Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary Science Advances

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/quaternary-science-advances

Review

Sourcing Oldowan and Acheulean stone tools in Eastern Africa: Aims,

methods, challenges, and state of knowledge
Julien Favreau
Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L9, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Eastern Africa’s Plio-Pleistocene palaeoanthropological record has shaped our understanding of human biolog­
Oldowan ical and cultural evolution. Over the years, raw material sourcing has emerged as an important research topic in
Acheulean lithic analysis as it can allow for the identification of resource extraction points and transport distances as a
Raw material
means to infer other aspects of hominin behaviour that are of high evolutionary significance. The goal of this
Sourcing
article is to review and synthesise the aims, methods, challenges, and knowledge on raw material sourcing from
Provenance
Eastern Africa Plio-Pleistocene contexts in Eastern Africa. Beginning with a review of the Oldowan and Acheulean records, four
Plio-Pleistocene over-arching patterns are identified based on evidence from 130 localities. First, hominin toolmakers regularly
exerted selective criteria when choosing raw materials by way of opportunistic and more specialised procure­
ment strategies. Second, the fragmentation of technological activities across the palaeolandscape emerged as a
behavioural characteristic among Oldowan toolmakers before the first appearance datum of the Acheulean.
Third, hominins across Eastern Africa preferentially utilised igneous rock types followed by metamorphic and
sedimentary lithologies mirroring the regional lithostratigraphy. Finally, Acheulean toolmakers largely
mimicked their Oldowan counterparts in terms of raw material provisioning until the late Early Pleistocene,
when they began to engage in qualitatively different behaviour best evidenced by stone transport over longer
distances.
This state of archaeological knowledge serves as the basis to then review the theoretical and methodological
underpinnings of raw material sourcing followed by interpretive challenges. On a fundamental level, the iden­
tification of raw material sources is contingent on the implementation of a systematic sequence of analysis in
which the resulting data abide to the provenance postulate. This serves to preface a devoted section on the array
of analytical methods that can be successfully employed by archaeologists to source raw materials. Proven and
innovative methods are identified by bringing into dialogue key factors such as accuracy, precision, reproduc­
ibility, discriminatory power, sensitivity, destructiveness, throughput, cost, ease, and the question of spatial
scale. According to cost-benefit considerations, analytical methods that fall under the umbrella of geochemical
fingerprinting are found to generally outperform macroscopic and petrographic techniques. It is also argued that
characterising non-obsidian lithologies is best accomplished using more than one analytical method, with the
understanding that once positive baseline results are obtained subsequent testing can be narrowed down from a
methodological standpoint. Regardless of the characterisation method, it is imperative to implement effective
means to analyse the resulting data, which constitutes this article’s penultimate section. Ranging from traditional
graphical data representations to multivariate statistics and emerging branches of artificial intelligence, there are
countless means through which characteristic source signals can be identified regardless of rock type. The final
section reviews common interpretive challenges when studying raw material provisioning in deep time. While
the concepts of mobility, time-averaging, recycling, source differentiation, and selection criteria each present
unique challenges, it is argued that they can be reasonably overcome by way of multidisciplinary lines of evi­
dence. Ultimately, it is found that the future of raw material sourcing from Plio-Pleistocene contexts in Eastern
Africa is promising given what is currently known along with the subfield’s robust foundations.

E-mail address: favreaj@mcmaster.ca.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qsa.2022.100068
Received 16 October 2022; Received in revised form 14 December 2022; Accepted 19 December 2022
Available online 22 December 2022
2666-0334/© 2022 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Favreau
1. Introduction
Researchers have long attempted to identify the unique facets of
human evolution founded upon the analysis of hominin hard tissues,
stone artefacts, faunal remains, and trace fossils contextualised by
chronological and palaeoecological information. Based on the distribu­
tion of most first appearance datums in the Plio-Pleistocene palae­
oanthropological record, the Eastern African tropical zone likely
represents the centre of endemism of Oldowan and Acheulean tool­
makers (Foley, 2018). However, the palaeoanthropological record is
incomplete, palimpsestic, spatially biased, and imprecisely dated, which
warrants caution as to the accuracy of the foregoing, and any other,
evolutionary model (Bailey, 2007; Smith and Wood, 2017). From an
archaeological perspective, these limitations necessitate the thorough
examination of stone tools, which outnumber any other artefact type
due to their durability, using different theoretical and methodological
approaches to maximize their interpretive remit. One fundamental
approach to lithic analysis involves raw material sourcing, a process
typically achieved by matching stone tools with geological samples from
known areas, which can allow for the identification of resource extrac­
tion points and transport distances across palaeolandscapes to infer
other aspects of hominin behaviour (e.g. Carter, 2014; Moutsiou, 2014).
The probabilistic identification of raw material sources is contingent
on analytical data that abide to the provenance postulate in which inter-
source variation must be greater than intra-source variation (Weigand
et al., 1977). For this reason, archaeologists have invested considerable
efforts to provenance obsidian stone tools because the sources of this
raw material are far more homogeneous than other siliceous lithologies,
thereby allowing the establishment of characteristic fingerprints. How­
ever, there is only limited evidence for obsidian utilisation in Africa
predating the Middle Pleistocene (e.g. Gallotti and Mussi, 2015; Gowlett
and Crompton, 1994). In contrast, archaeologists have documented the
widespread use of quartz and quartzite by Oldowan and Acheulean
toolmakers during the Early and Middle Pleistocene across Eastern Af­
rica (e.g. Chavaillon, 1970; Leakey, 1971). However, far less energy has
been devoted to source these and other commonly exploited siliceous
raw materials under the assumption that they are unsourceable at any
given spatial scale for three principal reasons: (1) elevated silica con­
centrations can muffle out unique elemental patterns; (2) metamorphic
and sedimentary rocks generally display greater elemental variation
than volcanic lithologies; and (3) metamorphic and sedimentary out­
crops tend to cover larger areas than volcanoes and lava flows (Ebright,
1987; Favreau et al., 2020; Klein and Dutrow, 2008; Soto et al., 2020a).
One can also point to the palimpsestic nature of the palae­
oanthropological record as a contributing factor to the lack of systematic
raw material studies. Be that as it may, the dynamic geological history of
Eastern Africa led to the petrogenesis of various igneous, metamorphic,
and sedimentary rock types (Cahen et al., 1984), which have allowed for
revelatory insights into the behaviour of early hominins regarding stone
transport (e.g. Braun et al., 2008; Merrick et al., 1994). However, no
comprehensive reviews of this evidence have been undertaken to date,
which minimises our ability to better understand the adaptive signifi­
cance of lithic transport in evolutionary terms.
With this preface in mind, the goal of this article is to review and
synthesise the aims, methods, challenges, and knowledge concerning
raw material sourcing from Plio-Pleistocene archaeological contexts in
Eastern Africa. The first section comprises of a comprehensive review of
Oldowan and Acheulean raw material provisioning in Eastern Africa to
identify the state of knowledge and methodological trends. The
following section reviews the theoretical and methodological un­
derpinnings of raw material sourcing and delineates best practice
guidelines. The third and fourth sections review analytical methods used
for raw material sourcing and ways by which multivariate data can be
analysed, respectively. The final section reviews common interpretive
challenges when studying raw material provisioning in deep time.
Overall, this article highlights how stone tools struck from variable rock
2
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
types can be effectively sourced, which, when combined with multi­
disciplinary evidence, will allow researchers to garner the full potential
of the human evolutionary record.
2. Raw material provisioning in the Earlier Stone Age
The Earlier Stone Age (ESA) encompasses the Oldowan and Acheu­
lean industries, which emerged in Eastern Africa ~2.6 Ma and ~1.7 Ma,
respectively (Asfaw et al., 1992; Braun et al., 2019; Beyene et al., 2013;
Diez-Martín et al., 2015; Lepre et al., 2011; Semaw et al., 1997, 2003).
The Acheulean emerged parallel to the late Oldowan and represents the
most widespread and longest lasting cultural phenomenon on the globe,
persisting as late as ~160–154 ka in Eastern Africa (Kuman, 2014;
McBrearty, 2003). Many ESA site complexes are known for their vast
collections of stone artefacts that were deposited near lake and river
systems and are occasionally found alongside surface modified bones
related to anthropogenic behaviours (e.g. Diez-Martín et al., 2009;
Howell, 1961; Isaac and Isaac, 1997; Potts et al., 1999). From an arte­
factual perspective, Oldowan assemblages are defined by the presence of
hammerstones, cores, flakes, debris, and manuports, which may be
subdivided into several types according to the traditional typological
approach (Leakey, 1971) (Fig. 1). Acheulean assemblages also include
such artefact types but are primarily differentiated from the former
based on the presence of handaxes, cleavers, knives, and picks (Fig. 1)
that are collectively known as Large Cutting Tools (LCTs), which implies
the ability to detach large flakes and the more pronounced imposition of
form (Kuman, 2014).
From a behavioural standpoint, Acheulean sites can be differentiated
from most Oldowan sites based on their sheer size and artefact densities,
increased evidence for meat consumption, the sustained occupation of
strategic localities in more diverse palaeoecological settings, as well as
the greater reliance on distantly sourced raw materials (de la Torre,
2016; Kuman, 2014). However, the comprehensive review of evidence
for Oldowan and Acheulean raw material provisioning in Eastern Africa
(Tables 1–2; Figs. 2 and 3) indicates more similarities than differences
and four overarching patterns. First, ESA toolmakers usually selected
rock types according to one or more factors, including morphometric
characteristics, mechanical properties, functional suitability, and
site-to-source distances, by way of opportunistic and least-effort pro­
curement strategies to more specialised and energetically demanding
ones (e.g. Oldowan [Barsky et al., 2011; Braun et al., 2009a; Gold­
man-Neuman and Hovers, 2012; Gowlett et al., 2021; Harmand, 2009a;
Stout et al., 2005]; Acheulean [Harmand, 2009b; Sánchez-Yustos et al.,
2016; Merrick et al., 1994; Leakey et al., 1969; Howell et al., 1962]).
Second, the fragmentation of technological activities along the
palaeolandscape manifested itself before the first appearance datum of
the Acheulean evidenced by raw materials, compositions, and attributes
of some Oldowan assemblages, including, for example, Kanjera South
(Reeves et al., 2021), Ewass Oldupa (Cueva-Temprana et al., 2022), and
DK (Reti, 2016) (Fig. 2). Simply stated, Oldowan hominins regularly
curated stone tools when ranging from raw material sources to occu­
pation sites and beyond, thereby fragmenting their predominantly
flake-centred chaîne opératoire prior to the emergence of the Acheulean,
when two concurrent yet divergent chaînes opératoires began to exist side
by side. Importantly, the fragmentation of technological activities by
ESA toolmakers appears to have operated within a reduced spatial area
in comparison to Middle Stone Age groups (cf. McBrearty and Brooks,
2000; Moutsiou, 2014).
Third, early Oldowan hominins across Eastern Africa were frequently
selective of raw material characteristics but rarely transported stone
more than a few kilometres to their final discard locations (e.g. Braun
et al., 2019; Harmand, 2009a; Stout et al., 2005). This is also supported
by evidence from the ~2-million-year-old Oldowan sites in South Afri­
ca’s Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, including Swartkrans,
Sterkfontein, and Drimolen, in that raw materials were procured from
local sources through some degree of purposeful selection (e.g. Kuman,
J. Favreau
Fig. 1. Oldowan and Acheulean artefact types from Oldupai Gorge (Tanzania) according to the traditional typological approach. (a) Hammerstone. (b) Anvil. (c)
Manuport. (d) Side chopper. (e) End chopper. (f) Core scraper. (g) Spheroid. (h) Polyhedron. (i) Discoid. (j–k) Awl. (l) Bifacial point. (m) Laterally trimmed flake.
(n–o) Notch. (p–q) Scraper. (r–s) Burin. (t) Punch. (u) Pièce esquillée. (v–w) Handaxe. (x–y) Cleaver. (z) Pick. Modified after Leakey (1971, 1979).
1994; Kuman and Field, 2009; Kuman et al., 2018; Stammers et al.,
2018). Over time, hominin toolmakers in Eastern Africa began to exert
stricter stone selection criteria, which occasionally entailed raw material
transport from more distant sources peaking at ~13 km for the Oldowan
(Kanjera South) and ~60 km for the Acheulean (Isenya) (Figs. 2 and 3),
which constitute the longest verifiable distances for the ESA (Braun
et al., 2008; Merrick et al., 1994). However, the initial shift from Old­
owan to Acheulean toolmaking was not accompanied by more complex
raw material procurement strategies despite the greater technological
complexity inherent to the Acheulean. Instead, hominins placed more
emphasis on knapping bigger blanks to accommodate the production of
LCTs while continuing to manufacture smaller-sized core-flake in­
dustries, which does not necessarily imply a higher degree of complexity
nor longer transport distances as much as a shift in selective criteria. For
instance, all the early Acheulean sites in Ethiopia (Konso-Gardula, Melka
Wakena, Gona, Gadeb, and Melka Kunture) (see Beyene et al., 2013,
2015; de la Torre, 2011; Gallotti and Mussi, 2017; Gossa and Hovers,
2022; Mussi et al., 2021; Semaw et al., 2018, 2020), Kenya (West Tur­
kana, Chesowanja, Koobi Fora, and Kilombe) (see Bishop et al., 1975;
Gowlett et al., 1981; Harmand, 2009b; Hoare et al., 2021; Isaac and
Isaac, 1997; Presnyakova et al., 2018; Texier, 2018), and Tanzania
(Oldupai Gorge and Peninj) (see de la Torre et al., 2008; de la Torre and
Mora, 2018; Diez-Martín et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Hay, 1976; Leakey,
1971; McHenry and de la Torre, 2018; Stiles, 1998) (Fig. 3) indicate that
raw material provisioning operated within the kilometric range of the
Oldowan (Tables 1–2). It was only from the late Early Pleistocene (~1
Ma) onwards that hominins engaged in increasingly complex raw ma­
terial procurement strategies best evidenced by the sites of Isenya
(>0.974 Ma), Kariandusi Upper Site (~0.970–0.780 Ma), and Gombore
II OAM (~0.85 Ma) (Fig. 3), where maximum site-to-source distances
are registered at ~60 km, ~15–30 km, and ~15–20 km, respectively
(Gallotti and Mussi, 2017; Merrick et al., 1994). This higher degree of
complexity is also potentially represented by select evidence from
DE/89B (~0.970–0.900 Ma), B11-500 (~0.615 Ma), A(W)12–10
(~0.609 Ma), and D14-10 (~0.499 Ma) at Olorgesailie (Isaac, 1977;
Potts et al., 2018), the Kariandusi Lower Site (~0.970–0.780 Ma) near
Lake Elmenteita (Gowlett and Crompton, 1994), GqJh 1 (~0.988–0.982
Ma) at Kilombe (Gowlett, 1978), Locality 8E (>0.7 Ma) at Gadeb (Clark
and Kurashina, 1979), and Kaptabuya (~0.396–0.100 Ma) near Lake
Baringo (Merrick et al., 1994) (Fig. 3), but the relevant findings remain
to be definitively sourced and/or securely contextualised. Findings from
outside Eastern Africa equally attest to increasingly complex stone
3
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
provisioning strategies during the late Acheulean best evidenced by
cosmogenic beryllium values of flint artefacts from Qesem Cave (Isreal)
indicating that hominins exploited underground sources (Verri et al.,
2004, 2005). Overall, the bulk of the evidence currently indicates that
early Acheulean toolmakers across Eastern Africa largely followed the
practices of their Oldowan counterparts and only amplified their stone
provisioning behaviour into something qualitatively different beginning
in the late Early Pleistocene (~1 Ma). And as pointed out by others (e.g.
Carter, 2014; Féblot-Augustins, 1990), exotic raw materials from ESA
contexts are exceedingly rare. If taken further, this would suggest that
Oldowan and Acheulean toolmakers behaved differently than African
Middle Stone Age groups if lithic transport distances are understood to
reflect, among other things, the approximate foraging ranges and/or
social networks of prehistoric populations (see Brooks et al., 2018;
McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Moutsiou, 2014).
The final point is the fact that both Oldowan and Acheulean tool­
makers across Eastern Africa preferentially utilised igneous rock types,
with an emphasis on extrusive varieties, followed by metamorphic
rocks, and rarely on sedimentary lithologies (Tables 1–2). This can be
attributed to two factors, namely the lithostratigraphic succession of
geological events that led to the surficial configuration of raw material
sources available during the Plio-Pleistocene, and more pertinently, the
selection criteria employed by hominin toolmakers who apparently
preferred not to use sedimentary rocks due to their generally inferior
mechanical and/or functional properties relative to igneous and meta­
morphic rock types, albeit with some notable exceptions (e.g. Braun
et al., 2008, 2010; Roche et al., 1988; Stiles et al., 1974). However, not
every single extrusive igneous raw material was regularly used during
the ESA, as seen with the limited use of obsidian, only being recorded at
4/47 Oldowan sites (8.5%) (Table 1) and 22/83 Acheulean sites (26.5%)
(Table 2). When setting aside the exceptional case of Melka Kunture
(Figs. 2 and 3), where ten of the obsidian-bearing sites are located, this
figure drops to only 6.4% for the Oldowan and 15.7% for the Acheulean.
This pattern cannot be attributed to the lack of obsidian sources avail­
able during Oldowan and Acheulean times (see Brown et al., 2013;
Negash et al., 2020). Therefore, apart from Melka Kunture, alternative
plausible explanations include obsidian’s limited durability/functional
suitability, or limited artefact curation, hominin mobility, and
inter-group exchange networks.
Overall, four important patterns are identified: (1) Oldowan and
Acheulean toolmakers regularly exerted selective criteria when
choosing raw materials; (2) the spatio-temporal fragmentation of
J. Favreau Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068

