Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cambridge Prisms: Extinction logoLink to Cambridge Prisms: Extinction
. 2025 Dec 19;4:e1. doi: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009

A continuous record of early human stone tool production

Alastair Key 1,✉, Eleanor M Williams 1
PMCID: PMC12800537  PMID: 41541546

Abstract

Early human cultural dynamics underpin the Plio-Pleistocene archaeological record and impact how we understand some of our earliest identifiable behaviours. One major outstanding question is whether Early Stone Age material culture represents a single lineage of cultural information, or did we ever lose the knowledge required to make stone tools? No single approach satisfactorily addresses this problem, but to date, objective analyses of temporal data have been absent from the conversation. Here, using a comprehensive database of dated African Oldowan archaeological sites, we demonstrate that there are no temporal breaks large enough, on a relative basis, to infer a loss of stone-tool-making cultural information. Therefore, alongside previously published data, we infer a continuous record of early human stone tool production in Africa from c. 3.3 to 1.5 million years ago. Stone tool-associated behavioural adaptations and evolutionary selective pressures were, therefore, likely to have been ever present during this period.

Keywords: Early Stone Age, Oldowan, temporal cohesion, cultural loss, convergent evolution

Impact statement

Flaked stone technologies revolutionised the hominin adaptive niche and provided significant selective pressures on human cognitive and anatomical evolution. We address three major questions regarding early human stone tools: Was their use, benefit and evolutionary influence constant before 1.5 million years ago (Ma)? Moreover, did we ever forget how to make stone tools, and can the Oldowan be considered a cohesive cultural tradition? Using a comprehensive sample of African Oldowan sites and frequentist statistical models, we demonstrate that there is no temporal evidence for a loss of stone-tool-making knowledge 3.3–1.5 Ma. Stone tools appear to have constantly benefited hominins during this period and provided an ever-present adaptive role, reinforcing their importance to the human story.

Introduction

Early Stone Age (ESA) cultural dynamics are (Lycett, 2013; Toth and Schick, 2018; Stout et al., 2019), and always have been (Leakey, 1971; Isaac, 1984), relatively poorly understood, yet they underpin the Plio-Pleistocene archaeological record and impact how we understand early human behaviour. Hampered by a sparse and coarsely dated artefact record limited almost entirely to stone tools (Isaac, 1972; Schick and Toth, 2006; Key and Proffitt, 2024; Finestone, 2025), archaeologists rely on technological and morphological similarities between temporally heterogeneous occurrences (de la Torre et al., 2003; Stout et al., 2010; Braun et al., 2019; Delagnes et al., 2023), or data derived from extant referents (Carvalho and McGrew, 2012; Stout et al., 2019; Eren et al., 2020; Bandini et al., 2022; Snyder et al., 2022; Clark, 2025), to infer cultural and behavioural links between populations. Neither approach satisfactorily addresses one of the most important outstanding questions concerning our earliest material culture: does it represent a single, braided lineage of cultural information passed on through generations over millions of years, or did we ever lose the knowledge required to make stone tools?

The Oldowan represents the earliest widespread human material culture (Toth and Schick, 2018; Plummer et al., 2023; Finestone, 2025) and the best candidate for identifying a potential episode of ESA cultural loss. Produced for 1.6–2.0 million years by (likely) more than one species of hominin with cognition, anatomy and diets mosaically (c.f., Kivell et al., 2023) adapted to retaining flaked stone tool material culture (Marzke, 2013; Antón et al., 2014; Shea, 2017; Lüdecke et al., 2018; Patterson et al., 2019; Bruner and Beaudet, 2023; Kivell et al., 2023; Plummer et al., 2023; Braun et al., 2025; Williams et al., 2025), the potential to lose lithic cultural knowledge could have been ever present. Climatic/ecological changes impacting adaptive strategies, insufficient population sizes for complex material culture or increased predation pressure altering relevant cost:benefit ratios are a few of many possible scenarios leading to cultural loss.

If Oldowan cultural information was ever lost, and a similar culture later re-emerged, this phenomenon could archaeologically manifest as an exceptional temporal gap between occurrences, a stark shift in spatial presence or a notable change in technological attributes. Here, following earlier investigations into the temporal-cohesion of the African Acheulean record (Key, 2022), and the Lomekwi 3 occurrence relative to Oldowan sites (Flicker and Key, 2023), we investigate the temporal cohesion of the Oldowan in Africa.

Methods

Ninety one reliably dated Oldowan occurrences are currently known in Africa (as described by Williams et al. [2025], updated to include Namorotukunan [Braun et al., 2025]; Figure 1). The central tendency ages of these sites range from 2.90 to 1.47 million years ago (Ma), but their upper and lower age-range thresholds cover 3.44–1.26 Ma. Those younger than c. 1.6 Ma are arguably contentiously assigned and are not considered here, following Williams et al. (2025). Occurrences are currently known from South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Algeria. Only four potential breaks in the Oldowan’s temporal record can be visually observed (Figure 1). A c. 125,000-year-long gap exists between the earliest currently known Oldowan occurrence, Nyanaga (Kenya), and the next earliest at Namorotukunan-1 in Ethiopia (Table 1). A c. 170,000-year gap then exists between the central age estimate of Namorotukunan-1 and the third-earliest Oldowan site, Ledi-Geraru (Ethiopia). Approximately 90,000 years separate Ain Boucherit in Algeria and A.L. 666 in the Hadar region of Ethiopia (Table 1). Finally, a c. 180,000-year-long break exists between Sterkfontein Member 5 (South Africa) and Beds KS1–3 at Kanjera South (Kenya) (Table 1). These breaks are hereafter referred to as the ‘Nyayanga’, ‘Namorotukunan’, ‘Ain Boucherit’ and ‘Sterkfontein’ temporal gaps, respectively. Otherwise, the Oldowan record is remarkably cohesive relative to the precision of current dating methods (Figure 1; Supplementary Information).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The temporal distribution of all known Oldowan sites in Africa (orange), the Lomekwi 3 site (purple) and early Acheulean sites in Africa (green) before its dispersal (e.g., Pappu et al., 2011) into Eurasia. All dated African archaeological sites before 1.5 million years ago are represented. All temporal gaps are highlighted, along with their associated results.

Table 1.

The 25 Oldowan occurrences used in the analyses, their temporal data and references for where these data were procured. ‘Test rank’ refers to the age ranking of sites after those with localised (<10 km) date-range overlap were removed, while ‘site rank’ refers to a site’s age ranking within the complete sample of 91 Oldowan occurrences. As the only site not described by Williams et al. (2025), it is worth highlighting that three Namorotukunan layers are described by Braun et al. (2025) but only two are included in the analyses. As the younger two layer’s date ranges are identical and there is potential for their ~2 m vertical separation to have accumulated more quickly than the assumed 140,000 years, and consistent with the sampling procedure described here, only the earlier of these two is included in the modelling.

Test rank Site rank Oldowan site Central date BP Date range BP References
1 1 Nyayanga NY–1 2,900,000 3,032,000–2,595,000 Plummer et al., 2023
Nyayanga Gap (c. 125,000 years)
2 2 Namorotukunan–1 2,750,000 3,440,000–2,610,000 Braun et al., 2025
Namorotukunan–1 Gap (c. 170,000 years)
3 3 Ledi-Geraru BD 1 2,581,000 2,610,000–2,581,000 Braun et al., 2019
4 4 Namorotukunan–2 2,580,000 2,610,000–2,137,000 Braun et al., 2025
5 5 Gona OGS–7 2,565,000 2,580,000–2,550,000 Semaw et al., 2003
6 15 Ain Boucherit AB-Lw 2,440,000 2,580,000–2,300,000 Sahnouni et al., 2018
Ain Boucherit Gap (c. 90,000 years)
7 16 Hadar A.L. 666 2,352,500 2,360,000–2,330,000 Kimbel et al., 1996; Goldman-Neuman and Hovers, 2012
8 18 Lokalalei LA1A 2,330,000 2,390,000–2,290,000 Tiercelin et al., 2010
9 20 Omo Shungura FtJi 1–3–4 Complex 2,329,000 2,334,000–2,324,000 McDougall and Brown, 2008
10 25 Omo Shungura 1/E–2 2,297,000 2,324,000–2,270,000 Maurin et al., 2017
11 28 Nasura NAS2 2,270,000 na Boës et al., 2024
12 29 Lokalalei 2C (+2A, 2D) 2,266,000 2,390,000–2,266,000 Delagnes and Roche, 2005; Tiercelin et al., 2010
13 30 Nasura NAS3 2,250,000 na Boës et al., 2024
14 31 Swartkrans Member 1 2,220,000 2,310,000–2,130,000 Kuman et al., 2021
15 32 Gona DAN–2 2,200,000 2,400,000–2,000,000 Stout et al., 2005; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2005
16 35 Sterkfontein Member 5 2,180,000 2,390,000–1,970,000 Granger et al., 2015
Sterkfontein Gap (c. 180,000 years)
17 36 Kanjera South (Beds KS1–3) 2,000,000 2,300,000–1,920,000 Ditchfield et al., 2019
18 37 Olduvai Gorge L.68 1,995,500 2,015,000–1,976,000 Stollhofen et al., 2021
19 38 Drimolen Main Quarry 1,995,000 2,040,000–1,950,000 Stammers et al., 2018
20 39 Gona OGS–3 1,950,000 2,200,000–1,700,000 Rogers et al., 2023
21 41 Ileret FwJj 20 (A 41) 1,950,000 na Braun et al., 2010
22 42 Fejej FJ–1a 1,950,000 1,980,000–1,920,000 Barsky et al., 2011
23 43 Ain Boucherit Ab-Up 1,920,000 1,970,000–1,850,000 Sahnouni et al., 2018
24 44 Konso KGA6-A1 1,910,000 1,940,000–1,880,000 Beyene et al., 2013
25 45 Kromdraai B 1,885,000 2,000,000–1,770,000 Braga and Thackerary 2016
26 46 Koobi Fora FxJj1 105 1,880,000 1,900,000–1,640,000 Isaac et al., 1997
27 49 Olduvai Gorge DK 1,864,000 1,880,000–1,848,000 Proffitt, 2018
Open in a new tab

We applied Solow and Smith’s (2005) surprise test to assess cohesion between an outlying temporal occurrence – in this case, the first or last Oldowan site before/after a temporal gap – and a larger sample of consecutive earlier or later occurrences, relative to the direction of the test. The method tests the null hypothesis that the outlying record ‘was generated by the same process’ that created the earlier or later records (Roberts et al., 2023: 464). Simply put, is the outlying record exceptional relative to the temporal distribution observed in the larger sample of values? Described widely elsewhere (e.g., Solow et al., 2006; Kjeldsen and Prosdocimi, 2016; Roberts et al., 2021; Key, 2022), the surprise test assumes the larger sample (k), against which the outlier is tested, represents the largest or smallest values from a larger distribution from the Gumbel domain of attraction. We refer the reader to these earlier studies for other model assumptions. Use of the Gumbel distribution is appropriate in light of the central ages displayed in the Oldowan sample (Table 1; Supplementary Information). Note that the date data fit a Weibull distribution, which in itself supports the presence of a continuous Oldowan record (Supplementary Information). First formulaically expressed in human origins research by Roberts et al. (2023), and copied here, Solow and Smith (2005) demonstrated the quantity,

graphic file with name S2755095825100090_eqnu1.jpg

has a β distribution with parameters 1 and k-1, so that the P-value corresponding to an observed value Sk is

graphic file with name S2755095825100090_eqnu2.jpg

First, the test was applied to the central age estimates. As all sites were required to represent independent cultural occurrences, if age-range overlap was identified or central ages were identical when age ranges did not exist, in sites located <10 km from each other (given Oldowan raw material transportation distances; Braun et al., 2008), all bar one was excluded, with preference for inclusion given to the earliest data point (Table 1). All sites in Table 1 contributed to one or more central-age models.

Given the temporal uncertainty associated with Oldowan occurrences, we also applied Roberts et al.’s (2023) resampling approach. We drew dates from a normal distribution within each site’s age range, where the standard deviation equalled half the difference between the central estimate and the range bounds, and then applied the surprise tests to these randomly generated datasets, repeating the procedure 5,000 times. The mean output of these iterations was used as the resampling result. Neither approach explicitly accounts for the date ranges independently attached to an occurrence’s upper or lower date-range limit. For example, Ar/Ar dating central tendencies may define the lower date threshold above an artefact’s sedimentary layer, but the Ar/Ar date itself has its own error range. Our resampling approach and the widespread use of paleomagnetism dating does, however, minimise the impact of this additional error range consideration on our results (Supplementary Information).

For both test versions, a k of 5 and 10 was used following Solow and Smith (2005). The Sterkfontein temporal gap analyses were run in both forward and reverse directions (Key, 2024). Forward models were not possible for the Nyananga and Namorotukunan temporal gaps, while only a k = 5 forward model was possible for the Ain Boucherit gap. Age-range data do not exist for some sites, meaning they could not equally be used during the resampling procedure. In these instances, k was maintained by using the central value date in place of the upper and lower ranges (i.e., effectively creating a resampling range of zero years). Analyses were undertaken in R version 4.3.2 using code available in Roberts et al. (2023).

Results

No significant results were returned across all models when α = .05, with p ≥ .0699 in all instances (Figure 1a and Table 2). Therefore, none of the investigated temporal gaps were large enough, relative to the temporal spacing of the Oldowan occurrences that preceded or followed them, to infer a loss of cultural information. The null hypothesis that all occurrences were produced by the same cultural process is accepted. Given distributions and cohesion in the rest of the record (Figure 1; Supplementary Information), there is no temporal evidence for a loss of stone tool making knowledge by Oldowan hominins.

Table 2.

Significance values using Solow and Smith’s (2005) surprise test when applied to the four temporal breaks visible in the Oldowan archaeological (α = .05).

Model version k Reverse p-value Forward p-value
Nyayanga Gap Central 5 0.5794 –
Resamp. 5 0.9346 –
Central 10 0.5628 –
Resamp. 10 1.0716 –
Namorotukunan Gap Central 5 0.5306 –
Resamp. 5 0.5622 –
Central 10 0.4160 –
Resamp. 10 0.4406 –
Ain Boucherit Gap Central 5 0.3710 .7447
Resamp. 5 0.3833 .8750
Central 10 0.4920 –
Resamp. 10 0.6467 –
Sterkfontein Gap Central 5 0.0699 .1526
Resamp. 5 0.5662 .5048
Central 10 0.1461 .2264
Resamp. 10 0.6303 .6974
Open in a new tab

Discussion

These data reveal no temporal evidence for a loss of stone tool making knowledge during the Oldowan. Early Homo, Paranthropus and potentially Australopithecus (Finestone, 2025; Williams et al., 2025) appear to have maintained Oldowan technology as a continuous lineage of cultural information, passed on through generations over an exceedingly long period. Not all species necessarily made lithic tools at all times, and this finding does not preclude cultural extirpation events, or non-stone-tool-making populations convergently emulating naturaliths (Eren et al., 2025) or inventing flake tools (Tennie et al., 2017). What it means is that subsequent to the emergence of Oldowan technologies c. 3.0–3.3 Ma (Plummer et al., 2023; Key and Proffitt, 2024), the cultural information linked to this initial event appears to have been maintained (‘copied’ [c.f., Stout et al., 2019]) as single tradition – if in variable forms and through a braided lineage, potentially with some dead ends – until bifacial core technological components emerged at c. 1.8 Ma (Lepre et al., 2011; Beyene et al., 2013).

Spatial mapping of Oldowan occurrences before and after the temporal gaps does not suggest a shift in the technology’s presence (Figure 2), further supporting the case for cultural persistence. Plummer et al. (2023) stress that Nyayanga expands the early Oldowan’s spatial range by 1,300 km to southern Kenya, but as a single site separated by a distance easily overcome by population dispersals across c. 125,000 years (especially as Nyayanga, Ledi-Geraru and later Namorotukunan layers feature similar mosaic, C4-dominated environments [DiMaggio et al., 2015; Plummer et al., 2023; Braun et al., 2025]), it is impossible to securely infer a spatial shift. Sites before and after the other temporal gaps are present in both eastern and southern Africa, with no clear differences in their spatial presence (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

A map depicting the Oldowan sites included in the models and the temporal gaps they are used to investigate. No clear spatial differences exist between sites dating before and after the 2.0–2.18 Ma temporal gap. Original satellite image credit: NASA Visible Earth Project.

Technological variation exists in the Oldowan record (Roche et al., 2018), but, at present, there are no marked shifts across these temporal gaps (Braun et al., 2019; Braun et al., 2025; Finestone, 2025). Nyayanga is technologically ‘similar to other Oldowan assemblages’ (Plummer et al., 2023: 563), including many of the early sites sampled here. Similarly, Namorotukunan ‘align[s] with the known Oldowan’; albeit more closely with earlier occurrences (Braun et al., 2025: 9). Across the temporal span of the Oldowan, technological outliers exist, bucking the expected trend of increasing complexity through time. Highly capable flaking is evidenced at 2.3 Ma at Lokalalei 2C (Delagnes and Roche, 2005) for example, while OGS-7 (2.56 Ma), which groups with Braun et al.’s (2019) more complex ‘late Oldowan’ occurrences (c. 1.6–1.7 Ma), also exhibits more complexity than expected (Semaw et al., 2003; Stout et al., 2010). However, those Oldowan sites before and after the Ain Boucherit and Sterkfontein temporal gaps can be considered similar. Technological and spatial data are therefore consistent with a continuous Oldowan record.

By failing to reject the null hypothesis, our results suggest the processes underpinning prolonged, widespread Oldowan stone tool production – most likely social learning mechanisms (Stout et al., 2019; Sterelny and Hiscock, 2024) – were continuously present across its artefactually evidenced 1.3 million years (Figure 1). That is, the social transmission of Oldowan cultural information appears to have proceeded uninterrupted through generations over an exceptionally long period (c.f., Lycett, 2013). Primate models, experimental data and artefactual (technological) similarities provide a robust foundation for such reasoning (Caruana et al., 2013; Morgan et al., 2015; Stout and Hecht, 2017; Stout et al., 2019; Koops et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2023; Sterelny and Hiscock, 2024; Braun et al., 2025). We can now add temporal data to the roster of evidence supporting the presence of a single, variable Oldowan cultural lineage across this extended period. Flake stone tools were, therefore, continuously valuable to populations (Shea, 2025) and provided pressure enough for some – be it whole populations or relatively few individuals – to have always found it beneficial to spend time and energy learning the technique. Future modelling/simulation efforts (e.g., Reeves et al., 2023; Cortell-Nicolau et al., 2025) could provide valuable information on the robustness of Oldowan social learning processes in the face of changing ecologies, population pressures and landscape variability.

Our results could also support the continuous presence of alternative mechanisms that explain the Oldowan’s persistence. Indeed, all our results do is demonstrate that whatever process was responsible for creating Oldowan artefacts, it would likely have been continually present throughout the period. Social learning processes are the most likely explanation, hence our use of the term ‘culture’ (Mesoudi, 2016), but it does not exclude the potential for other mechanisms, including the routine loss of technical knowledge followed by its independent reinvention (Tennie et al., 2017), to have created the Oldowan archaeological record. This is an important theoretical clarification less relevant for later stone technologies, which are (near) universally considered to have been socially maintained traditions (e.g., Lycett, 2013; Lycett et al., 2016; Shipton, 2019; Wilkins, 2020; Key, 2022).

The four investigated temporal gaps may wholly or partially be derived from dating technique limitations, meaning some assemblages were feasibly produced during the investigated gaps, further strengthening evidence of temporal cohesion. If present temporal data do meaningfully reflect Oldowan cultural dynamics, fewer sites may be evidence of smaller tool-producing populations (Figure 1). Evidence of tool-making continuity over c. 300,000 years at Namorotukunan (Ethiopia) – an Oldowan site with marked environment change across its artefact layers – supports our finding of ESA cultural robustness (Braun et al., 2025). Our results tally with Flicker and Key’s (2023) finding that, from a temporal perspective, the 3.3 Ma Lomekwi 3 (Kenya) stone tool occurrence should ‘currently be considered part of the same cultural process (i.e., not to result from technological convergence)’ as the Oldowan. Key (2022) similarly revealed the early Acheulean record of Africa to be temporally cohesive.

Combined with these prior studies, the present data evidence a continuous record of early human stone tool production in Africa from c. 3.3 to 1.5 Ma. ESA hominin adaptive strategies, therefore, appear to have continuously placed value on the use of stone tools (Shea, 2025). This value would have varied in time and space, but the costs (e.g., Torrence, 1989; Caruana, 2020) of producing and using these tools never wholly outweighed their benefits. Moreover, any influence exerted by stone tool production and use on hominin cognitive and anatomical evolution could have been ever present. All of these inferences are balanced against the coarseness of the archaeological record, but until additional site discoveries or dating method improvements suggest otherwise, the best-fit scenario for the ESA is one of cultural persistence.

Supporting information

Key and Williams supplementary material

Key and Williams supplementary material

S2755095825100090sup001.docx (24.5KB, docx)
DOI: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.sm001

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the co-authors of the Williams et al. (2025) article for assistance during the construction of the database. EW was supported by an ERC Advanced Grant (BICAEHFID, Grant Agreement: 832980) when the database was constructed.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2025.10009.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2025.10009.

Data availability statement

All required data for re-running the analyses are available here or in Williams et al. (2025). The relevant code is freely available in Roberts et al. (2023).

Author contribution

AK conceived the research and undertook the analyses. EW collated the database. Both authors wrote the manuscript.

Financial support

This work received no financial support.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

