Stone Tools Shed Light on Early Human Migrations

Hominins with different toolmaking technologies coexisted

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The discovery of stone axes in the same sediment layer as cruder tools indicates that hominins with differing tool-making technologies may have coexisted.

The axes, found in Kenya by Christopher Lepre, a palaeontologist at Columbia University in New York, and his team are estimated to be around 1.76 million years old. That's 350,000 years older than any other complex tools yet discovered.

The finding, published August 31 in Nature, includes another important discovery: the hand axes, usually associated with the emergence around 1.5 million years ago of Homo erectus as the dominant hominin species, were found alongside primitive chopping tools that had already been in use for at least a million years.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"This supports the idea that the two earliest stone-tool manufacturing techniques and traditions were, at least sometimes, utilized contemporaneously," says palaeoanthropologist Briana Pobiner at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.

Chip off the old block
The hand axes, which have a distinctive, carefully made oval shape, are part of the Acheulian technology — those tools thought to have been developed around 1.6 million years ago. The more primitive tools, typically chunks of stone with crudely-chipped edges, belong to the earlier Oldowan toolkit. Because H. erectus is often associated with Acheulian tools, Lepre and his colleagues suggest that the hand axes they found might have been made by H. erectus, and the Oldowan tools by the less cognitively-capable Homo habilis.

The proposal could help clear up confusion over palaeontological observations of hominin departures from Africa. H. erectus is often thought to have been mentally and behaviourally most capable of migrating, but early fossil sites in Eurasia almost always reveal hominins with Oldowan toolkits, or no tools at all.

Lepre's findings indicate that multiple hominin groups with differing tool-making abilities could have dispersed to Eurasia, and that H. erectus either didn't go first, or didn't take Acheulian tools with them. "This really nicely explains the fossil sites that we have been finding in Georgia and the Far East that just don't have the Acheulian tools," says palaeoanthropologist James Adovasio at the Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute in Pennsylvania.

"From a stone-tool perspective, all the evidence points to the idea that Oldowan hominins were the first to leave Africa," says Lepre.

Which species is responsible for the spread of Oldowan tools is still open for speculation, however. "This does not necessarily point to Homo habilis, nor does it rule out the possibility that an Oldowan-using Homo erectus group might have been involved," Lepre says.

"It might have been that a single species was capable of making both kinds of tools but that factors like what raw materials were available and what tasks needed to be conducted with the tools governed which types of tools were made," says Pobiner.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on August 31, 2011.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe