; Seitsonen et al, 2013; Wilshaw, 2016), patterns of long distance raw material exchange (e.g., Frahm & Tryon, 2018; Mehlman, 1989; Prendergast et al, 2013), burial practices, and aDNA recovery (Prendergast et al, 2019; Wang et al, 2020), has immense potential for reconstructing complex social interactions during this time in the African past.…”

Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania) biological affinity and intentional body modification

“…Furthermore, the OH1 mandibular metrics cluster with penecontemporaneous Later Stone Age humans from Ishango and Mumbwa, and distal humeral morphology follows the general pattern of Late Pleistocene humans (Crevecoeur et al, 2016). The presence of microlithic fragments found in potentially associated layers (Protsch, 1974) can be attributed to the temporospatially diverse Later Stone Age of East Africa, regardless of what "industry" or technocultural variant it was, or is currently, attributed to (Wilshaw, 2016). Thus, the skeletal morphology and artifacts associated with the skeleton provide support for a Late Pleistocene/Later Stone Age context for OH1.…”

Prospect Farm and the Middle and Later Stone Age Occupation of Mt. Eburru (Central Rift, Kenya) in an East African Context

“…These finds were initially classified as Lower Kenya Capsian, an East African LSA Industry defined in the first half of the 20th century (Cole 1954;Leakey 1947) for which Prospect Farm subsequently became one of the type sites. During a reassessment of the nomenclature used for the prehistory of the Nakuru-Naivasha region in the 1980's, the Lower Kenya Capsian finds from Prospect Farm were reassigned to phase II/III of the Eburran industry (Ambrose 1980(Ambrose , 1984Wilshaw 2016). Also known as the 'large blade Eburran', this phase is characterised by microliths with a mean length of 33-36 mm, end scrapers which are significantly larger than those occurring in the preceding Eburran phase, and prepared (microfaceted) platforms (Ambrose 1984;Wilshaw 2016).…”

“…Drawing largely on analogues with similar, already established, sequences in Europe and South Africa, he identified a succession of cultures and described their relation to each other. Even though this terminology and scheme has since been revised on multiple occasions (Ambrose 1980(Ambrose , 1984Clark 1954Clark , 1982Cole 1954;Wilshaw 2016), much of today's Middle Stone Age (MSA) and Later Stone Age (LSA) terminology cannot be understood in detail without awareness of this historical perspective.…”