References

  1. Antón SC, Potts R and Aiello LC (2014) Evolution of early homo: An integrated biological perspective. Science 345(6192), 1236828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandini E, Harrison RA and Motes-Rodrigo A (2022) Examining the suitability of extant primates as models of hominin stone tool culture. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9, 74. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barsky D, Chapon-Sao C, Bahain JJ, Beyene Y, Cauche D, Celiberti V, Desclaux E, de Lumley H, de Lumley MA, Marchal F and Moulle PE (2011) The early Oldowan stone-tool assemblage from Fejej FJ-1A, Ethiopia. Journal of African Archaeology 9(2), 207–222. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beyene Y, Katoh S, WoldeGabriel G, Hart WK, Uto K, Sudo M, Kondo M, Hyodo M, Renne PR, Suwa G and Asfaw B (2013) The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 1584–1591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boes X, van Bocxlaer B, Prat S, Feibel C, Lewis J, Arrighi V, Taylor N and Harmand S (2024) Aridity, availability of drinking water and freshwater foods, and hominin and archeological sites during the Late Pliocene–Early Pleistocene in the western region of the Turkana Basin (Kenya): A review. Journal of Human Evolution 186, 103466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun DR, Aldeias V, Archer W, Arrowsmith JR, Baraki N, Campisano CJ, Deino AL, DiMaggio EN, Dupont-Nivet G, Engda B, Feary DA, Garello DI, Kerfelew Z, McPherron SP, Patterson DB, Reeves JS, Thompson JC and Reed KE (2019) Earliest known Oldowan artifacts at >2.58 ma from Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia, highlight early technological diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116, 11712–11717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun DR, Plummer T, Ditchfield P, Ferraro JV, Maina D, Bishop LC and Potts R (2008) Oldowan behavior and raw material transport: Perspectives from the Kanjera formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(8), 2329–2345. [Google Scholar]
  8. Braun DR, Rolier DVP, Advokaatm EL, Archer W, Baraki NG, Biernat MD, Beaudoin E, Behrensmeyer AK, Bobe R, Elmes K, Forrest F, Hammond AS, Jovane L, Kinyanjui RN, de Martini AP, Mason PRD, McGrosky A, Munga J, Ndiema EK, Pattersonm DB, Reeves JS, Roman DC, Sier MJ, Srivastava P, Tuosto K, Uno KT, Villasenor A, Wynn JG, Harris JWK and Carvalho S (2025) Early Oldowan technology thrived during Pliocene environmental change in the Turkana Basin, Kenya. Nature Communications 16, 9401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruner E and Beaudet A (2023) The brain of Homo habilis: Three decades of paleoneurology. Journal of Human Evolution 174, 103281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Braga J and Thackeray JF (2016) Kromdraai, a Birthplace of Paranthropus in the Cradle of Humankind. Johannesburg, South Africa: Sun Press, p. 113. [Google Scholar]
  11. Braun DR, Harris JW, Levin NE, McCoy JT, Herries AI, Bamford MK, Bishop LC, Richmond BG and Kibunjia M (2010) Early hominin diet included diverse terrestrial and aquatic animals 1.95 Ma in East Turkana, Kenya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(22), 10002–10007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Caruana MV (2020) Exploring the influence of predation risks on Oldowan tool use in South Africa. Journal of Field Archaeology 45(8), 608–620. [Google Scholar]
  13. Caruana MV, d’Errico F and Backwell L (2013) Early hominin social learning strategies underlying the use and production of bone and stone tools. In Sanz CM, Call J and Boesch C (eds.), Tool Use in Animals: Cognition and Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 242–285. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carvalho S and McGrew WC (2012) The origins of the Oldowan: Why chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) still are good models for technological evolution in Africa. In Dominguez-Rodrigo M (ed.), Stone Tools and Fossil Bones: Debates in the Archaeology of Human Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201–221. [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark J (2025) Assessing the role of early “large cutting tools” in flake production: An experimental comparison of early Acheulean handaxe and Oldowan core manufacture. Lithic Technology 50(2), 188–203. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cortell-Nicolau A, Rivas J, Crema ER, Shennan S, Garcia-Puchol O, Kolar J, Staniuk R and Timpson A (2025) Demographic interactions between the last hunter-gatherers and the first farmers. PNAS 122(14), e2416221122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ditchfield PW, Whitfield E, Vincent T, Plummer T, Braun D, Deino A, Hertel F, Oliver JS, Louys J and Bishop LC (2019) Geochronology and physical context of Oldowan site formation at Kanjera South, Kenya. Geological Magazine 156(7), 1190–1200. [Google Scholar]
  18. de la Torre I, Mora R, Dominguez-Rodrigo M, de Luque L and Alcala L (2003) The Oldowan industry of Peninj and its bearing on the reconstruction of the technological skills of lower Pleistocene hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 44(2), 203–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Delagnes A, Brenet M, Gravina B and Santos F (2023) Exploring the relative influence of raw materials, percussion techniques, and hominin skill levels on the diversity of the early Oldowan assemblages: Insights from the Shungura formation, lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia. PLoS One 18(4), e0283250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Delagnes A and Roche H (2005) Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: The case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 48(5), 435–472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. DiMaggio EN, Campisano CJ, Rowan J, Dupont-Nivet G, Deino AL, Bibi F, Lewis ME, Souron A, Garello D, Werdelin L, Reed KE and Arrowsmith JR (2015) Late Pliocene fossiliferous sedimentary record and the environmental context of early homo from Afar, Ethiopia. Science 347(6228), 1355–1359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dominguez-Rodrigo M, Pickering TR, Semaw S and Rogers MJ (2005) Cutmarked bones from Pliocene archaeological sites at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia: Implications for the function of the world’s oldest stone tools. Journal of Human Evolution 48(2), 109–121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Eren MI, Lycett SJ, Bebber MR, Key A, Buchanan B, Finestone E, Benson J, Biermann Gurbuz R, Cebeiro A, Garba R, Grunow A, Lovejoy CO, MacDonald D, Maletic E, Miller GL, Ortiz JD, Paige J, Pargeter J, Proffitt T, Raghanti MA, Riley T, Rose JI, Dinger DM and Walker RS (in press) What can lithics tell us about hominin technology’s ‘primordial soup’? An origin of stone knapping via the emulation of mother nature. Archaeometry. 