Table 1
Eastern African Oldowan sites.
Site Age (Ma) Raw Materials Maximum Transport Distance Stratigraphic Unit/s Location Country

4
J. Favreau Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068

Table 2
Eastern African Acheulean sites.
Site Age (Ma) Raw Materials Maximum Transport Distance Stratigraphic Unit Location Country

5
J. Favreau
Site Age (Ma) Raw Materials
technological activities across the palaeolandscape emerged before the
first appearance datum of the Acheulean; (3) hominin toolmakers
preferentially utilised igneous rock types followed by metamorphic and
sedimentary lithologies mirroring Eastern Africa’s lithostratigraphic
sequence; and (4) Acheulean toolmakers largely mimicked their Old­
owan counterparts in terms of raw material provisioning until the late
Early Pleistocene, when they began to engage in qualitatively different
behaviour best evidenced by anthropogenic stone transport over
increasingly longer distances. Another informative pattern that emerges
from the foregoing review is that while macroscopic, petrographic, and
geochemical approaches have been implemented for raw material
6
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
Maximum Transport Distance Stratigraphic Unit Location Country
sourcing, few systematic studies have been performed such that there is
limited information to concretely sustain interpretations of lithic
transport from specific sources with a high degree of probability.
3. Theoretical and methodological framework of raw material
sourcing
Rocks used to manufacture artefacts are known as lithic raw mate­
rials, whose heterogenous spatial distribution in the form of sources
functioned as foci for hominin toolmakers according to the foregoing
section. From a theoretical perspective, raw material sources can be
J. Favreau
conceptualised as primary, secondary, or tertiary. Primary sources
consist of in situ outcrops such as volcanic centres and inselbergs,
whereas secondary sources refer to clusters of rocks such as gravel bars
and conglomerates redeposited through geomorphological processes
(Shackley, 1998, 2008). Tertiary sources or stone caches refer to focal
points on palaeolandscapes that contain anthropogenic accumulations
of unmodified stones or manuports (McHenry and de la Torre, 2018),
and their recognition in the archaeological record usually prompts the
interpretation that hominins provisioned localities with knappable
material with the forethought of reoccupation (Potts, 1988). Surface
artefact scatters can also function as a raw material source, whereby
after initial discard the artefactual by-products from any reduction stage
may be recycled and undergo additional use-lives (Shott, 1989). In
Plio-Pleistocene archaeology, stone tools are usually compared with raw
materials from primary and secondary sources based on macroscopic,
mineralogical, and geochemical observations with the overarching aim
of identifying from where and over what distances lithics were trans­
ported (Fig. 4). After accounting for raw material availability, abun­
dance, extractive costs, energetics, and/or workability, among other
factors (see Browne and Wilson, 2011; Wilson, 2007), the probabilistic
identification of sources and transport distances can serve as the foun­
dation to infer other facets of hominin behaviour, including, for
example, embedded procurement, foraging ranges, social connectivity,
and language abilities (Carter, 2014; Frahm et al., 2016, 2020; Marwick,
2003; Moutsiou, 2014).
Whether geological specimens and stone tools are characterised with
the naked eye, the petrographic microscope, or an instrument designed
to identify geochemical concentrations, raw material sourcing is based
on the provenance postulate in which intra-source variation must be
7
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
Fig. 2. Eastern African Oldowan sites. (1) Bokol Dora
1. (2) EG-10. (3) EG-12. (4) EG-13. (5) OGS-6a. (6)
OGS-7. (7) DAN-1. (8) DAS-7. (9) DAN-2d. (10) Bouri.
(11) A.L. 894. (12) A.L. 666. (13) FtJi 1. (14) FtJi 2.
(15) FtJi 3. (16) FtJi 5. (17) Omo 1/E. (18) Omo 57.
(19) Omo 79. (20) Omo 123. (21) FJ-1A. (22) Garba
IVE-F. (23) Lokalalei 1. (24) Lokalalei 2C. (25) Koki­
selei 5. (26) Kokiselei 6. (27) Naiyena Engol 2. (28)
Kanjera South. (29) FwJj 20. (30) FxJj 1. (31) FxJj 3.
(32) FxJj 10. (33) FxJj 82. (34) GqJh 12A. (35) GqJh
12B. (36) GqJh 12C. (37) GqJh 13A. (38) GnJi 1. (39)
GnJi 2. (40) Ewass Oldupa. (41) Trench 168. (42) DK.
(43) FLK NN. (44) FLK Zinj. (45) DS. (46) HWK E. (47)
HWK EE.
smaller than inter-source variation (Weigand et al., 1977). If this
postulate is not supported by analytical data, then the units of analysis
(e.g. Munsell colours, modal mineralogies, elemental profiles, and/or
isotopic ratios) may be described as conceptually invalid. Analytical
data may also be assessed through the lens of three additional concepts,
namely accuracy (quantitative validity), precision (repeatability), and
reproducibility (reliability) (Frahm, 2012). Accuracy can be defined as
the degree to which a value is close to the truth or to an internationally
recognised value. Precision refers to the degree to which different values
obtained under identical conditions are in close fit. Reproducibility
describes the extent to which different values obtained under different
conditions are in close fit (Frahm, 2012). Overall, researchers are
encouraged to diligently contemplate the aforementioned concepts with
regards to sources and analytical data, and execute the following
sequence of analysis when designing a raw material characterisation
project (Basu et al., 2016; Beller et al., 2016; Church, 1994; Garzanti,
2016; Glascock et al., 1998; Glascock and Neff, 2003; Henderson, 2000;
Kooyman, 2000; McHenry and de la Torre, 2018; Shackley, 1998, 2008;
Shotton and Hendry, 1979; Sunyer et al., 2017; Weigand et al., 1977):
1. Establish a geological reference collection for the study area by
sampling the macroscopic variability, and the vertical and lateral
extents of sources to document the complete intra-/inter-source
variation at high spatial resolution. This sampling and mapping
strategy cannot account for primary/secondary sources that may
have been exhausted by anthropogenic behaviour (e.g. quarrying) or
lost/buried by natural processes. Since sedimentary strata may not
reveal the complete array of sources, stone artefacts can complement
the geological reference collection, and even help to identify source
J. Favreau
Fig. 4. (a–d) Graphical representation of the raw material characterisation process based on hypothetical discriminatory observations to identify lithic transport
from primary sources assuming that geological processes did not redistribute rocks across the palaeolandscape. (d) Dashed lines represent a radiating resource
provisioning strategy for heuristic purposes.
subgroups and/or undocumented sources. Before sampling, existing
geological data can be tested to establish proof of concept.
2. Model the spatio-temporal availability of sources because past
geological, geomorphological, and anthropogenic processes were
variable across time and space. For example, the earlier a primary
source became available the greater the probability that
8
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
Fig. 3. Eastern African Acheulean sites. (1) KGA6-A1.
(2) KGA4-A2. (3) KGA10-A11. (4) KGA10-A6. (5)
KGA7-A1. (6) KGA7-A3. (7) KGA7-A2. (8) KGA8-A1.
(9) KGA12-A1. (10) KGA18-A1. (11) KGA20-A1.
(12) KGA20-A2. (13) MW2. (14) MW5. (15) MW1.
(16) DAN-5. (17) OGS-12. (18) BSN-12. (19) Gadeb
2A, 2B, 2C, 2E. (20) Gadeb 8A, 8D, 8E. (21) Gombore
IB. (22) Garba IVD. (23) Gombore Iγ. (24) Gombore
Iδ. (25) Gombore II OAM Test Pit C. (26) Garba XIIJ.
(27) Garba XIIIB. (28) Simbiro III. (29) Gombore II
OAM. (30) Garba IB. (31) Kokiselei 4. (32) GnJi 10.
(33) FxJj 21. (34) FxJj 37. (35) FxJj 63. (36) FxJj 65.
(37) Isenya. (38) Kariandusi Upper Site. (39) Kar­
iandusi Lower Site. (40) GqJh 15A. (41) GqJh 1. (42)
DE/89B. (43) B11-500. (44) A(W)12–10. (45) D14-10.
(46) GnJh 10 (Leakey Hominid Site). (47) GnJh 17
(Kapthurin C). (48) GnJh 02 (Leakey Handaxe Area).
(49). GnJh 03 (Leakey Handaxe Rectangle). (50) GnJh
15 (Kapthurin A). (51) GnJi 28 (Rorop Lingop). (52)
GnJh 13 (Leakey Factory Site). (53) GnJi 16 (Kapta­
buya). (54) Lewa Downs. (55) FLK West. (56) EF-HR.
(57) TK. (58) BK. (59) BK East. (60) ST Site Complex.
(61) ES2-Lepolosi (MHS-Bayasi). (62) EN1-Noolchalai
(RHS-Mugulud). (63) South Pit. (64) H21. (65) H20.
(66) G23. (67) G17 and G18. (68) H15. (69) K13 and
K14. (70) K18. (71) K19. (72) J12. (73) K10. (74) K6.
(75) Lower J6-J7 and Upper J6-J7. (76) H9-J8. (77)
KK 51. (78) Mieso 7. (79) Mieso 31. (80) MK 4. (81)
MK 91. (82) MK 101. (83) MK 123.
geomorphological processes redeposited rocks on a broader spatial
extent. In this regard, modern analogues and geospatial modelling
can, to a variable degree, offer valuable insights into localised rock
cycles, source-to-sink processes, and hydraulic sorting, among other
things.
J. Favreau Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068

3. Characterise the geological reference collection for proof of concept,

ideally in a non-destructive manner, and report baseline results. If
successful, repeat the characterisation method for stone artefacts for
systematic archaeological testing.
4. Analyse geological samples and stone artefacts more than once,
ideally on fresh and smooth surfaces, because they can exhibit
variation due to mineralogical/elemental concentrations (i.e. nugget
effect) and surface roughness can impact analytical readings,
respectively.
5. Evaluate geological samples and stone artefacts for physical,
mineralogical, and/or geochemical alterations because they can
distort the source signal. For instance, physical processes can nega­
tively affect less durable minerals and rocks, while geochemical
processes such as authigenesis (i.e. in situ formation of minerals) and
post-depositional leaching can lead to incompatible geological
reference collections and lithic assemblages.

4. Analytical methods for raw material sourcing

While the provenance of minerals and rocks was featured among

ancient textual sources (Rapp, 2009), the concept of raw material
sourcing can be traced back to the European antiquarian William Dug­
dale (1656:778), who suggested that a Neolithic axe from southern
England was not manufactured from local flint on the basis of macro­
scopic characteristics. In the following century, William Stukeley
(1740:5) described the mineralogy of a monolith sample from Stone­
henge (England) and ascribed its possible source. Across the nineteenth
century, other scholars such as Friedemann Göbel (1842), Johann
Erasmus Wocel (1854), Augustin Damour (1866), and Otto Helm (1886)
expanded upon the concept of sourcing on a range of artefactual mate­
rials (Pollard et al., 2014). However, it was not until the twentieth
century that empirical approaches for raw material sourcing were
established following the petrographic studies carried out by Herbert
Henry Thomas (1923) at Stonehenge (Shotton and Hendry, 1979), and
the creation of comprehensive geological reference collections (e.g.
Cogné and Giot, 1952; Keiller et al., 1941).
Across the second half of the twentieth century, the discipline of
archaeology witnessed profound theoretical and methodological de­
velopments, including the emergence of processualism that emphasised
adherence to the scientific method (Reimer, 2018; Trigger, 2006). With
regards to methodological advancements for artefact sourcing, the
pene-contemporary development of X-ray spectroscopy led to some of
the earliest publications on obsidian geochemical sourcing (e.g. Heizer
et al., 1965; Parks and Tieh, 1966; Weaver and Stross, 1965). In a similar
fashion, the refinement of neutron activation analysis in concert with
the construction of nuclear reactors across the 1950–1960s allowed for
increasingly precise compositional testing (Glascock and Neff, 2003).
Over the past decades, several other impactful analytical techniques
have been implemented to source artefactual materials (e.g. Agha-Aligol
et al., 2015; Cann and Renfrew, 1964; Chataigner et al., 2003; Gale,
1981; Kasztovszky et al., 2008; Legg et al., 2020; Merrick and Brown,
1984; Parish et al., 2013; Redmount and Morgenstein, 1996; Sciuto
et al., 2019).
Notwithstanding the sustained methodological advancements, the
probabilistic identification of sources is contingent on analytical data
that abide to the provenance postulate in which inter-source variation
must be greater than intra-source variation (Weigand et al., 1977).
Moreover, the selection, implementation, and merit of analytical
methods hinges on their accuracy (quantitative validity), precision
(repeatability), reproducibility (reliability), discriminatory power
(conceptual validity), sensitivity, destructiveness, throughput, cost,
ease, and the question of spatial scale (Frahm, 2012, 2013; Garrison,
2003; Hancock and Carter, 2010; Wadley and Kempson, 2011) (Fig. 5).
As such, the goals of this section are to review methods and proxies that
have been, and could be, implemented for sourcing lithic raw materials
from Plio-Pleistocene archaeological contexts in Eastern Africa.
Fig. 5. Radial Venn diagram showing the factors that affect the selection,
implementation, and merit of analytical methods for raw material sourcing.
Adapted from Frahm (2012, 2013), Garrison (2003), Hancock and Carter
(2010), and Wadley and Kempson (2011).
4.1. Macroscopic characterisation
Archaeologists have commonly relied on macroscopic criteria such
as colour, texture, lustre, and grain-size to identify rock types and
characterise raw material sources under the premise that these may be
indexical of individual sources. In the context of African Stone Age
archaeology, Bond (1948) published one of the continent’s earliest
studies on raw materials using such an approach. Over the years, var­
iably detailed macroscopic analyses have been performed on Oldowan
and Acheulean raw materials (e.g. Howell et al., 1962; McHenry and de
la Torre, 2018; Stollhofen et al., 2021). However, it must be noted that
artefactual materials are prone to alter through a variety of geogenic
processes and may not behave as closed systems such that apparent
source indicators can potentially act as confounders (see Price and
Velbel, 2003; Rollinson, 1993). In turn, this could put into question
provenance interpretations based on macroscopic criteria alone, espe­
cially considering that chemical weathering has been regularly observed
on materials from various archaeological contexts (e.g. Gauthier and
Burke, 2011; Lundblad et al., 2008; McHenry and de la Torre, 2018;
Mussi et al., 2021; Navazo et al., 2008; Stoner and Shaulis, 2021; Zaid
et al., 2015). Therefore, it is recommended that geogenic processes be
accounted for at a mineralogical or geochemical level to reaffirm the
conceptual validity of sourcing based on macroscopic criteria. While
there remains value in the macroscopic characterisation of raw mate­
rials, the method’s subjectivity makes it prone to replicability issues as
well as misclassifications meaning that source attributions should be
considered hypothetical at best (Shackley, 1998, 2008; e.g. Biró, 1998;
Hermes et al., 2001).
4.2. Petrography
Herbert Henry Thomas (1923) conducted seminal petrographic
studies at Stonehenge to identify the probable source for some of the
sandstone monoliths, which marked the establishment of empirical ap­
proaches in the archaeological subfield of raw material sourcing

9
J. Favreau
(Shotton and Hendry, 1979). Petrography involves the analysis of
~30–35 μm thin sections under transmitted light microscopy to identify
materials based on their textural characteristics and non-opaque mineral
composition (Perkins, 1998). This information can also reveal infor­
mation about petrogenesis, metamorphism, tectono-sedimentary set­
tings, and weathering that can equally inform sourcing interpretations
(e.g. Zaid et al., 2015). In archaeology, the combination of macroscopic
and petrographic approaches became prevalent in England starting in
the 1930s, when archaeologists began to establish raw material groups
to source stone tools from Neolithic and Bronze Age contexts (e.g. Cogné
and Giot, 1952; Keiller et al., 1941).
One of the earliest systematic accounts on raw materials in African
Stone Age archaeology appeared in Hay’s (1976) monograph on the
geology of Oldupai Gorge in which macroscopic and petrographic data
were utilised for source characterisation. To this day, the combination of
macroscopic and petrographic techniques has proven useful to delineate
similarities and differences among sources in the area (e.g. Favreau
et al., 2020; Soto et al., 2020a). Petrography has also allowed re­
searchers to discriminate regional volcanic centres and lava flows in a
variety of geological settings, including Oldupai Gorge, to establish the
feasibility of lithic sourcing (e.g. Mollel, 2002). Equally important
petrographic studies have been performed elsewhere in Eastern Africa,
including, for example, West Turkana (Harmand, 2009b), Melka Kun­
ture (Gallotti et al., 2010; Kieffer et al., 2004), Melka Wakena (Resom
et al., 2018), and the Kapthurin Formation (Tryon, 2003) (Tables 1–2;
Figs. 2 and 3), which have enabled variably detailed insights into
hominin raw material provisioning. But in the overall context of African
Stone Age archaeology, few petrographic studies have been conducted,
thereby inhibiting the potential insights that may be gleaned from the
method’s systematic application. This may be explained by key meth­
odological drawbacks, including destructiveness, throughput, and
expertise-driven usage.
4.3. Geochemical fingerprinting
Geochemical fingerprinting refers to an array of analytical methods
used to identify the elemental and/or isotopic profiles of minerals and
rocks to differentiate raw material sources. Two methods that have been
widely used for such purposes are energy-dispersive (ED-XRF) and
wavelength-dispersive (WD-XRF) X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy,
which are particularly useful for identifying the concentrations of ele­
ments with atomic numbers greater than eleven (Rollinson, 1993).
While both techniques use X-ray photons to displace inner shell elec­
trons of an atom’s nucleus, the detectors on WD-XRF systems have
specialised crystals that diffract emitted X-rays of specific wavelengths,
which enhances accuracy at the expense of throughput (Shackley,
2011). In fact, the most comprehensive studies on raw material sourcing
from Plio-Pleistocene contexts in Eastern Africa have been performed
using XRF (e.g. Braun et al., 2008; Braun et al., 2009b; Egeland et al.,
2019; Finestone et al., 2020; Mercader et al., 2021; Negash et al., 2006;
Soto, 2020a-b).
Neutron activation analysis (NAA) is another important technique
through which archaeologists can identify source-specific geochemical
fingerprints. This analytical method uses neutrons to irradiate a sample,
which causes radioactive nuclei to decay into daughter nuclei that emit
characteristic gamma rays (Glascock and Neff, 2003). NAA’s potential
for sourcing artefactual materials was first realised by Robert Oppen­
heimer and the earliest application of this method came with Sayre and
Dodson’s (1957) analysis of pottery from the Mediterranean region.
Despite NAA’s proven potential, the technique has never been utilised to
source stone tools from Plio-Pleistocene contexts in Eastern Africa, and
only once has it been featured for the study of artefacts from an equiv­
alent chrono-cultural context in continental Africa (Sampson, 2006).
While the sensitivity, accuracy, and precision offered by NAA is broadly
comparable to XRF (Hancock and Carter, 2010), the fact that nuclear
reactors outfitted with NAA capabilities have been gradually
10
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
decommissioned can partly explain why this analytical method has not
been widely used in Plio-Pleistocene archaeological contexts. One may
also point out significant drawbacks, including its cost, throughput, and
variably destructive nature as samples are usually powdered and
become radioactive after analysis. Overall, these limitations outweigh
the benefits offered by NAA, particularly when considering that stone
artefacts possess heritage value.
In recent years two forms of inductively coupled plasma mass spec­
trometry (ICP-MS), laser ablation (LA-ICP-MS) and acid digestion (AD-
ICP-MS), have largely overtaken NAA for raw material sourcing across
the discipline of archaeology primarily owing to their comparable
detection capabilities and the global decommissioning of nuclear re­
actors (Reimer, 2018; e.g. LeBlanc, 2004; Moreau et al., 2016). From a
methodological standpoint, both forms of ICP-MS ionise, separate, and
count a sample’s atoms according to their mass-to-charge ratios, with
the primary difference being whether a sample is introduced in liquid
(AD-ICP-MS) or solid form (LA-ICP-MS). Therefore, the latter is gener­
ally favoured for sourcing because samples require minimal preparation
and are not prone to contamination from reagents, analyses have rapid
turnaround times, and laser ablation points/lines are only microscopi­
cally destructive (Neff, 2017). In a key study, Mollel (2002) securely
identified the sources of unmodified volcanic rocks excavated from Bed
II sites at Oldupai Gorge using a combination of thin section petrog­
raphy, electron microprobe, XRF, and AD-ICP-MS despite the spatial
proximity of volcanic centres that once drained into the palaeobasin
during the Pleistocene.
Isotopes are variations of an element’s atom that have an identical
number of protons but a different number of neutrons, which determines
whether they remain stable or become radioactive through time (Sulz­
man, 2007). While isotopic analyses are commonly employed by
palaeoanthropologists to reconstruct diets, palaeoenvironmental con­
ditions, and mobility patterns based on values obtained from fossilised
hard tissues and sediment (e.g. Lüdecke et al., 2016; Tucker et al., 2020;
van der Merwe et al., 2008), they remain equally effective to source
lithic raw materials in a variety of contexts (e.g. Craig and Craig, 1972;
Herz, 1992). For instance, the lacustrine conditions of the Oldupai Gorge
palaeobasin during the Early Pleistocene enabled the subaqueous pre­
cipitation of bedded chert, which only became available to hominin
toolmakers during lake lowstands (O’Neil and Hay, 1973). Considering
that chert’s18O isotopic values are indicative of salinity levels during
petrogenesis, Stiles et al. (1974) compared the 18O/16O ratios of chert
artefacts from two sites with unmodified in situ clasts to identify possible
evidence of stone transport (but see Kimura, 1997). Another stable
isotope that has allowed for sourcing lithic raw materials is 56Fe (e.g.
Mathur et al., 2020), but it remains to be applied in Eastern Africa for
Oldowan and Acheulean stone tools likely due to the need for compre­
hensive baseline studies, destructiveness, and the capabilities of alter­
nate methods.
Radioactive isotopes are commonly utilised in palae­
oanthropological research to constrain the age of fossilised hard tissues
and stone artefacts (e.g. Leakey et al., 1961). One isotopic method that
has been featured for raw material sourcing is fission-track dating,
which is based on uranium’s radioactive decay leading to the formation
and gradual shortening of detectable microscopic trails as a function of a
rock’s age and thermal history (Enkelmann and Jonckheere, 2021). This
method has been applied to source obsidian artefacts throughout the
Mediterranean basin and adjacent regions, East Asia, and South America
(e.g. Bellot-Gurlet et al., 1999; Chataigner et al., 2003; Durrani et al.,
1971; Suzuki, 1969), but never in Eastern Africa for the ESA probably
owing to the rarity of obsidian lithics, the capabilities of other analytical
methods, costs, and destructiveness. Using a different isotopic system,
Vogel et al. (2006) identified the 40Ar/39Ar ratios of two obsidian
sources in Ethiopia in comparison to equivalent data from obsidian stone
tools. Since this dating technique reflects the cooling ages of rocks, it can
prove useful when volcanic sources are tightly constrained in age and/or
exhibit similar elemental concentrations. For optimal results, the
J. Favreau
complete age range of volcanic centres/flows must be identified as it can
bear important implications for the maximum and minimum ages of
occupation sites (Ambrose, 2012). As a case in point, Morgan et al.
(2009) applied the 40Ar/39Ar method on obsidian lithics in concert with
other means to establish the maximum ages of two Ethiopian sites, while
electron microprobe and ED-XRF were used to probabilistically prove­
nance some artefacts. Other radioactive isotopic ratios that have facili­
tated lithic raw material sourcing include 87Sr/86Sr (e.g. Brilli et al.,
2005; Curran et al., 2001; Gale, 1981), but this method has never been
applied in ESA contexts in Eastern African likely owing to the need for
comprehensive reference data, costs, destructiveness, and the potential
of alternate methods.
4.4. Discussion
The macroscopic characterisation of raw materials can prove useful
in certain contexts, but it is not recommended as a stand-alone method
for sourcing because rocks may be misclassified and incorrectly attrib­
uted to sources (Shackley, 1998, 2008). The insights that can be gleaned
from thin section petrography make this approach useful for rock type
identification and source characterisation because it is conceptually
valid, precise, reproducible, and low-cost, but it remains
time-consuming and destructive. The implementation of XRF, NAA, and
ICP-MS for bulk and spot geochemical fingerprinting have proven
invaluable for sourcing igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks
from a variety of archaeological contexts because macroscopic criteria,
modal mineralogies, and petrographic textures may not necessarily
show discriminatory differences as opposed to elemental concentrations
and isotopic ratios. In particular, ED-XRF and LA-ICP-MS can both
rapidly yield accurate, precise, and reproducible data from artefact
(near-)surfaces with little to no destruction.
Isotopic systems can be useful for lithic sourcing, but physical/
chemical processes may distort source signals and isotopic techniques
are partially to fully destructive (see Stephens et al., 2021). The chro­
nometric dating of rocks and minerals in particular has proven to be an
effective means to source stone tools (e.g. Bevins et al., 2020; Khatse­
novich et al., 2020; Vogel et al., 2006). If taken further, such approaches
could offer profound insights in stone transport behaviour within and
between subregions of Eastern Africa considering the known age con­
straints of Precambrian rocks, Cenozoic magmatism, and rifting along
the north-south axis of the East African Rift System, where most
Plio-Pleistocene sites are found (see Foley, 2018; Fritz et al., 2013;
Macgregor, 2015; Rooney, 2017, 2020a-c; Schlüter, 1997) (Figs. 2 and
3). However, this would necessitate the establishment of robust refer­
ence collections because the eastern half of the continent experienced
severe tectono-magmatic stress throughout its geological history that
could have overprinted and/or reset isotopic clocks. Finally, both stable
and radiometric isotope traceability indices may manifest themselves at
overly expansive spatial scales that could be irrelevant for research
projects, unless regional connections are suspected and/or occupation
sites are situated along lithostratigraphic margins. As such, the spatial
scale of the research project plays an equally important role in the se­
lection, implementation, and merit of any analytical method through
which stone tools can be sourced.
Archaeologists working in a variety of geological contexts have held
long-standing concerns to establish the sources of non-obsidian rock
types through multiple means (e.g. Blomme et al., 2012; Cnudde et al.,
2013; de Boutray, 1981). As a case in point, Julig et al. (1998) integrated
XRF, NAA, petrography, and cathodoluminescence microscopy to
characterise siliceous source material and securely provenance stone
tools from archaeological sites across parts of Michigan and Wisconsin
(United States) as well as Ontario (Canada). Elsewhere in North Amer­
ica, ten Bruggencate et al. (2013, 2014) relied on macroscopic colour
identification followed by trace element geochemistry and Pb isotope
analysis to discriminate sources of pegmatite quartz and probabilisti­
cally source artefacts in northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan (Canada).
11
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
In a different study, Nazaroff et al. (2013) combined macroscopic
criteria with ED-XRF spectroscopy to distinguish chert sources and
recognise provisioning patterns for the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük
(Turkey). In another case, Gurova et al. (2016) integrated macroscopic
criteria, petrographic observations, and LA-ICP-MS to characterise
Cretaceous flint-bearing deposits and provisionally identity the sources
of artefactual materials from sites of varying chrono-cultural affiliations
in Bulgaria and Serbia. In a similar fashion, Skarpelis et al. (2017)
detected potentially distinctive characteristics for a prominent chert
outcrop on the island of Naxos (Greece) through macroscopic analysis,
petrography, scanning electron microscopy, XRF, and AD-ICP-MS. More
recently, Brandl et al. (2018) blended visual criteria, various forms of
microscopy, and trace element analysis using LA-ICP-MS to positively
identify the source of flint-bearing limestone ballast recovered from a
shipwreck off the southern coast of Norway. In light of these case studies
and many others on a global scale (e.g. Gall and Steponaitis, 2001;
Harrell, 1992; Middleton and Bradley, 1989; Nash et al., 2013; Pitblado
et al., 2008; Prieto et al., 2022; Soto et al. 2020a-b; Stross et al., 1988), it
can be stated that the future of sourcing non-obsidian lithologies is best
accomplished when a multi-analytical approach is systematically
applied, with the understanding that once positive baseline results are
obtained subsequent archaeological testing can be narrowed down from
a methodological standpoint.
5. Multivariate data
Securely sourcing raw materials not only hinges on appropriate
analytical methods, but also on the implementation of effective means
through which the resulting data are evaluated. While analytical data do
not necessarily need to be accurate for raw material sourcing to be
conceptually valid (see Frahm, 2013), it is recommended that they are
mutually accurate, precise, and reproducible. The latter constitutes an
important facet of contemporary archaeological research (e.g. Marwick,
2017; Marwick and Birch, 2018), particularly in the context of raw
material studies considering their fundamental importance, the large
amount of data generally produced, the costs associated with such lines
of research, and the fact that interpretation usually rests on statistical
results obtained through computational means (e.g. Hermann et al.,
2020). As the foregoing section highlighted the value of non-destructive
geochemical fingerprinting and the implementation of multi-analytical
approaches, this section will consider how multivariate data can be
transformed, explored, and statistically analysed to discriminate raw
material sources.
5.1. Data transformation
Beginning with data handling, geochemical profiles may be stand­
ardised, normalised, or logarithmically transformed to correct for het­
eroscedasticity and non-normality (Baxter, 1995). Standardisation
consists of modifying raw values by subtracting them by the mean of
individual elements and dividing them by the standard deviation.
Similarly, normalisation consists of scaling the units of analysis to
ensure that they are comparable (e.g. Mercader et al., 2021). Alterna­
tively, geochemical data can be logarithmically transformed to stabilise
variance and reweigh variables to approach a normal distribution since
many statistical tests follow the assumption of normality (e.g. Braun
et al., 2008). When datasets do not present outliers, statistical analyses
of normalised and logarithmically transformed data produce compara­
ble results (Baxter, 1995). If applicable, elements that are below the
detection limit of the analytical instrument can be assigned arbitrary
values, zeroed, or omitted (cf. Mauran et al., 2021; Habermann et al.,
2016; Kiehn et al., 2007; Nash et al., 2013). Overall, these trans­
formation methods are not always necessary but can help to circumvent
the constant sum problem that can drive spurious correlations (Roll­
inson, 1993).
J. Favreau
5.2. Data exploration
The second step in multivariate data analysis usually consists of
iterative exploration by way of histograms, boxplots, biplots, and scat­
terplot matrices to establish the dimensions of the dataset, identify and
assess outliers, ensure there are no errors or missing values, visualise and
establish preliminary relationships among variables, and ensure the
dataset meets the assumptions of any further statistical tests (Glascock
and Neff, 2003). Analyses of variance and t-tests can be performed to
identify relationships between outcrops and macroscopic, petrographic,
and/or geochemical observations (Drennan, 2009). Similarly, logistic
regressions can be conducted to predict from which of two sources
geological samples and artefacts originate from. Correlation matrices
can help to uncover relationships among variables, and correlograms
can be used to visualise positive and negative correlations as well as
their statistical significance. Analyses of covariance can be performed if
significant correlations are found among two continuous variables and
one categorical variable. Alternatively, multivariate analyses of vari­
ance can be conducted to determine if there are statistically significant
differences among sources that may not be apparent by inspecting
graphical data representations alone. In summary, there are several
means to evaluate and explore multivariate data that can offer valuable
insights regarding correlations along with preliminary inter-/in­
tra-source patterns.
5.3. Data analysis
It is often necessary to conduct statistical analyses to discriminate
raw material sources, particularly for non-obsidian rock types. Three
common approaches through which this can be achieved include cluster
analysis, principal component analysis, and linear discriminant analysis
(Baxter, 2001). Cluster analysis refers to a family of unsupervised ma­
chine learning techniques that rely on different algorithms to partition
sample populations into distinct groups with the goals of minimising
intra-group variance and maximising inter-group variance (Borcard
et al., 2018; Lowe et al., 2017; e.g. Dalpra and Pitblado, 2016; Pitblado
et al., 2013).
Principal component analysis represents a conventional approach
used for source discrimination using multivariate data (e.g. Glascock
et al., 2007 and chapters therein). It effectively reduces the dimen­
sionality of multivariate data, identifies linear combinations of variables
that explain the most variance, and expresses data in graphical space in
which variance is maximised and structure is preserved (Borcard et al.,
2018). However, one of the weaknesses of this approach is that a priori
groups are unknown, meaning that geological samples from the same
sources may not cluster in graphical space.
Another technique that is regularly used for raw material sourcing is
linear discriminant analysis, which falls under the framework of su­
pervised machine learning (Lowe et al., 2017). This approach is useful
for dimensionality reduction and the classification of artefacts into
predefined groups consisting of geological samples from known sources
(e.g. Prieto et al., 2022). This approach is similar to principal component
analysis, but the primary difference is that linear combinations of vari­
ables adhere to and enhance variance among predefined groups. For
accurate results, groups should be of equal size and the number of
predictor variables should not exceed the number of samples from the
smallest group (Baxter, 1994; Harbottle, 1976; Kovarovic et al., 2011).
Statistical analyses can also be performed on sub-groups of geolog­
ical samples and artefacts defined by distinct combinations of variables
(e.g. ten Bruggencate et al., 2013, 2014). The principal reason one may
adopt such an approach is that by increasing the size of a geological
reference collection and comparing, for example, geochemical values
regardless of a sample’s macroscopic classification, it can drastically
reduce the ability to probabilistically assign sources. Overall, there are
several approaches that can allow for the effective discrimination of raw
material sources using geochemical fingerprints, and multivariate data
12
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
more broadly, regardless of rock type. In addition, there are emerging
and innovative data evaluation techniques that fall under the framework
of data science and artificial intelligence (e.g. Bolton et al., 2020;
Hazenfratz et al., 2017; Lindsay et al., 2021; Lowe et al., 2017), which
hold promise when dealing with large and geographically expansive
datasets.
6. Interpretive challenges of raw material studies
Despite the fundamental importance of information derived from
raw material studies in Plio-Pleistocene archaeological contexts, rela­
tively few feature the implementation of one or a combination of ap­
proaches to identify aspects such as hominin landuse, source locations,
and/or selection criteria at the interface with lithic technology. This
research gap may be attributed to a number of factors, including the
complexity of drivers conditioning raw material configurations on the
palaeolandscape, site formation processes resulting in a fragmentary
and palimpsestic archaeological record, decreased chronological reso­
lution with increased age, complications in differentiating among pri­
mary, secondary, and tertiary sources, the challenges with nullifying the
possibility of lithic recycling, as well as the difficulty in identifying stone
selection criteria. As such, the aims of this section are to review common
interpretive challenges and corresponding solutions when studying
hominin raw material provisioning in deep time.
6.1. Geographic space and hominin mobility
The spatial component of hominin behaviour that preceded and
drove the production and utilisation of stone tools can be challenging to
discern but may be reasonably inferred through the judicious use of
spatial modelling and middle-range theory. Distance and travel time
represent two means by which proximity to sources can be measured
and estimated. For instance, the distance between an archaeological site
relative to a raw material source can be calculated in two-dimensional
Euclidean space and more precise estimates can be generated by
means of palaeosurface projections (e.g. Blumenschine et al., 2008;
Santonja et al., 2014). Researchers can also estimate travel time using
values derived from functional anatomical studies (e.g. Molen et al.,
1972; O’Neill et al., 2015) or by relying on mathematical formulas (e.g.
Tobler’s hiking function, Naismith’s rule) to obtain walking speeds for
average adult humans on flat and variable terrain. In other cases,
ethnographic sources can be used to estimate prehistoric foraging radii
of hunter-gatherers to delineate local versus non-local raw material
sources (e.g. Ekshtain et al., 2014; Zaidner et al., 2021; but see Pop,
2016). In any case, Pollard et al. (2014) have rightfully noted that travel
time remains challenging to model in prehistoric contexts due to the
chronological imprecision and palimpsestic nature of the archaeological
record, which, in the absence of contextual information, can prevent
nullifying the hypothesis that evidence of raw material transport rep­
resents a time-averaged behavioural pattern.
Be that as it may, geospatial modelling can also be an important
source of knowledge in the absence of detailed information on the dis­
tribution of raw material sources in any given study area (e.g. Clarkson
and Bellas, 2014). In the right archaeological context, one could even
identify potential routes that facilitated the movement of material goods
from one location to another and the associated travel costs when
considering the anisotropic nature of past and present landscapes (e.g.
Lucero et al., 2021; Moutsiou and Agapiou, 2019). In this regard,
modelling the geomorphology of contemporary landscapes can help to
reconstruct possible configurations of raw material sources and catch­
ments across palaeolandscapes at different time slices through spatial
interpolation (e.g. Benito-Calvo et al., 2008; Flores-Prieto et al., 2015;
Hensel et al., 2019; Leverington et al., 2002). In turn, this could allow for
better estimates of stone transport distances from primary and second­
ary sources in Plio-Pleistocene archaeological contexts. While all the
foregoing concepts can serve as effective theoretical underpinnings for
J. Favreau
archaeological research, any investigation of hominin mobility at the
interface with geographic space according to stone tools and raw ma­
terials is contingent on assumptions, analogies, and high-quality data.
6.2. Stone transport and time-averaging
In Plio-Pleistocene archaeology, site-to-source transport distances
are usually interpreted as singular and unidirectional behavioural epi­
sodes. However, this may not always be a sound interpretation when
considering the palimpsest nature of the archaeological record (Bailey,
2007; Dibble et al., 2017; Stern, 1994). For instance, Blumenschine et al.
(2008) tested a distance-decay model for quartzite artefacts from Old­
owan assemblages relative to a primary raw material source according
to macroscopic similarities at Oldupai Gorge (Fig. 2). They identified a
correlation between site-to-source distance and artefact weight, while
artefact sizes and reduction attributes were not correlated to distance.
Therefore, the authors suggested that other variables must have affected
the reduction, utilisation, and discard patterns of quartzite tools along
the palaeolandscape. While this remains plausible, it must be acknowl­
edged that one of the study’s underlying assumptions was that each
assemblage represented a contemporary analytical unit.
In a comparable study, Luncz et al. (2016) tested a distance-decay
model for the distribution of chimpanzee hammerstones relative to
raw material sources in the Taï National Park (Côte d’Ivoire) (cf. Boesch
and Boesch, 1984). Hammerstone weights and use-wear patterns abided
to the model’s predictions, whereby weight decreased and use-wear
increased with growing site-to-source distance. However, the authors
recognised that chimpanzees predominantly carried stones over short
distances. Therefore, the distribution and utilisation of hammerstones
reflects a time-averaged behavioural pattern (Luncz et al., 2016). This
middle-range model highlights the need for archaeological in­
terpretations to be tightly integrated with an understanding of site for­
mation processes and techno-typological data because inferred
site-to-source transport distances could represent cumulative events
rather than singular behavioural episodes.
6.3. Recycling
Another challenge facing raw material studies is identifying whether
hominins followed a linear artefact production process or recycled
pieces from surface scatters. As a case in point, Marder et al. (2006)
studied attributes of Acheulean bifaces from two Middle Pleistocene
levels at Revadim Quarry (Israel). The older bifaces were primarily
manufactured from flint, which may have been procured from fluvial
deposits ~3–5 km away, and were characterised as thick, intensively
retouched, and symmetrical. The younger bifaces were manufactured
from comparable rock types, but they exhibited double-patinated flaked
surfaces and were visibly shorter and thinner. Therefore, it was argued
that the younger bifaces were recycled pieces that may have functioned
as cores (Marder et al., 2006).
The foregoing case study, among others from the Levant (e.g. Agam
et al., 2015; Shimelmitz, 2015; Wojtczak, 2015), illustrates the fact that
hominins occasionally recycled lithics, which calls for careful attribute
analysis to demonstrate whether raw materials were procured from
geological sources or surface scatters. However, the extent to which
Oldowan and Acheulean toolmakers across Eastern Africa repurposed
artefacts from surface scatters is unaccounted for and probably under­
estimated (see Amick, 2015) because the primary means through which
it can be identified (i.e. double patination) is characteristic of arid re­
gions (Macholdt et al., 2017) and is commonly reported on rock types (e.
g. McDonald, 1991 [chert]) that were rarely utilised by early hominins
in Eastern Africa (Tables 1–2).
6.4. Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Even when lithic recycling is nullified or indeterminate, it can be
13
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
challenging to discern whether artefacts were manufactured from a
primary or secondary raw material source. A proven approach is to study
an artefact’s size, morphology, cortex, neocortex, and abrasion state
along with site formation processes (e.g. Fernandes, 2012). However,
this approach’s interpretive remit is contingent on the preservation of
key lithic attributes, the accessibility/visibility of secondary sources (e.
g. Goldman-Neuman and Hovers, 2012; Harmand, 2009a, 2009b; Roche
et al., 2018; Stout et al., 2005), and the nature of the archaeological site.
The importance of the latter cannot be understated in the context of
Plio-Pleistocene archaeology since revisionist studies have demon­
strated that many lithic and faunal assemblages are, to varying extents,
palimpsest accumulations (cf. Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2007; Leakey,
1971).
From a historical perspective, the recognition that lithic and faunal
assemblages were not pristine anthropogenic accumulations resulted in
a shift from site-specific investigations towards a greater emphasis on
the palaeolandscape (e.g. Isaac, 1981). Within the context of raw ma­
terial studies, this led to the development of one iconic theory known as
the stone cache model, which posits that hominins provisioned focal
points with unmodified stones or manuports with the forethought of
reoccupation (Potts, 1988). While the establishment of tertiary sources
remains plausible (e.g. Howell et al., 1962; Semaw et al., 2020), it must
be acknowledged that large clasts can naturally accumulate alongside
artefacts in low-energy lacustrine environments and fluvial settings.
Often, this stands as a simpler and occasionally better explanation for
the co-occurrence of unmodified stones and lithics at some Oldowan
sites in particular (cf. de la Torre and Mora, 2005; Leakey, 1971). If it is
possible to rule out the exploitation of secondary and tertiary sources,
then it becomes interpretatively sound to begin the identification pro­
cess of primary sources assuming they are accessible/visible, there are
discriminatory differences among them, and that artefactual materials
plot within the range of variation at the intra-source scale.
6.5. Selection criteria
Another challenge facing raw material studies is the range of possible
selection criteria imposed by hominin toolmakers (e.g. site-to-source
distance, fracture predictability, angularity, edge durability, hardness,
colour, etc.), which partly explains the frequent focus on functional and
economic characteristics as they are more readily discernible. For
instance, Key et al. (2020) conducted experimental cutting tests using
raw materials that were exploited by Pleistocene hominins at Oldupai
Gorge (Figs. 1 and 2) under the premise that edge sharpness and dura­
bility guided stone selection to produce flakes and LCTs (Kuman, 2014;
Toth, 1985). More specifically, they found that quartzite flakes have
sharper but less durable edges than chert, while basalt flake edges have a
lower initial sharpness but are more durable with sustained use.
Therefore, Key et al. (2020) suggested that both Oldowan and Acheulean
toolmakers primarily selected raw materials to manufacture function­
ally optimised cutting tools to maximize energy return rates.
In contrast to the foregoing study, Stout et al. (2005) visually char­
acterised Oldowan lithics and clasts sampled from coeval conglomerates
at Gona (Table 1; Fig. 2) to identify qualitative variables that may have
been relevant to early toolmakers. The middle-range hypothesis is based
on the observation that modern flintknappers usually spend consider­
able time and effort identifying suitable raw materials as part of the tool
manufacturing process. It was demonstrated that Oldowan hominins
preferentially selected glassy, smooth, and fine-grained igneous lithol­
ogies with small phenocrysts, which may have facilitated tool produc­
tion (Stout et al., 2005). Following a similar methodology,
Goldman-Neuman and Hovers (2012) found differences in the selection
strategies for two Oldowan sites at Hadar (Table 1; Fig. 2). For one site, it
was argued that hominins purposefully sought out high-quality mate­
rials with fine-grained textures and high fracture predictability, whereas
at the other toolmakers apparently selected more homogenous but
lower-quality rocks (Goldman-Neuman and Hovers, 2012). In another
J. Favreau
comparative study of two Oldowan sites at West Turkana (Table 1;
Fig. 2), Harmand (2009a) found that hominins at one site preferentially
selected angular medium-grained phonolites over rounded clasts likely
due to their natural striking platforms and better fracture predictability.
For the other locality, it was argued that the stone selection criteria were
less strict evidenced by an abundance of rounded clasts and lower
technical elaboration (Harmand, 2009a).
Another means by which researchers can identify the selection
criteria of hominin toolmakers is through the comparison of available
lithologies at sources in contrast to the assemblage’s raw material di­
versity. For instance, studies on the earliest known Oldowan site of
Bokol Dora 1 (Table 1; Fig. 2) found that hominins preferentially utilised
fine-grained rhyolite from nearby conglomerate beds and that the
assemblage was over-represented by rock types relative to their natural
frequencies at sources (Braun et al., 2019). Similarly, raw material
studies at Omo (Table 1; Fig. 2) have shown that hominins purposefully
selected quartz from a limited array of naturally available rock types
relative to their frequencies at secondary sources (Delagnes et al., 2011).
Using a combination of approaches, Braun et al. (2009b) characterised
the fracture predictability and durability of rock types represented in the
Oldowan assemblage from Kanjera South (Table 1; Fig. 2). It was shown
that more durable lithologies were selected over others despite their less
frequent occurrence in conglomerates, and that rebound hardness or
fracture predictability did not factor as heavily in stone selection (Braun
et al., 2009b). Stated otherwise, hominins regularly transported
abrasion-resistant raw materials such as granites and quartzites at a
higher frequency than their natural abundance on the palaeolandscape,
and they also invested more effort in the reduction and technical elab­
oration of materials from more distant sources (Reeves et al., 2021).