10.1111/arcm.13075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Eren MI, Lycett SJ and Tomonaga M (2020) Underestimating Kanzi? Exploring Kanzi-Oldowan comparisons in light of recent human stone tool replication. Evolutionary Anthropology 29(6), 310–316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Finestone E (2025) Early stone tool technology in hominin evolution. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.637. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Flicker D and Key A (2023) Statistical assessment of the temporal and cultural relationship between the Lomekwian and Oldowan. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 48, 103834. [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldman-Neuman T and Hovers E (2012) Raw material selectivity in Late Pliocene Oldowan sites in the Makaamitalu Basin, Hadar Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 62(3), 353–366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Granger DE, Gibbon RJ, Kuman K, Clarke RJ, Bruxelles L and Caffee MW (2015) New cosmogenic burial ages for Sterkfontein member 2 Australopithecus and member 5 Oldowan. Nature 522(7554), 85–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Isaac G (1972) Chronology and the tempo of cultural change during the Plesitocene. In Bishop WW and Miller J (eds.), Calibration of Hominid Evolution. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, pp. 381–430. [Google Scholar]
  30. Isaac G (1984) The archaeology of human origins: Studies of th eLower Plesitocene in East Africa 1971-1981. In Wendorf F and Close A (eds.), Advances in Old World Archaeology, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–87. [Google Scholar]
  31. Isaac GLI and Isaac B (1997) Koobi Fora Research Project , Volume 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Key A (2022) The Acheulean is a temporally cohesive tradition. World Archaeology 54(3), 365–389. [Google Scholar]
  33. Key A (2024) Regional extinction(s) but continental persistence in European Acheulean culture. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction 2, e12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Key A and Proffitt T (2024) Revising the oldest Oldowan: Updated optimal linear estimation models and the impact of Nyayanga (Kenya). Journal of Human Evolution 186, 103468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kivell TL, Baraki N, Lockwood V, Williams-Hatala EM and Wood BA (2023) Form, function and evolution of the human hand. American Journal of Biological Anthropology 181(S76), 6–57. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kimbel WH, Walter RC, Johanson DC, Reed KE, Aronson JL, Assefa Z, Marean CW, Eck GG, Bobe R, Hovers E, Rak Y, Vondra C, Yemane T, York D, Chen Y, Evensen NM and Smith PE (1996) Late pliocene Homo and Oldowan tools from the Hadar Formation (Kada Hadar member), Ethiopia, Journal of Human Evolution 31, 549–561. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kjeldsen TR and Prosdocimi I (2016) Assessing the element of surprise of record-breaking flood events. Journal of Flood Risk Management 11(S1), S541–S553. [Google Scholar]
  38. Koops K, Soumah AG, van Leeuwen KL, Camara HD and Matsuzawa T (2022) Field experiments find no evidence that chimpanzee nut cracking can be independently innovated. Nature Human Behaviour 6, 487–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuman K, Granger DE, Gibbon RJ, Pickering TR, Carauna MV, Bruxelles L, Clarke RJ, Heaton JL, Stratford D and Brain CK (2021) A new absolute date from Swartkrans Cave for the oldest occurrences of Paranthropus robustus and Oldowan stone tools in South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 156, 103000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Leakey MD (1971) Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in Beds I & II 1960–1963. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lepre CJ, Roche H, Kent DV, Harmand S, Quinn RL, Brugal J-P, Texier P-J, Lenoble A and Feibel CS (2011) An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature 477, 82–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lüdecke T, Kullmer O, Wacker U, Sandrock O, Fiebig J, Schrenk F and Mulch A (2018) Dietary versatility of early Pleistocene hominins. PNAS 115(52), 13330–13335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lycett SJ (2013) Cultural transmission theory and fossil hominin behaviour: A discussion of epistemological and methodological strengths. In Ellen R, Lyceum SJ and Johns SJ (eds.), Understanding Cultural Transmission in Anthropology. Berghahn Book, Oxford, pp. 102–130. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N and Eren MI (2016) Levallois: Potential implications for learning and cultural transmission. Lithic Technology 41(1), 19–38. [Google Scholar]
  45. Marzke MW (2013) Tool making, hand morphology and fossil hominins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 368(1630), 20120414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Maurin T, Bertran P, Delagnes A and Boisserie JR (2017) Early hominin landscape use in the Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia: Insights from the taphonomical analysis of Oldowan occurrences in the Shungura Formation (Member F). Journal of Human Evolution 111, 33–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. McDougall IAN and Brown FH (2008) Geochronology of the pre-KBS tuff sequence, Omo Group, Turkana Basin. Journal of the Geological Society 165(2), 549–562. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mesoudi A (2016) Cultural evolution: A review of theory, findings and controversies. Evolutionary Biology 43, 481–497. [Google Scholar]
  49. Morgan TJH, Uomini NT, Rendell LE, Chouinard-Thuly L, Street SE, Lewis HM, Cross CP, Evans C, Kearney R, de la Torre I, Whiten A and Laland KN (2015) Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nature Communications 6, 6029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Pappu S, Gunnell Y, Akhilesh K, Braucher R, Taieb M, Demory F and Thouveny N (2011) Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in South India. Science 331(6024), 1596–1599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Patterson DB, Braun DR, Allen K, Barr WA, Behrensmeyer AK, Biernet M, Lehmann SB, Maddox T, Manthi FK, Merritt SR, Morris SE, O’Brien K, Reeves JS, Wood BA and Bobe R (2019) Comparative isotopic evidence from East Turkana supports a dietary shift within the genus homo. Nature Ecology and Evolution 3, 1048–1056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Plummer TW, Oliver JS, Finestone EM, Ditchfield PW, Bishop LC, Blumenthal SA, Lemorini C, Caricola I, Bailey SE, Herries AIR, Parkinson JA, Whitfiled W, Hertel F, Kinyanjui RN, Vincent J, Li Y, Louys J, Frost SR, Braun DR, Reeves JS, Early EDG, Onyango B, Lamela-Lopez R, Forrest FL, He H, Lane TP, Frouin M, Nomade S, Wilson EP, Bartilol SK, Rotich NK and Potts R (2023) Expanded geographic distribution and dietary strategies of the earliest Oldowan hominins and Paranthropus. Science, 379:561–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Proffitt T (2018) Is there a Developed Oldowan at Olduvai Gorge? A diachronic analysis of the Oldowan in Bed I and Lower-Middle Bed II at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 120, 92–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Reeves JS, Proffitt T, Almeida-Warren K and Luncz LV (2023) Modeling Oldowan tool transport from a primate perspective. Journal of Human Evolution 181, 103399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Roberts DL, Jarić II, Lycett SJ, Flicker D and Key A (2023) Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis are not temporally exceptional relative to Homo erectus. Journal of Quaternary Science 38(4), 463–470. [Google Scholar]
  56. Roberts DL, Rossman JS and Jarić I (2021) Dating first cases of COVID-19.PLoS. Pathogens 17(6), e1009620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Rogers MJ, Semaw S, Stinchcomb GE, Quade J, Levin NE and Cauche D (2023) Gona, Ethiopia. In: Beyin A, Wright DK, Wilkins J and Olszewski DI (eds.), Handbook of Pleistocene Archaeology of Africa: Hominin Behavior, Geography, and Chronology. Cham: Springer, pp. 353–372. [Google Scholar]
  58. Roche H, de la Torre I, Arroyo A, Brugal J-P and Harmand S (2018) Naiyena Engol 2 (West Turkana, Kenya): A case study on variability in the Oldowan. African Archaeological Review 35, 57–85. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sahnouni M, Pares JM, Duval M, Caceres I, Harichane Z, Van der Made J, Perez-Gonzalez A, Abdessadok S, Kandi N, Derradji A and Medig M (2018) 1.9-million-and 2.4-million-yearold artifacts and stone tool–cutmarked bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria. Science 362(6420), 1297–1301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Schick K and Toth N (2006) An overview of the Oldowan industrial complex: The sites and the nature of their evidence. In toth N and Schick K (eds.), The Oldowa: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age. Gosport: Stone Age Institute Press, pp. 3–43. [Google Scholar]
  61. Semaw S, Rogers MJ, Quade J, Renne PR, Butler RF, Dominguez-Rodrigo M, Stout D, Hart WS, Pickering T and Simpson SW (2003) 2.6-million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 45(2), 169–177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Shea JJ (2017) Occasional, obligatory, and habitual stone tool use in hominin evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 26(5), 200–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Shea JJ (in press) What do lithics tell us about how Pleistocene hominins survived? Archaeometry. 10.1111/arcm.70056. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Shipton C (2019) The evolution of social transmission in the Acheulean. In Overmann KA and Coolidge FL (eds.), Squeezing Minds from Stone Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 332–354. [Google Scholar]
  65. Snyder WD, Reeves JS and Tennie C (2022) Early knapping techniques do not necessitate cultural transmission. Science Advances 8(27), eabo2894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Solow AR, Kitchener AJ, Roberts DL and Birks JDS (2006) Rediscovery of the Scottish polecat, Mustela putorius: Survival or reintroduction? Biological Conservation 128, 574–575. [Google Scholar]
  67. Solow AR and Smith WK (2005) How surprising is a new record? The American Statistician 59(2), 153–155. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sterelny K and Hiscock P (2024) Cumulative culture, archaeology and the zone of latent solutions. Current Anthropology 65(1), 23–48. [Google Scholar]
  69. Stout D and Hecht EE (2017) Evolutionary neuroscience of cumulative culture. PNAS 114(30), 7861–7868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Stout D, Rogers MJ, Jaeggi AV and Semaw A (2019) Archaeology and the origins of human cumulative culture: A case study from the earliest Oldowan at Gona, Ethiopia. Current Anthropology 60(3), 309–340. [Google Scholar]
  71. Stout D, Semaw S, Rogers MJ and Cauche D (2010) Technological variation in the earliest Oldowan from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 58(6), 474–491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Stammers RC, Caruana MV and Herries AI (2018) The first bone tools from Kromdraai and stone tools from Drimolen, and the place of bone tools in the South African Earlier Stone Age. Quaternary International 495, 87–101. [Google Scholar]
  73. Stollhofen H, Stanistreet IG, Toth N, Schick KD, Rodriguez-Cintas A, Albert RM, Farrugia P, Njau JK, Pante MC, Herrmann EW, Ruck L, Bamford MK, Blumenschine RJ and Masao FT (2021) Olduvai’s oldest oldowan. Journal of Human Evolution 150, 102910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Stout D, Quade J, Semaw S, Rogers MJ and Levin NE (2005) Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 48(4), 365–380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Tennie C, Premo LS, Braun DR and McPherron SP (2017) Early stone tools and cultural transmission: Resetting the null hypothesis. Current Anthropology 58(5), 652–672. [Google Scholar]
  76. Tiercelin J-J, Schuster M, Roche H, Brugal J-P, Thuo P, Prat S, Harmand S, Davtian G, J-A Barrat and Bohn M (2010) New considerations on the stratigraphy and environmental context of the oldest (2.34 Ma) Lokalalei archaeological site complex of the Nachukui Formation, West Turkana, northern Kenya Rift. Journal of African Earth Sciences 58(2), 157–184. [Google Scholar]
  77. Torrence R (1989) Tools as optimal solutions. In Torrence R (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  78. Toth N and Schick K (2018) An overview of the cognitive implications of the Oldowan industrial complex. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 53(1), 3–39. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wilkins J (2020) Archaeological evidence for human social learning and sociality in the middle stone age of South Africa. In Deane-Drummond C and Fuentes A (eds.), Theology and Evolutionary Anthropology. London: Routledge, pp. 119–141. [Google Scholar]
  80. Williams EM, Key A, de la Torre I and Wood B (2025) Who made the Oldowan? Reviewing African hominin fossils and archaeological sites from 3.5 million years ago. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 79, 101704. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilson EP, Stout D, Liu C, Kilgore MB and Pargeter J (2023) Skill and core uniformity: An experiment with Oldowan-like flaking systems. Lithic Technology 48(4), 333–346. [Google Scholar]
Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.pr2