Altogether, the foregoing case studies on the identification of selection
criteria by ESA toolmakers reveal the range of possibilities through
which this can be achieved, which can serve as a baseline to investigate
other factors that could have equally affected hominin behaviour (e.g.
Browne and Wilson, 2011; Wilson, 2007).
7. Conclusions
Eastern Africa’s Plio-Pleistocene palaeoanthropological record has
shaped our understanding of human biological and cultural evolution.
Despite being incomplete, palimpsestic, spatially biased, and impre­
cisely dated, this record offers an exceptional window into the human
evolutionary past in the form of stone tools. Built upon generations of
research, raw material studies represent an important component of
contemporary lithic analysis through which it is possible to identify raw
material sources and stone transport distances across palaeolandscapes
to then reconstruct other behavioural aspects that are of high evolu­
tionary significance. Several key behavioural trends were identified in
reviewing evidence of raw material provisioning during the ESA
(Tables 1–2). More specifically, it was established that both Oldowan
and Acheulean toolmakers regularly exerted selective criteria when
choosing raw materials, fragmented their activities along the palae­
olandscape, and preferentially utilised igneous rock types followed by
metamorphic and sedimentary lithologies (e.g. Goldman-Neuman and
Hovers, 2012; Harmand, 2009b; Howell et al., 1962; Stout et al., 2005).
Finally, it was found that Acheulean toolmakers largely mimicked their
Oldowan counterparts in terms of raw material provisioning until the
late Early Pleistocene, when they began to engage in qualitatively
different behaviour best evidenced by the purposeful transport of stone
over increasingly longer distances (cf. Braun et al., 2008; Egeland et al.,
2019; Gallotti and Mussi, 2017; Harmand, 2009a, 2009b; Merrick et al.,
1994). Another informative pattern that emerges from this compre­
hensive review is that while macroscopic, petrographic, and geochem­
ical approaches have been implemented for raw material sourcing, few
systematic studies have been performed such that there is limited in­
formation to concretely sustain interpretations of lithic transport with a
high degree of probability. This trend served as a stepping-stone to
14
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
review the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of raw mate­
rial sourcing followed by common interpretive challenges.
On a fundamental level, the identification of raw material sources is
contingent on the implementation of a systematic, comprehensive, and
multifactorial sequence of analysis. Moreover, sourcing is a probabilistic
exercise because archaeological interpretations hinge on equally accu­
rate, precise, and reproducible data that abide to the provenance
postulate. From a methodological standpoint, several factors affect the
selection, implementation, and merit of analytical methods through
which stone artefacts, or any other material, can be confidently prove­
nanced. These include accuracy, precision, reproducibility, discrimina­
tory power, sensitivity, destructiveness, throughput, cost, ease, and the
question of spatial scale (Frahm, 2012, 2013; Garrison, 2003; Hancock
and Carter, 2010; Wadley and Kempson, 2011). Based on a series of
cost-benefit considerations, the array of analytical methods that fall
under the umbrella of geochemical fingerprinting generally outperforms
macroscopic and petrographic approaches since they can yield accurate,
precise, and reproducible data with little to no destructive effects on
artefactual materials with rapid turnaround times. There also exist
several other approaches dealing with isotopic systems that have yet to
be applied in the context of Plio-Pleistocene archaeology in Eastern
Africa, but which hold promise for large-scale projects considering the
well-documented and spatio-temporally constrained pulses of geological
activity across the eastern half of continental Africa (e.g. Fritz et al.,
2013; Rooney, 2017, 2020a-c). Regardless of the method of choice,
characterising non-obsidian lithologies is best accomplished using a
multi-analytical approach in light of the growing body of
proof-of-concept studies and systematic archaeological testing (e.g.
Brandl et al., 2018; Gurova et al., 2016; Julig et al., 1998; Nazaroff et al.,
2013; ten Bruggencate et al., 2014). Once positive baseline results are
obtained through multiple means, subsequent archaeological testing can
be narrowed down methodologically.
Since raw material characterisation studies usually results in the
production of multivariate data, this warrants thorough evaluation and
reporting that are best performed following the principles of open and
reproducible science. While data transformations are not always
necessary, iterative data exploration and statistical analyses are often
required to discriminate non-obsidian sources and probabilistically
source stone tools with a high degree of certainty. Ranging from tradi­
tional graphical data representations to multivariate statistics and
emerging branches of artificial intelligence (e.g. Glascock et al., 2007;
Lowe et al., 2017), there are countless means through which charac­
teristic source signals can be identified regardless of rock type. Moving
from data analysis to archaeological interpretation, the case studies
reviewed herein on mobility, time-averaging, recycling, source differ­
entiation, and selection criteria pose challenges that are particularly
relevant to the study of hominin raw material provisioning in deep time.
These interpretive challenges can also entail problems of replicability
when considering the assumptions, geological backdrop, methodolog­
ical contingencies, and/or variables employed in any given study.
Altogether, these challenges help to explain the limited efforts that have
been historically devoted in sourcing lithic raw materials of
Plio-Pleistocene age. With this being said, there are a multiplicity of
means to securely infer aspects of hominin behaviour beyond resource
extraction points and transport distances when raw material analyses
are tightly integrated with an understanding of site formation processes,
chronology, and information derived from lithic techno-typological
studies. Overall, this calls for a structured multidisciplinary frame­
work that together with continual methodological advances will entail
the ability of future researchers to best surmount these common inter­
pretive challenges. Ultimately, the future of sourcing raw materials from
Eastern Africa’s Plio-Pleistocene palaeoanthropological record is bright
considering what is currently known along with the robust theoretical
and methodological foundations that are in place so as to garner the full
potential of a non-renewable record.
J. Favreau
Author’s note
A preprint of this article is available with the Open Science Frame­
work (https://osf.io/nf27g).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
All data are included in the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I wish to acknowledge the terrific level of support
and mentorship I received from my doctoral supervisory committee,
including Drs. Tristan Carter, Eduard Reinhardt, Christian Tryon, and
Julio Mercader. Their thoughtful comments, constructive criticism, and
help with references greatly improved the quality and scope of this
article. I would also like to thank Dr. María Soto who channelled my
interests in raw material sourcing through years of mentorship and
collaboration. I am grateful for the funding provided by the Social Sci­
ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for my Joseph-
Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship (767-2019-2655)
and the Partnership Grant Program (895-2016-1017) for the Stone
Tools, Diet, and Sociality at the Dawn of Humanity project led by Dr.
Julio Mercader, as well as the Government of Ontario, The Leakey
Foundation (41660), and the Department of Anthropology at McMaster
University. I express my gratitude to the Tanzanian Commission for
Science and Technology (2021-648-NA-2017/035), the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism, the Antiquities Division (EA.150/297/
01:5/2018/2019), the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (BE.504/620/
01/53), and the Executive Secretary of the Mining Commission
(00001258) for authorising my fieldwork at Oldupai Gorge and labo­
ratory analyses in Canada. I wish to also recognise the Maasai commu­
nity at Oldupai Gorge, without whom my doctoral research would not
have been possible. Finally, I wish to thank the editor and anonymous
reviewer for their suggestions and constructive comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
References
Agam, A., Marder, O., Barkai, R., 2015. Small flake production and lithic recycling at
Late Acheulian Revadim, Israel. Quat. Int. 361, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quaint.2014.06.070.
Agha-Aligol, D., Lamehi-Rachti, M., Oliaiy, P., Shokouhi, F., Farahani, M.F., Moradi, M.,
Jalali, F.F., 2015. Characterization of Iranian obsidian artifacts by PIXE and
multivariate statistical analysis. Geoarchaeology 30, 261–270. https://doi.org/
10.1002/gea.21509.
Ambrose, S.H., 2012. Obsidian dating and source exploitation studies in Africa:
implications for the evolution of human behaviour. In: Liritzis, I., Stevenson, C.M.
(Eds.), Obsidian and Ancient Manufactured Glasses. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, pp. 56–72.
Amick, D.S., 2015. The recycling of material culture today and during the Paleolithic.
Quat. Int. 361, 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.059.
Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Suwa, G., Walter, R.C., White, T.D., WoldeGabriel, G., Yemane, T.,
1992. The earliest acheulean from konso-gardula. Nature 360, 732–735. https://doi.
org/10.1038/360732a0.
Bailey, G., 2007. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time.
J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 26, 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2006.08.002.
Barsky, D., Chapon-Sao, C., Bahain, J.J., Beyene, Y., Cauche, D., Celiberti, V.,
Desclaux, E., de Lumley, H., de Lumley, M.A., Marchal, F., Moullé, P.E., 2011. The
early oldowan stone-tool assemblage from fejej FJ-1A, Ethiopia. J. Afr. Archaeol. 9,
207–224. https://doi.org/10.3213/2191-5784-10196.
Basu, A., Bickford, M.E., Deasy, R., 2016. Inferring tectonic provenance of siliciclastic
rocks from their chemical compositions: a dissent. Sediment. Geol. 336, 26–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.11.013.
Baxter, M.J., 1994. Stepwise discriminant analysis in archaeometry: a critique.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 21, 659–666. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1994.1065.
15
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
Baxter, M.J., 1995. Standardization and transformation in principal component analysis,
with applications to archaeometry. Applied Statistics 44, 513–527. https://doi.org/
10.2307/2986142.
Baxter, M.J., 2001. Multivariate analysis in archaeology. In: Brothwell, D.R., Collard, A.
M. (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Wiley, London, pp. 685–694.
Beller, J.A., Greenfield, H.J., Fayek, M., Shai, I., Maeir, A.M., 2016. Provenance and
exchange of basalt grinding stones of EB III Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci.:
Reports 9, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.07.025.
Bellot-Gurlet, L., Bigazzi, G., Dorighel, O., Oddone, M., Poupeau, G., Yegingil, Z., 1999.
The fission-track analysis: an alternative technique for provenance studies of
prehistoric obsidian artefacts. Radiat. Meas. 31, 639–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1350-4487(99)00157-2.
Benito-Calvo, A., Pérez-González, A., Parés, J.M., 2008. Quantitative reconstruction of
late cenozoic landscapes: a case study in the sierra de Atapuerca (burgos, Spain).
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 33, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1534.
Bevins, R.E., Pirrie, D., Ixer, R.A., O’Brien, H., Pearson, M.P., Power, M.R., Shail, R.K.,
2020. Constraining the provenance of the Stonehenge ‘Altar Stone’: evidence from
automated mineralogy and U–Pb zircon age dating. J. Archaeol. Sci. 120, 105188
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105188.
Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W.K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M.,
Hyodo, M., Renne, P.R., Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., 2013. The characteristics and
chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
110, 1584–1591. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221285110.
Beyene, Y., Asfaw, B., Sano, K., Suwa, G., 2015. Konso-Gardula Research Project. In:
Archaeological Collections: Background and the Early Acheulean Assemblages, ume
2. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo. http://umdb.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/DKankoub/Bullet
in/no48/.
Biró, K.T., 1998. Lithic Implements and the Circulation of Raw Materials in the Great
Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Hungarian National Museum,
Budapest.
Bishop, W.W., Pickford, M., Hill, A., 1975. New evidence regarding the Quaternary
geology, archaeology and hominids of Chesowanja, Kenya. Nature 258, 204–208.
https://doi.org/10.1038/258204a0.
Blomme, A., Degryse, P., Van Peer, P., Elsen, J., 2012. The characterization of
sedimentary quartzite artefacts from Mesolithic sites, Belgium. Geol. Belg. 15,
193–199. https://popups.uliege.be/1374-8505/index.php?id=3690.
Blumenschine, R.J., Masao, F.T., Tactikos, J.C., Ebert, J.I., 2008. Effects of distance from
stone source on landscape-scale variation in Oldowan artifact assemblages in the
Paleo-Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 76–86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.009.
Boesch, C., Boesch, H., 1984. Mental map in wild chimpanzees: an analysis of hammer
transports for nut cracking. Primates 25, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02382388.
Bolton, M.S.M., Jensen, B.J., Wallace, K., Praet, N., Fortin, D., Kaufman, D., De Batist, M.,
2020. Machine learning classifiers for attributing tephra to source volcanoes: an
evaluation of methods for Alaska tephras. J. Quat. Sci. 35, 81–92. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jqs.3170.
Bond, G., 1948. Rhodesian stone age man and his raw materials. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 3,
55–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/3886949.
Borcard, D., Gillet, F., Legendre, P., 2018. Numerical Ecology with R. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7976-6.
Brandl, M., Martinez, M.M., Hauzenberger, C., Filzmoser, P., Nymoen, P., Mehler, N.,
2018. A multi-technique analytical approach to sourcing Scandinavian flint:
provenance of ballast flint from the shipwreck “Leirvigen 1,”. Norway. PLOS ONE 13,
e0200647. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200647.
Braun, D.R., Plummer, T., Ditchfield, P., Ferraro, J.V., Maina, D., Bishop, L.C., Potts, R.,
2008. Oldowan behavior and raw material transport: perspectives from the Kanjera
Formation. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 2329–2345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2008.03.004.
Braun, D.R., Plummer, T., Ferraro, J.V., Ditchfield, P., Bishop, L.C., 2009a. Raw material
quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera South,
Kenya. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1605–1614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.03.025.
Braun, D.R., Harris, J.W.K., Maina, D.N., 2009b. Oldowan raw material procurement and
use: evidence from the Koobi Fora Formation. Archaeometry 51, 26–42. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00393.x.
Braun, D.R., Harris, J.W.K., Levin, N.E., McCoy, J.T., Herries, A.I.R., Bamford, M.K.,
Bishop, L.C., Richmond, B.G., Kibunjia, M., 2010. Early hominin diet included
diverse terrestrial and aquatic animals 1.95 Ma in East Turkana, Kenya. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 107, 10002–10007. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002181107.
Braun, D.R., Aldeias, V., Archer, W., Arrowsmith, J.R., Baraki, N., Campisano, C.J.,
Deino, A.L., DiMaggio, E.N., Dupont-Nivet, G., Engda, B., Feary, D.A., 2019. Earliest
known Oldowan artifacts at >2.58 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia, highlight early
technological diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11712–11717. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1820177116.
Brilli, M., Cavazzini, G., Turi, B., 2005. New data of 87Sr/86Sr ratio in classical marble: an
initial database for marble provenance determination. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32,
1543–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.04.007.
Brooks, A.S., Yellen, J.E., Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A.K., Deino, A.L., Leslie, D.E.,
Ambrose, S.H., Ferguson, J.R., d’Errico, F., Zipkin, A.M., Whittaker, S., Post, J.,
Veatch, E.G., Foecke, K., Clark, J.B., 2018. Long-distance stone transport and
pigment use in the earliest Middle Stone Age. Science 360, 90–94. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.aao2646.
Brown, F.H., Nash, B.P., Fernandez, D.P., Merrick, H.V., Thomas, R.J., 2013.
Geochemical composition of source obsidians from Kenya. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40,
3233–3251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.011.
J. Favreau
Browne, C.L., Wilson, L., 2011. Resource selection of lithic raw materials in the Middle
Palaeolithic in southern France. J. Hum. Evol. 61, 597–608. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.08.004.
Cahen, L., Snelling, N.J., Delhal, J., Vail, J.R., Bonhomme, M., Ledent, D., 1984. The
Geochronology and Evolution of Africa. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Cann, J.R., Renfrew, C., 1964. The characterization of obsidian and its application to the