Review: A continuous record of early human stone tool production — R0/PR2

Stephen Shennan 1

The authors use a relatively straightforward method that they have used before in another context to show that two long apparent gaps in the temporal distribution of Oldowan assemblages from eastern and southern Africa are not surprising in the light of the known distribution of temporal gaps and should not be considered as evidence of a break in the Oldowan tradition. This seems convincing.

In the discussion they say, 'Not all species 149 necessarily made lithic tools at all times, and this finding does not preclude cultural extirpation 150 events, or non-stone-tool-making populations convergently emulating naturaliths (Eren et al., 151 2025) or inventing flake tools (Tennie et al., 2017). What it means is that subsequent to the

152 emergence of Oldowan technologies c. 3.0 - 3.3 Ma (Plummer et al., 2023; Key and Proffitt, 2024) 153 the cultural information linked to this initial event appears to have been maintained (‘copied’ [c.f., 154 Stout et al., 2019]) as single tradition – if in variable forms and through a braided lineage,'.

In the light of these relevant points, I would have liked to see more discussion of how the transmission and selection processes would have worked, given that we’re talking about ~700 generations and that populations must have been small. Maybe some suggestions for future simulation work to explore this?

155 potentially with some dead-ends – until bifacial core technological components emerge c.1.8 Ma

156 (Lepre et al., 2011; Beyene et al., 2013).

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.pr3

Review: A continuous record of early human stone tool production — R0/PR3

Steven Kuhn 1

The authors of this brief paper aim to address persistent questions about whether the similarity among Oldowan assemblages spanning >1 my represents continuity in cultural transmission, or whether there was loss and reinvention of “baseline” cultural behaviors relating to flaking stone tools. To do this, they analyze dates for all known Oldowan occurrences from East and South Africa, to look for gaps that might indicate that hominins had stopped making stone tools. Their main conclusion is that there is no evidence for any major gaps in dates of Oldowan assemblages. A statistical analysis (Solow and Smith’s “surprise test”) shows that one visually apparent gap is (2.0-2.18 my) is not actually beyond the bounds of expectation for random gaps in the age record, so does not necessarily represent evidence for a long period of discontinuity.

The authors’ conclusions are summed up in the following passage:

“These data reveal no temporal evidence for a loss of stone tool making knowledge during the Oldowan…. What it means is that subsequent to the emergence of Oldowan technologies c. 3.0 - 3.3 Ma (Plummer et al., 2023; Key and Proffitt, 2024) the cultural information linked to this initial event appears to have been maintained (‘copied’ [c.f., Stout et al., 2019]) as single tradition – if in variable forms and through a braided lineage, potentially with some dead-ends – until bifacial core technological components emerge c.1.8 Ma (Lepre et al., 2011; Beyene et al., 2013).”

There is a lot to like about this paper. The authors have made a concerted attempt to use available chronological information to test an interesting and potentially important hypothesis. As far as I can tell, they have been judicious and fair in deciding which cases to include or exclude. The methods applied seem appropriate. And their conclusions are plausible,

One minor question. For the analysis, the authors selected “…dates from a normal distribution within each site’s age-range, where the standard deviation equaled half the difference between the central estimate and the range bounds…”. In some of the cases, the sediments containing the archaeological materials are directly dated, but in most instances they are sandwiched between two dated layers (usually tephras). How did the authors deal with uncertainties of the age estimates from over- and underlying dated deposits? This is not a make-or-break issue. Including the extra uncertainties would almost certainly make it even harder to confirm significant gaps in the record.

While I appreciate the authors’ approach, I do not think that the statistical analysis actually justifies their conclusions. As they state “The method tests the null hypothesis that the outlying record “was generated by the same process” that created the earlier or later records (Roberts et al., 2023: 464). Simply, is the outlying record exceptional relative to the temporal distribution observed in the larger sample of values?”

The unanswered question is, what is this “same process”? From their concluding statement, the authors assume that the process was cultural transmission of some sort. However, their results cannot actually exclude the alternative hypothesis. The “same process” could be what Tennie and colleagues have proposed, repeated, short-term, loss (or abandonment) of technological knowledge, followed by re-invention, guided by fracture mechanics and environmental inheritance. The analyses can rule out temporal gaps on the order of 100’s of thousands of years, but shorter gaps, of a generation or two, or 50 for that matter, would be largely invisible given, the resolution of the dating.

In sum, this paper contains a useful and rigorous analysis of available chronological information about Oldowan sites in East and South Africa. It makes a strong case that there are no major gaps in the age distribution that might indicate rare and prolonged loss of tool making culture. Their conclusion that “… the cultural information linked to this initial event appears to have been maintained (‘copied’ [c.f., Stout et al., 2019]) as single tradition…)” remains plausible. On the other hand, the evidence and methods cannot exclude the alternative hypothesis, that loss and reinvention of technological knowledge were frequent and regular events, below the detection threshold of the available coarse-grained chronological information.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.pr4

Recommendation: A continuous record of early human stone tool production — R0/PR4

Editor: Todd Surovell1

Both reviewers are positive about the manuscript and have suggestions for minor revisions.  Reviewer 1 requests greater discussion of how cultural transmission would have operated in this system.  Reviewer 2 asks an important question about whether the model used to account for dating error is appropriate given the nature of age determination for Oldowan sites.  A second comment pertains to question of whether shorter time gaps could be present but undetectable.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.pr5

Decision: A continuous record of early human stone tool production — R0/PR5

Editor: John Alroy1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.pr7

Recommendation: A continuous record of early human stone tool production — R1/PR7

Editor: Todd Surovell1

Thank you for your careful consideration of the editors and reviewers comments. I am happy to accept the revised manuscript.

Camb Prism Extinct. doi: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.pr8

Decision: A continuous record of early human stone tool production — R1/PR8

Editor: John Alroy1

No accompanying comment.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Key and Williams supplementary material

    Key and Williams supplementary material

    S2755095825100090sup001.docx (24.5KB, docx)
    DOI: 10.1017/ext.2025.10009.sm001

    Data Availability Statement

    All required data for re-running the analyses are available here or in Williams et al. (2025). The relevant code is freely available in Roberts et al. (2023).

    Articles from Cambridge Prisms: Extinction are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

    RESOURCES