mediterranean region. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 30, 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0079497X00015097.
Carter, T., 2014. The contribution of obsidian characterization studies to early
prehistoric archaeology. In: Yamada, M., Ono, A. (Eds.), Lithic Raw Material
Exploitation and Circulation in Prehistory: a Comparative Perspective in Diverse
Palaeoenvironments. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 23–33.
Chataigner, C., Badalian, R., Bigazzi, G., Cauvin, M.-C., Jrbashian, R., Karapetian, S.G.,
Norelli, P., Oddone, M., Poidevin, J.-L., 2003. Provenance studies of obsidian
artefacts from Armenian archaeological sites using the fission-track dating method.
J. Non-Cryst. Solids 323, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3093(03)00300-
4.
Chavaillon, J., 1970. Découverte d’un niveau oldowayen dans la basse vallée de l’Omo
(Ethiopie). Bull. Soc. Prehist. Fr. 67, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.3406/
bspf.1970.10428.
Church, T., 1994. Lithic Resource Studies: A Sourcebook for Archaeologists. University of
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Clark, J.D., Kurashina, H., 1979. Hominid occupation of the East-central highlands of
Ethiopia in the plio-pleistocene. Nature 282, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/
282033a0.
Clarkson, C., Bellas, A., 2014. Mapping stone: using GIS spatial modelling to predict lithic
source zones. J. Archaeol. Sci. 46, 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2014.03.035.
Cnudde, V., Dewanckele, J., De Kock, T., Boone, M., Baele, J.-M., Crombé, P.,
Robinson, E., 2013. Preliminary structural and chemical study of two quartzite
varieties from the same geological formation: a first step in the sourcing of quartzites
utilized during the Mesolithic in northwest Europe. Geol. Belg. 16, 27–34. https://po
pups.uliege.be/1374-8505/index.php?id=3981.
Cogné, J.E., Giot, P.-R., 1952. Étude pétrographique des haches polies de Bretagne. Bull.
Soc. Prehist. Fr. 49, 388–395. https://doi.org/10.3406/bspf.1952.5080.
Craig, H., Craig, V., 1972. Greek marbles: determination of provenance by isotopic
analysis. Science 176, 401–403. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.176.4033.401.
Cueva-Temprana, A., Lombao, D., Soto, M., Itambu, M., Bushozi, P., Boivin, N.,
Petraglia, M., Mercader, J., 2022. Oldowan technology amid shifting Environments~
2.03–1.83 million years ago. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10, 788101. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.788101.
Curran, J.M., Meighan, I.G., Simpson, D.D.A., Rogers, G., Fallick, A.E., 2001. 87Sr/86Sr: a
new discriminant for provenancing neolithic porcellanite artifacts from Ireland.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 28, 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2000.0582.
Dalpra, C.L., Pitblado, B.L., 2016. Discriminating quartzite sources petrographically in
the upper gunnison basin, Colorado: implications for paleoamerican lithic-
procurement studies. PaleoAmerica 2, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
20555563.2015.1137684.
Damour, A., 1866. Sur la composition des haches en pierre trouvées dans les monuments
celtiques et chez les tribus sauvages. Rev. Archéol. 13, 190–207. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/41746734.
de Boutray, B., 1981. Étude pétrographique comparative de quartzites enfumés utilisés
par les Paléoesquimaux de l’Artique québécois. Quatrième Colloque sur le
Quaternaire du Québec 35, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.7202/1000375ar.
de la Torre, I., 2011. The early stone age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the
developed oldowan/early acheulean in East Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 60, 768–812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.01.009.
de la Torre, I., 2016. The origins of the Acheulean: past and present perspectives on a
major transition in human evolution. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci. 371, 20150245 https://
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0245.
de la Torre, I., Mora, R., 2005. Unmodified lithic material at Olduvai Bed I: manuports or
ecofacts? J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.09.010.
de la Torre, I., Mora, R., 2018. Technological behaviour in the early acheulean of EF-HR
(olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). J. Hum. Evol. 120, 329–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhevol.2018.01.003.
de la Torre, I., Mora, R., Martínez-Morena, J., 2008. The early acheulean in Peninj (lake
natron, Tanzania). J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 27, 244–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaa.2007.12.001.
Delagnes, A., Boisserie, J.-R., Beyene, Y., Chuniaud, K., Guillemot, C., Schuster, M., 2011.
Archaeological investigations in the lower Omo valley (shungura formation,
Ethiopia): new data and perspectives. J. Hum. Evol. 61, 215–222. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.03.008.
Dibble, H.L., Holdaway, S.J., Lin, S.C., Braun, D.R., Douglass, M.J., Iovita, R.,
McPherron, S.P., Olszewski, D.I., Sandgathe, D., 2017. Major fallacies surrounding
stone artifacts and assemblages. J. Archaeol. Method Theor 24, 813–851. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9297-8.
Diez-Martín, F., Sánchez, P., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Mabulla, A., Barba, R., 2009. Were
Olduvai hominins making butchering tools or battering tools? Analysis of a recently
excavated lithic assemblage from BK (Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania).
J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 28, 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2009.03.001.
Diez-Martín, F., Sánchez Yustos, P., de la Rúa, D.G., Gómez González, J.Á., de Luque, L.,
Barba, R., 2014a. Early acheulean technology at Es2-lepolosi (ancient MHS-bayasi)
in Peninj (lake natron, Tanzania). Quat. Int. 322–323, 209–236. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2013.08.053.
Diez-Martín, F., Sánchez Yustos, P., Gómez González, J.Á., Luque, L., de la Rúa, D.G.,
Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., 2014b. Reassessment of the early acheulean at EN1-
16
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
noolchalai (ancient RHS-mugulud) in Peninj (lake natron, Tanzania). Quat. Int.
322–323, 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.10.011.
Diez-Martín, F., Sánchez Yustos, P., Uribelarrea, D., Baquedano, E., Mark, D.F.,
Mabulla, A., Fraile, C., Duque, J., Díaz, I., Pérez-González, A., Yravedra, J.,
Egeland, C.P., Organista, E., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., 2015. The origin of the
acheulean: the 1.7 million-year-old site of FLK West, olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). Sci.
Rep. 5, 17839 https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17839.
Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Barba, R., Egeland, C.P., 2007. Deconstructing Olduvai: A
Taphonomic Study of the Bed I Sites. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4020-6152-3.
Drennan, R.D., 2009. Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach, second
ed. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0413-3.
Dugdale, W., 1656. The Antiquities of Warwickshire Illustrated: from Records, Leiger-
Books, Manuscripts, Charters, Evidences, Tombes, and Armes. Warren, London.
Durrani, S.A., Khan, H.A., Taj, M., Renfrew, C., 1971. Obsidian source identification by
fission track analysis. Nature 233, 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1038/233242a0.
Ebright, C.A., 1987. Quartzite petrography and its implications for prehistoric use
archeological analysis. Archaeol. E. N. Am. 15, 29–45. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/40914353.
Egeland, C.P., Fadem, C.M., Byerly, R.M., Henderson, C., Fitzgerald, C., Mabulla, A.Z.,
Baquedano, E., Gidna, A., 2019. Geochemical and physical characterization of lithic
raw materials in the Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. Quat. Int. 526, 99–115. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2019.09.036.
Ekshtain, R., Malinsky-Buller, A., Ilani, S., Segal, I., Hovers, E., 2014. Raw material
exploitation around the middle paleolithic site of ‘ein qashish. Quat. Int. 331,
248–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.07.025.
Enkelmann, E., Jonckheere, R., 2021. Fission track dating. In: Alderton, D., Elias, S.A.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Geology, second ed. Academic Press, Cambridge,
pp. 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.11991-8.
Favreau, J., Soto, M., Nair, R., Bushozi, P.M., Clarke, S., Durkin, P.R., Hubbard, S.M.,
Inwood, J., Itambu, M., Larter, F., Lee, P., Mwambwiga, A., Patalano, R., Tucker, L.,
Mercader, J., 2020. Petrographic characterization of raw material sources at Oldupai
Gorge, Tanzania. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 158. https://doi.org/10.3389/
feart.2020.00158.
Féblot-Augustins, J., 1990. Exploitation des matières premières dans l’Acheuléen
d’Afrique : perspectives comportementales. Paléo 2, 27–42. https://doi.org/
10.3406/pal.1990.987.
Fernandes, P., 2012. Itinéraires et transformations du silex: une pétroarchéologie
refondée, application au Paléolithique moyen. PhD Dissertation, Université de
Bordeaux.
Finestone, E., Braun, D.R., Plummer, T.W., Bartilol, S., Kiprono, N., 2020. Building ED-
XRF datasets for sourcing rhyolite and quartzite artifacts: a case study on the Homa
Peninsula, Kenya. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 33, 102510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2020.102510.
Flores-Prieto, E., Quénéhervé, G., Bachofer, F., Shahzad, F., Maerker, M., 2015.
Morphotectonic interpretation of the Makuyuni catchment in Northern Tanzania
using DEM and SAR data. Geomorphology 248, 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geomorph.2015.07.049.
Foley, R.A., 2018. Evolutionary geography and the afrotropical model of hominin
evolution. Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthropol. Paris 30, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.3166/
bmsap-2018-0001.
Frahm, E., 2012. Evaluation of archaeological sourcing techniques: reconsidering and
Re-deriving hughes’ four-fold assessment scheme. Geoarchaeology 27, 166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21399.
Frahm, E., 2013. Is obsidian sourcing about geochemistry or archaeology? A reply to
Speakman and Shackley. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 1444–1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jas.2012.10.001.
Frahm, E., Feinberg, J.M., Schmidt-Magee, B.A., Wilkinson, K.N., Gasparyan, B.,
Yeritsyan, B., Adler, D.S., 2016. Middle Palaeolithic toolstone procurement
behaviors at Lusakert cave 1, Hrazdan valley, Armenia. J. Hum. Evol. 91, 73–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.10.008.
Frahm, E., Jones, C.O., Corolla, M., Wilkinson, K.N., Sherriff, J.E., Gasparyan, B.,
Adler, D.S., 2020. Comparing lower and middle palaeolithic lithic procurement
behaviors within the hrazdan basin of central Armenia. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 32,
102389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102389.
Fritz, H., Abdelsalam, M., Ali, K.A., Bingen, B., Collins, A.S., Fowler, A.R., Ghebreab, W.,
Hauzenberger, C.A., Johnson, P.R., Kusky, T.M., Macey, P., 2013. Orogen styles in
the East African orogen: a review of the neoproterozoic to cambrian tectonic
evolution. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 86, 65–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jafrearsci.2013.06.004.
Gale, N.H., 1981. Mediterranean obsidian source characterisation by strontium isotope
analysis. Archaeometry 23, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1981.
tb00953.x.
Gall, D.G., Steponaitis, V.P., 2001. Composition and provenance of greenstone artifacts
from Moundville. SE. Archaeol. 20, 99–117. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
40713210.
Gallotti, R., Mussi, M., 2015. The unknown Oldowan: ~1.7-million-year-old
standardized obsidian small tools from Garba IV, Melka Kunture, Ethiopia. PLoS One
10, e0145101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145101.
Gallotti, R., Mussi, M., 2017. Two acheuleans, two humankinds: from 1.5 to 0.85 Ma at
Melka kunture (upper awash, Ethiopian highlands). Journal of Anthropological
Sciences 95, 137–181. https://doi.org/10.4436/jass.95001.
Gallotti, R., Collina, C., Raynal, J.-P., Kieffer, G., Geraads, D., Piperno, M., 2010. The
early middle Pleistocene site of Gombore II (Melka kunture, upper awash, Ethiopia)
and the issue of acheulean bifacial shaping strategies. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 27,
291–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-010-9083-z.
J. Favreau
Garrison, E.G., 2003. Techniques in Archaeological Geology. Springer, New York.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30232-4.
Garzanti, E., 2016. From static to dynamic provenance analysis—sedimentary petrology
upgraded. Sediment. Geol. 336, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sedgeo.2015.07.010.
Gauthier, G., Burke, A.L., 2011. The effects of surface weathering on the geochemical
analysis of archaeological lithic samples using non-destructive polarized energy
dispersive XRF. Geoarchaeology 26, 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20346.
Glascock, M.D., Neff, H., 2003. Neutron activation analysis and provenance research in
archaeology. Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 1516–1526. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-
0233/14/9/304.
Glascock, M.D., Braswell, G., Cobean, R.H., 1998. A systematic approach to obsidian
source characterization. In: Shackley, M.S. (Ed.), Archaeological Obsidian Studies:
Method and Theory. Springer, New York, pp. 15–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4757-9276-8_2.
Glascock, M.D., Speakman, R.J., Popelka-Filcoff, R.S. (Eds.), 2007. Archaeological
Chemistry: Analytical Techniques and Archaeological Interpretations. American
Chemical Society, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2007-0968.
Göbel, F., 1842. Ueber den Einfluß der Chemie auf die Ermittelung der Völker der Vorzeit
oder Resultate der chemischen Untersuchung metallischer Alterthümer:
insbesondere der in den Ostseegouvernements vorkommenden, behufs der
Ermittelung der Völker, von welchen sie abstammen. Enke Verlag, Erlangen. http
://hdl.handle.net/10062/39514.
Goldman-Neuman, T., Hovers, E., 2012. Raw material selectivity in late pliocene
oldowan sites in the makaamitalu basin, hadar, Ethiopia. J. Hum. Evol. 62, 353–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.05.006.
Gossa, T., Hovers, E., 2022. Continuity and change in lithic techno-economy of the early
Acheulian on the Ethiopian highland: a case study from locality MW2; the Melka
Wakena site-complex. PLoS One 17, e0277029. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0277029.
Gowlett, J.A.J., 1978. Kilombe – an acheulean site complex in Kenya. In: Bishop, W.W.
(Ed.), Geological Background to Fossil Man. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh,
pp. 337–360. https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/gsl.sp.1978.006.01.24.
Gowlett, J.A.J., Crompton, R.G., 1994. Kariandusi: Acheulean morphology and the
question of allometry. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 12, 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01953037.
Gowlett, J.A.J., Harris, J.W.K., Walton, D., Wood, B.A., 1981. Early archaeological sites,
hominid remains and traces of fire from Chesowanja, Kenya. Nature 294, 125–129.
https://doi.org/10.1038/294125a0.
Gowlett, J.A.J., Stanistreet, I.G., Albert, R.M., Blackbird, S.J., Herries, A.I.R., Hoare, S.,
Kogai, P., Komboh, C.K., Mark, D.F., Muriuki, R.M., Murphy, H., Rucina, S.M.,
Stollhofen, H., 2021. New oldowan localities at high level within Kilombe caldera,
Kenya. L’Anthropologie 126, 102976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
anthro.2021.102976.
Gurova, M., Andreeva, P., Stefanova, E., Stefanov, Y., Kočić, M., Borić, D., 2016. Flint
raw material transfers in the prehistoric Lower Danube Basin: an integrated
analytical approach. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 5, 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jasrep.2015.12.014.
Habermann, J.M., McHenry, L.J., Stollhofen, H., Tolosana-Delgado, R., Stanistreet, I.G.,
Deino, A.L., 2016. Discrimination, correlation, and provenance of Bed I
tephrostratigraphic markers, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, based on multivariate
analyses of phenocryst compositions. Sediment. Geol. 339, 115–133. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2016.03.026.
Hancock, R.G.V., Carter, T., 2010. How reliable are our published archaeometric
analyses? Effects of analytical techniques through time on the elemental analysis of
obsidians. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.004.
Harbottle, G., 1976. Activation analysis in archaeology. In: Newton, G.W.A. (Ed.),
Radiochemistry: a Specialist Periodical Report. The Chemical Society, London,
pp. 33–72.
Harmand, S., 2009a. Variability in raw material selectivity at the late pliocene sites of
Lokalalei, West Turkana, Kenya. In: Hovers, E., Braun, D.R. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary
Approaches to the Oldowan. Springer, New York, pp. 85–97. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4020-9060-8_8.
Harmand, S., 2009b. Raw materials and techno-economic behaviors at oldowan and
acheulean sites in the West Turkana region, Kenya. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.),
Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, pp. 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444311976.ch1.
Harrell, J.A., 1992. Ancient Egyptian limestone quarries: a petrological survey.
Archaeometry 34, 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1992.tb00492.x.
Hay, R.L., 1976. Geology of the Olduvai Gorge: A Study of Sedimentation in a Semiarid
Basin. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hazenfratz, R., Munita, C.S., Neves, E.G., 2017. Neural networks (SOM) applied to INAA
data of chemical elements in archaeological ceramics from central amazon. Science
& Technology of Archaeological Research 3, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/
20548923.2018.1470218.
Heizer, R.F., Williams, H., Graham, J.A., 1965. Notes on Mesoamerican Obsidians and
Their Significance in Archaeological Studies, vol. 1. Contributions of the University
of California Archaeological Research Facility, pp. 94–103.
Helm, O., 1886. Mycenean amber imported from the Baltic. In: Schliemann, H. (Ed.),
Tiryns: the Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns. The Results of the Latest
Excavations. John Murray, London, pp. 369–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511740299.009.
Henderson, J., 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: an Investigation of
Inorganic Materials. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203630143.
Hensel, E.A., Bödeker, O., Bubenzer, O., Vogelsang, R., 2019. Combining
geomorphological–hydrological analyses and the location of settlement and raw
17
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
material sites – a case study on understanding prehistoric human settlement activity
in the southwestern Ethiopian Highlands. E&G Quaternary Science Journal 68,
201–213. https://doi.org/10.5194/egqsj-68-201-2019.
Hermann, A., Forkel, R., McAlister, A., Cruickshank, A., Golitko, M., Kneebone, B.,
McCoy, M., Reepmeyer, C., Sheppard, P., Sinton, J., Weisler, M., 2020. Pofatu, a
curated and open-access database for geochemical sourcing of archaeological
materials. Sci. Data 7, 141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0485-8.
Hermes, O.D., Luedtke, B.E., Ritchie, D., 2001. Melrose green rhyolite: its geologic
setting and petrographic and geochemical characteristics. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28,
913–928. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2000.0605.
Herz, N., 1992. Provenance determination of Neolithic to classical Mediterranean
marbles by stable isotopes. Archaeometry 34, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1475-4754.1992.tb00491.x.
Hoare, S., Brink, J.S., Herries, A.I.R., Mark, D.F., Morgan, L.E., Onjala, I., Rucina, S.M.,
Stanistreet, I.G., Stollhofen, H., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2021. Geochronology of a long
Pleistocene sequence at Kilombe volcano, Kenya: from the oldowan to middle stone
age. J. Archaeol. Sci. 125, 105273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105273.
Howell, F.C., 1961. Isimila: a paleolithic site in Africa. Sci. Am. 204, 118–131. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/24937108.
Howell, F.C., Cole, G.H., Kleindienst, M.R., 1962. Isimila: an acheulian occupation site in
the iringa highlands, southern highlands province, tanganyika. In: Mortelmans, G.,
Nenquin, J. (Eds.), Actes du IVe Congrès Panafricain de Préhistoire et de l’Étude du
Quaternaire. Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, pp. 43–80.
Isaac, G.L., 1977. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin
in Kenya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Isaac, G., 1981. Stone Age visiting cards: approaches to the study of early land-use
patterns. In: Hodder, I., Isaac, G., Hammond, N. (Eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in
the Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 131–155.
Isaac, G.L., Isaac, B., 1997. In: Koobi Fora Research Project Volume 5: Plio-Pleistocene
Archaeology, ume 5. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Julig, P.J., Long, D.G.F., Hancock, R.G.V., 1998. Cathodoluminescence and petrographic
techniques for positive identification of quartz-rich artifacts from Late Paleo-Indian
sites in the Great Lakes Region. The Wisconsin Archeologist 79, 68–88.
Kasztovszky, Z.S., Biró, K.T., Markó, A., Dobosi, V., 2008. Cold neutron prompt gamma
activation analysis – a non destructive method for characterisation of high silica
content chipped stone tools and raw materials. Archaeometry 50, 12–29. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00348.x.
Keiller, A., Piggott, S., Wallis, F.S., 1941. First report of the sub-committee of the south-
western group of museums and art galleries on the petrological identification of
stone axes. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 7, 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0079497X00020272.
Key, A., Proffitt, T., de la Torre, I., 2020. Raw material optimization and stone tool
engineering in the early stone age of olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). J. R. Soc. Interface
17, 20190377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0377.
Khatsenovich, A.M., Shelepaev, R.A., Rybin, E.P., Shelepov, Y.Y., Marchenko, D.V.,
Odsuren, D., Gunchinsuren, B., Olsen, J.W., 2020. Long distance transport and use of
mica in the initial upper paleolithic of central Asia: an example from the kharganyn
gol 5 site (northern Mongolia). J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 31, 102307. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102307.
Kieffer, G., Raynal, J.-P., Bardin, G., 2004. Volcanic markers in coarse alluvium at Melka
kunture (upper awash, Ethiopia). In: Chavaillon, J., Piperno, M. (Eds.), Studies on
the Early Paleolithic Site of Melka Kunture, Ethiopia. Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e
Protostoria, Florence, pp. 93–101.
Kiehn, A.V., Brook, G.A., Glascock, M.D., Dake, J.Z., Robbins, L.H., Campbell, A.C.,
Murphy, M.L., 2007. Fingerprinting specular hematite from mines in Botswana,
southern Africa. In: Glascock, M.D., Speakman, R.J., Popelka-Filcoff, R.S. (Eds.),
Archaeological Chemistry: Analytical Techniques and Archaeological Interpretation.
American Chemical Society, Washington, pp. 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-
2007-0968.ch025.
Kimura, Y., 1997. The MNK chert factory site: the chert-using strategy by early hominids
at olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Afr. Stud. Monogr. 18, 1–28. https://jambo.africa.
kyoto-u.ac.jp/kiroku/asm_normal/abstracts/pdf/ASM%20%20Vol.18%20No.1%
201997/Yuki%20KIMURA.pdf.
Klein, C., Dutrow, B., 2008. Mineral Science, 23rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey.
Kooyman, B.P., 2000. Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. University of
Calgary Press, Calgary. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6gqs13.
Kovarovic, K., Aiello, L.C., Cardini, A., Lockwood, C.A., 2011. Discriminant function
analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true? J. Archaeol. Sci.
38, 3006–3018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.028.
Kuman, K., 1994. The archaeology of Sterkfontein – past and present. J. Hum. Evol. 27,
471–495. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1994.1065.
Kuman, K., 2014. Acheulean industrial complex. In: Smith, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Global Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4419-0465-2_653.
Kuman, K., Field, A.S., 2009. The oldowan industry from Sterkfontein caves, South
Africa. In: Schick, K., Toth, N. (Eds.), The Cutting Edge: New Approaches to the
Archaeology of Human Origins. Stone Age Institute Press, Gosport, pp. 151–169.
Kuman, K., Sutton, M.B., Pickering, T.R., Heaton, J.L., 2018. The oldowan industry from
Swartkrans cave, South Africa, and its relevance for the african oldowan. J. Hum.
Evol. 123, 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.06.004.
Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge Volume 3: Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1963.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Leakey, M.D., 1979. Olduvai Gorge: My Search for Early Man. Collins, London.
Leakey, L.S.B., Evernden, J.F., Curtis, G.H., 1961. Age of bed I, olduvai Gorge,
tanganyika. Nature 191, 478–479. https://doi.org/10.1038/191478a0.
J. Favreau
Leakey, M., Tobias, P.V., Martyn, J.E., Leakey, R.E.F., 1969. An acheulean industry with
prepared core technique and the discovery of a contemporary hominid mandible at
Lake Baringo, Kenya. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 35, 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0079497X00013402.
LeBlanc, D., 2004. Caractérisation géochimique de matières premières lithiques: Analyse
de la quartzite de Mistassini (colline Blanche, rivière Témiscamie) et de la calcédonie
du lac-Saint-Jean (île aux Couleuvres, lac Saint-Jean). MSc Thesis, Université du
Québec à Chicoutimi.
Legg, R., Nielson, J., Demel, S., 2020. Novel use of cathodoluminescence to identify
differences in source rocks for Late Paleoindian quartzite tools. Archaeometry 62,
875–887. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12568.
Lepre, C.J., Roche, H., Kent, D.V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R.L., Brugal, J.-P., Texier, P.-J.,
Lenoble, A., Feibel, C.S., 2011. An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature 477,
82–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10372.
Leverington, D.W., Teller, J.T., Mann, J.D., 2002. A GIS method for reconstruction of late
Quaternary landscapes from isobase data and modern topography. Comput. Geosci.
28, 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00097-8.
Lindsay, J.J., Hughes, H.S., Yeomans, C.M., Andersen, J.C., McDonald, I., 2021.
A machine learning approach for regional geochemical data: platinum-group
element geochemistry vs geodynamic settings of the North Atlantic Igneous
Province. Geosci. Front. 12, 101098 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.10.005.
Lowe, D.J., Pearce, N.J., Jorgensen, M.A., Kuehn, S.C., Tryon, C.A., Hayward, C.L., 2017.
Correlating tephras and cryptotephras using glass compositional analyses and
numerical and statistical methods: review and evaluation. Quat. Sci. Rev. 175, 1–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.08.003.
Lucero, G.F., Castro, S.C., Cortegoso, V., 2021. GIS modeling of lithic procurement in
highlands: archaeological and actualistic approach in the Andes. J. Archaeol. Sci.:
Report 38, 103026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103026.
Lüdecke, T., Schrenk, F., Thiemeyer, H., Kullmer, O., Bromage, T.G., Sandrock, O.,
Fiebig, J., Mulch, A., 2016. Persistent C3 vegetation accompanied plio-pleistocene
hominin evolution in the Malawi Rift (chiwondo beds, Malawi). J. Hum. Evol. 90,
163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.10.014.
Luncz, L.V., Proffitt, T., Kulik, L., Haslam, M., Wittig, R.W., 2016. Distance-decay effect
in stone tool transport by wild chimpanzees. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 283, 20161607. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1607.
Lundblad, S.P., Mills, P.R., Hon, K., 2008. Analysing archaeological basalt using non-
destructive energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF): effects of post-
depositional chemical weathering and sample size on analytical precision.
Archaeometry 50, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00345.x.
Macgregor, D., 2015. History of the development of the East African Rift System: a series
of interpreted maps through time. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 101, 232–252. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2014.09.016.
Macholdt, D.S., Jochum, K.P., Pöhlker, C., Arangio, A., Förster, J.-D., Stoll, B., Weis, U.,
Weber, B., Müller, M., Kappl, M., Shiraiwa, M., Kilcoyne, A.L.D., Weigand, M.,
Scholz, D., Haug, D., Al-Amri, A., Andreae, M.O., 2017. Characterization and
differentiation of rock varnish types from different environments by microanalytical
techniques. Chem. Geol. 459, 91–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemgeo.2017.04.009.
Marder, O., Milevski, I., Matskevich, Z., 2006. The handaxes of Revadim Quarry: typo-
technological considerations and aspects of intra-site variability. In: Goren-Inbar, N.,
Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox,
London, pp. 223–242.
Marwick, B., 2003. Pleistocene exchange networks as evidence for the evolution of
language. Camb. Archaeol. J. 13, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0959774303000040.
Marwick, B., 2017. Computational reproducibility in archaeological research: basic
principles and a case study of their implementation. J. Archaeol. Method Theor 24,
424–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9.
Marwick, B., Birch, S.E.P., 2018. A standard for the scholarly citation of archaeological
data as an incentive to data sharing. Advances in Archaeological Practice 6,
125–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.3.
Mathur, R., Burns, J., Powell, W., Boryk, R., Sheetz, B., D’Amico, P., Harney, P., 2020.
Evaluation of Fe isotope values as a provenance tool for chert artefacts from the
north-eastern United States. Archaeometry 62, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/
arcm.12572.
Mauran, G., Caron, B., Détroit, F., Nankela, A., Bahain, J.-J., Pleurdeau, D., Lebon, M.,
2021. Data pretreatment and multivariate analyses for ochre sourcing: application to
Leopard Cave (Erongo, Namibia). J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 35, 102757. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102757.
McBrearty, S., 2003. Patterns of technological change at the origin of Homo sapiens.
Before Farming 3, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3828/bfarm.2003.3.9.
McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the
origin of modern human behavior. J. Hum. Evol. 39, 453–463. https://doi.org/
10.1006/jhev.2000.0435.
McDonald, M.M.A., 1991. Systematic reworking of lithics from earlier cultures in the
early holocene of dakhleh oasis, Egypt. J. Field Archaeol. 18, 269–273. https://doi.
org/10.1179/009346991792208281.
McHenry, L.J., de la Torre, I., 2018. Hominin raw material procurement in the Oldowan-
Acheulean transition at Olduvai Gorge. J. Hum. Evol. 120, 378–401. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.11.010.
Mercader, J., Akuku, P., Boivin, N., Bugumba, R., Bushozi, P., Camacho, A., Carter, T.,
Clarke, S., Cueva-Temprana, A., Durkin, P., Favreau, J., Fella, K., Haberle, S.,
Hubbard, S., Inwood, J., Itambu, M., Koromo, S., Lee, P., Mohammed, A.,
Mwambwiga, A., Olesilau, L., Patalano, R., Roberts, P., Rule, S., Saladie, P.,
Siljedal, G., Soto, M., Umbsaar, J., Petraglia, M., 2021. Earliest Olduvai hominins
18
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
exploited unstable environments ~ 2 million years ago. Nat. Commun. 12, 3.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20176-2.
Merrick, H.V., Brown, F.H., 1984. Obsidian sources and patterns of source utilization in
Kenya and northern Tanzania: some initial findings. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 2, 129–152.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01117229.
Merrick, H.V., Brown, F.H., Nash, W.P., 1994. Use and movement of obsidian in the early
and middle stone ages of Kenya and northern Tanzania. In: Childs, S.T. (Ed.),
Society, Culture, and Technology in Africa, MASCA Research Papers in Science and
Archaeology, vol. 11, pp. 29–44 (Philadelphia).
Middleton, A.P., Bradley, S.M., 1989. Provenancing of Egyptian limestone sculpture.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 16, 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(89)90069-1.
Molen, N.H., Rozendal, R.H., Boon, W., 1972. Fundamental characteristics of human gait
in relation to sex and location. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Ser. C Biol. Med. Sci. 45,
215–223.
Mollel, G.F., 2002. Petrology and Geochemistry of the Southeastern Ngorongoro
Volcanic Highland; and Contribution to “Sourcing” of Stone Tools at Olduvai Gorge,
Tanzania. MSc Thesis, Rutgers University.
Moreau, L., Brandl, M., Filzmoser, P., Hauzenberger, C., Goemaere, É., Jadin, I.,
Collet, H., Hauzeur, A., Schmitz, R.W., 2016. Geochemical sourcing of flint artifacts
from western Belgium and the German rhineland: testing hypotheses on gravettian
period mobility and raw material economy. Geoarchaeology 31, 229–243. https://
doi.org/10.1002/gea.21564.
Morgan, L.E., Renne, P.R., Taylor, R.E., WoldeGabriel, G., 2009. Archaeological age
constraints from extrusion ages of obsidian: examples from the Middle Awash,
Ethiopia. Quat. Geochronol. 4, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quageo.2009.01.001.
Moutsiou, T., 2014. The Obsidian Evidence for the Scale of Social Life during the
Palaeolithic. BAR International Series 2613. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Moutsiou, T., Agapiou, A., 2019. Least cost pathway analysis of obsidian circulation in
early holocene–early middle holocene Cyprus. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 26, 101881.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101881.
Mussi, M., Altamura, F., Di Bianco, L., Bonnefille, R., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S.,
Geraads, D., Melis, R.T., Panera, J., Piarulli, F., Pioli, L., Ruta, G., Sánchez-Dehesa
Galán, S., Méndez-Quintas, E., 2021. After the emergence of the acheulean at Melka
kunture (upper awash, Ethiopia): from Gombore IB (1.6 Ma) to Gombore Iγ (1.4 Ma),
Gombore Iδ (1.3 Ma) and Gombore II OAM test Pit C (1.2 Ma). Quat. Int. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.02.031.
Nash, D.J., Coulson, S., Staurset, S., Ullyott, J.S., Babutsi, M., Hopkinson, L., Smith, M.P.,
2013. Provenancing of silcrete raw materials indicates long-distance transport to
Tsodilo Hills, Botswana, during the Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 280–288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.01.010.
Navazo, M., Colina, A., Domínguez-Bella, S., Benito-Calvo, A., 2008. Raw stone material
supply for Upper Pleistocene settlements in Sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos, Spain): flint
characterization using petrographic and geochemical techniques. J. Archaeol. Sci.
35, 1961–1973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.12.009.
Nazaroff, A.J., Baysal, A., Çiftçi, Y., 2013. The importance of chert in central Anatolia:
lessons from the Neolithic assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Geoarchaeology 28,
340–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21446.
Neff, H., 2017. Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-ms). In: Gilbert, A.S.
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 433–449. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4409-0_19.
Negash, A., Shackley, M.S., Alene, M., 2006. Source provenance of obsidian artifacts
from the early stone age (ESA) site of Melka konture, Ethiopia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33,
1647–1650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.11.001.
Negash, A., Nash, B.P., Brown, F.H., 2020. An initial survey of the composition of
Ethiopian obsidian. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 172, 103977 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jafrearsci.2020.103977.
O’Neil, J.R., Hay, R.L., 1973. 18O/16O ratios in cherts associated with the saline lake
deposits of East Africa. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 19, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0012-821X(73)90126-X.
O’Neill, M.C., Lee, L.-F., Demes, B., Thompson, N.E., Larson, S.G., Stern Jr., J.T.,
Umberger, B.R., 2015. Three-dimensional kinematics of the pelvis and hind limbs in
chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and human bipedal walking. J. Hum. Evol. 86, 32–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.05.012.
Parish, R.M., Swihart, G.M., Li, Y.S., 2013. Evaluating fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy as a non-destructive chert sourcing technique. Geoarchaeology 28,
289–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21437.
Parks, G.A., Tieh, T.T., 1966. Identifying the geographical source of artefact obsidian.
Nature 211, 289–290. https://doi.org/10.1038/211289a0.
Perkins, D., 1998. Mineralogy. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Pitblado, B.L., Dehler, C., Neff, H., Nelson, S.T., 2008. Pilot study experiments sourcing
quartzite, gunnison basin, Colorado. Geoarchaeology 23, 742–778. https://doi.org/
10.1002/gea.20240.
Pitblado, B.L., Cannon, M.B., Neff, H., Dehler, C.M., Nelson, S.T., 2013. LA-ICP-MS
analysis of quartzite from the upper gunnison basin, Colorado. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40,
2196–2216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.016.
Pollard, A.M., Bray, P.J., Gosden, C., 2014. Is there something missing in scientific
provenance studies of prehistoric artefacts? Antiquity 88, 625–631. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0003598X00101255.
Pop, C.M., 2016. Simulating lithic raw material variability in archaeological contexts: a
Re-evaluation and revision of brantingham’s neutral model. J. Archaeol. Method
Theor 23, 1127–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9262-y.
Potts, R., 1988. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203700969.
J. Favreau
Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A.K., Ditchfield, P., 1999. Paleolandscape variation and early
Pleistocene hominid activities: members 1 and 7, Olorgesailie formation, Kenya.
J. Hum. Evol. 37, 747–788. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.1999.0344.
Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A.K., Faith, J.T., Tryon, C.A., Brooks, A.S., Yellen, J.E., Deino, A.
L., Kinyanjui, R., Clark, J.B., Haradon, C., Levin, N.E., Meijer, H.J.M., Veatch, E.G.,
Owen, R.B., Renaut, R.W., 2018. Environmental dynamics during the onset of the
middle stone age in eastern Africa. Science 360, 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aao2200.
Presnyakova, D., Braun, D.R., Conard, N.J., Feibel, C., Harris, J.W., Pop, C.M.,
Schlager, S., Archer, W., 2018. Site fragmentation, hominin mobility and LCT
variability reflected in the early Acheulean record of the Okote Member, at Koobi
Fora, Kenya. J. Hum. Evol. 125, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhevol.2018.07.008.
Price, J.R., Velbel, M.A., 2003. Chemical weathering indices applied to weathering
profiles developed on heterogeneous felsic metamorphic parent rocks. Chem. Geol.
202, 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2002.11.001.
Prieto, A., Aldea-Moreira, X., Arzarello, M., Berruti, G.L.F., Caracausi, S., Daffara, S., de
la Peña, P., Favreau, J., García-Rojas, M., Huysecom, E., Janardhana, B., Jha, D.K.,
Lahari, L., Molefyane, T.R., Pruvost, C., Rodríguez-Álvarez, X.P., Thomas, M.,
Vaishnav, H.K., Villeneuve, Q., de Lombera-Hermida, A., 2022. How to deal with an
elephant in the room? Understanding “non-flint” raw materials: characterisation and
technological organisation. Revista ArkeoGazte Aldizkaria 12, 73–98. https://arkeog
azte.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/3-MON-Prieto-et-al..pdf.
Rapp, G., 2009. Archaeomineralogy, second ed. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-540-78594-1.
Redmount, C.A., Morgenstein, M.E., 1996. Major and trace element analysis of modern
Egyptian pottery. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23, 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jasc.1996.0070.
Reeves, J.S., Braun, D.R., Finestone, E.M., Plummer, T.W., 2021. Ecological perspectives
on technological diversity at Kanjera South. J. Hum. Evol. 158, 103029 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2021.103029.
Reimer, R., 2018. Lithic sourcing in Canada. Can. J. Archaeol. 42, 137–143. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/44878257.
Resom, A., Asrat, A., Gossa, T., Hovers, E., 2018. Petrogenesis and depositional history of
felsic pyroclastic rocks from the Melka Wakena archaeological site-complex in South
central Ethiopia. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 142, 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jafrearsci.2018.03.003.
Reti, J.S., 2016. Quantifying oldowan stone tool production at olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.
PLoS One 11, e0147352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147352.
Roche, H., Brugal, J.-P., Lefevre, D., Ploux, S., Texier, P.-J., 1988. Isenya: état des
recherches sur un nouveau site acheuléen d’Afrique orientale. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 6,
27–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01117111.
Roche, H., de la Torre, I., Arroyo, A., Brugal, J.-P., Harmand, S., 2018. Naiyena Engol 2
(West Turkana, Kenya): a case study on variability in the oldowan. Afr. Archaeol.
Rev. 35, 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-018-9283-5.
Rollinson, H.R., 1993. Using Geochemical Data: Evaluation, Presentation, Interpretation.
Routledge, London.
Rooney, T.O., 2017. The Cenozoic magmatism of East-Africa: Part I — flood basalts and
pulsed magmatism. Lithos 286–287, 264–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lithos.2017.05.014.
Rooney, T.O., 2020a. The cenozoic magmatism of East Africa: Part II – rifting of the
mobile belt. Lithos 360–361, 105291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lithos.2019.105291.
Rooney, T.O., 2020b. The cenozoic magmatism of East Africa: Part III–rifting of the
craton. Lithos 360–361, 105390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2020.105390.
Rooney, T.O., 2020c. The cenozoic magmatism of East Africa: Part V – magma sources
and processes in the East African Rift. Lithos 360–361, 105296. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lithos.2019.105296.
Sampson, C.G., 2006. Acheulian quarries at hornfels outcrops in the Upper Karoo region
of South Africa. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian
Toolmaking from Quarry to Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 75–107.
Sánchez-Yustos, P., Diez-Martín, F., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Fraile, C., Duque, J.,
Uribelarrea, D., Mabulla, A., Baquedano, E., 2016. Techno-economic human
behavior in a context of recurrent megafaunal exploitation at 1.3 Ma. Evidence from
BK4b (Upper Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 9, 386–404.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.08.019.
Santonja, M., Panera, J., Rubio-Jara, S., Pérez-González, A., Uribelarrea, D., Domínguez-
Rodrigo, M., Mabulla, A.Z.P., Bunn, H.T., Baquedano, E., 2014. Technological
strategies and the economy of raw materials in the TK (Thiongo Korongo) lower
occupation, Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Quat. Int. 322–323, 181–208. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.10.069.
Sayre, E.V., Dodson, R.W., 1957. Neutron activation study of mediterranean potsherds.
Am. J. Archaeol. 61, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/501078.
Schlüter, T., 1997. Geology of East Africa. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.
Sciuto, C., Geladi, P., La Rosa, L., Linderholm, J., Thyrel, M., 2019. Hyperspectral
imaging for characterization of lithic raw materials: the case of a mesolithic dwelling
in northern Sweden. Lithic Technol. 44, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01977261.2018.1543105.
Semaw, S., Renne, P., Harris, J.W.K., Feibel, C.S., Bernor, R.L., Fesseha, N., Mowbray, K.,
1997. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature 385, 333–336.
https://doi.org/10.1038/385333a0.
Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Renne, P.R., Butler, R.F., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Stout, D.,
Hart, W.S., Pickering, T., Simpson, S.W., 2003. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(03)00093-9.
19
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Cáceres, I., Stout, D., Leiss, A.C., 2018. The early acheulean
~1.6–1.2 Ma from Gona, Ethiopia: issues related to the emergence of the acheulean
in Africa. In: Gallotti, R., Mussi, M. (Eds.), The Emergence of the Acheulean in East
Africa and beyond: Contributions in Honor of Jean Chavaillon. Springer, Cham,
pp. 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75985-2_6.
Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Simpson, S.W., Levin, N.E., Quade, J., Dunbar, N., McIntosh, W.
C., Cáceres, I., Stinchcomb, G.E., Holloway, R.L., Brown, F.H., Butler, R.F., Stout, D.,
Everett, M., 2020. Co-occurrence of Acheulian and Oldowan artifacts with Homo
erectus cranial fossils from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaw4694 https://doi.
org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw4694.
Shackley, M.S., 1998. Gamma rays, X-rays and stone tools: some recent advances in
archaeological geochemistry. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, 259–270. https://doi.org/
10.1006/jasc.1997.0247.
Shackley, M.S., 2008. Archaeological petrology and the archaeometry of lithic materials.
Archaeometry 50, 194–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00390.x.
Shackley, M.S. (Ed.), 2011. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology.
Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6886-9.
Shimelmitz, R., 2015. The recycling of flint throughout the lower and middle paleolithic
sequence of tabun cave, Israel. Quat. Int. 361, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quaint.2014.08.033.
Shott, M.J., 1989. On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological
assemblages. Am. Antiq. 54, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/281329.
Shotton, F.W., Hendry, G.L., 1979. The developing Field of petrology in archaeology.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 6, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(79)90034-7.
Skarpelis, N., Carter, T., Contreras, D.A., Mihailović, D.D., 2017. Characterization of the
siliceous rocks at Stélida, an early prehistoric lithic quarry (Northwest Naxos,
Greece), by petrography and geochemistry: a first step towards chert sourcing.
J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 12, 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2016.11.015.
Smith, R.J., Wood, B., 2017. The principles and practice of human evolution research:
are we asking questions that can be answered? Comptes Rendus Palevol 16,
670–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2016.11.005.
Soto, M., Favreau, J., Campeau, K., Carter, T., Abtosway, M., Bushozi, P.M., Clarke, S.,
Durkin, P.R., Hubbard, S.M., Inwood, J., Itambu, M., Koromo, S., Larter, F., Lee, P.,
Mwambwiga, A., Nair, R., Olesilau, L., Patalano, R., Tucker, L., Mercader, J., 2020a.
Fingerprinting of quartzitic outcrops at Oldupai Gorge, Tanzania. J. Archaeol. Sci.:
Report 29, 102010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102010.
Soto, M., Favreau, J., Campeau, K., Carter, T., Durkin, P.R., Hubbard, S.M., Nair, R.,
Bushozi, P.M., Mercader, J., 2020b. Systematic sampling of quartzites in sourcing
analysis: intra-outcrop variability at Naibor Soit, Tanzania (Part I). Archaeological
and Anthropological Sciences 12, 100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01054-
w.
Stammers, R.C., Caruana, M.V., Herries, A.I.R., 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. Quat. Int. 495, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quaint.2018.04.026.
Stephens, J.A., Ducea, M.N., Killick, D.J., Ruiz, J., 2021. Use of non-traditional heavy
stable isotopes in archaeological research. J. Archaeol. Sci. 127, 105334 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105334.
Stern, N., 1994. The implications of time-averaging for reconstructing the land-use
patterns of early tool-using hominids. J. Hum. Evol. 27, 89–105. https://doi.org/
10.1006/jhev.1994.1037.
Stiles, D., 1998. Raw material as evidence for human behaviour in the Lower Pleistocene:
the Olduvai case. In: Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R. (Eds.), Early Human Behaviour in
Global Context: the Rise and Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record. Routledge,
London, pp. 130–145. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203203279.
Stiles, D.N., Hay, R.L., O’Neil, J.R., 1974. The MNK chert factory site, olduvai Gorge,
Tanzania. World Archaeol. 5, 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00438243.1974.9979575.
Stollhofen, H., Stanistreet, I.G., Toth, N., Schick, K.D., Rodríguez-Cintas, A., Albert, R.M.,
Farrugia, P., Njau, J.K., Pante, M.C., Herrmann, E.W., Ruck, L., Bamford, M.K.,
Blumenschine, R.J., Masao, F.T., 2021. Olduvai’s oldest Oldowan. J. Hum. Evol. 150,
102910 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102910.
Stoner, W.D., Shaulis, B.J., 2021. Chemical mapping to evaluate post-depositional
diagenesis among the earliest ceramics in the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. Minerals
11, 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11040384.
Stout, D., Quade, J., Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Levin, N.E., 2005. Raw material selectivity
of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 365–380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.10.006.
Stross, F.H., Hay, R.L., Asaro, F., Bowman, H.R., Michel, H.V., 1988. Sources of the
quartzite of some ancient Egyptian sculptures. Archaeometry 30, 109–119. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1988.tb00439.x.
Stukeley, W., 1740. Stonehenge, a Temple Restor’d to the British Druids. W. Innys & R.
Manby, London.
Sulzman, E.W., 2007. Stable isotope chemistry and measurement: a primer. In:
Michener, R., Lajtha, K. (Eds.), Stable Isotopes in Ecology and Environmental
Science, second ed. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/
10.1002/9780470691854.ch1.
Sunyer, M.R., Torcal, R.M., Figueroa, J.P., Martínez-Moreno, J., Benito-Calvo, A., 2017.
Quartzite selection in fluvial deposits: the N12 level of Roca dels Bous (Middle
Palaeolithic, southeastern Pyrenees). Quat. Int. 435, 49–60. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.010.
Suzuki, M., 1969. Fission track dating and uranium contents of obsidian (I). Quat. Res. 8,
123–130. https://doi.org/10.4116/jaqua.8.123.
ten Bruggencate, R.E., Fayek, M., Brownlee, K., Milne, S.B., Hamilton, S., 2013.
A combined visual-geochemical approach to establishing provenance for pegmatite
J. Favreau
quartz artifacts. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 2702–2712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2013.02.008.
ten Bruggencate, R.E., Fayek, M., Milne, B., Brownlee, K., 2014. Characterizing quartz
artefacts: a case study from Manitoba’s northern Boreal forest. Archaeometry 56,
913–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12092.
Texier, P.-J., 2018. Technological assets for the emergence of the acheulean? Reflections
on the Kokiselei 4 lithic assemblage and its place in the archaeological context of
West Turkana, Kenya. In: Gallotti, R., Mussi, M. (Eds.), The Emergence of the
Acheulean in East Africa and beyond: Contributions in Honor of Jean Chavaillon.
Springer, Cham, pp. 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75985-2_3.
Thomas, H.H., 1923. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. Antiq. J. 3, 239–260.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500005096.
Toth, N., 1985. The oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artifacts. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 12, 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(85)90056-1.
Trigger, B.G., 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought, second ed. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813016.
Tryon, C.A., 2003. The Acheulian to MSA Transition: Tephrostratigraphic Context for
Archaeological Change in the Kapthurin Formation. University of Connecticut. PhD
Dissertation.
Tucker, L., Favreau, J., Itambu, M., Larter, F., Mollel, N., Mwambwiga, A., Patalano, R.,
Roberts, P., Soto, M., Mercader, J., 2020. Initial assessment of bioavailable strontium
at Oldupai Gorge, Tanzania: potential for early mobility studies. J. Archaeol. Sci.
114, 105066 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.105066.
van der Merwe, N.J., Masao, F.T., Bamford, M.K., 2008. Isotopic evidence for contrasting
diets of early hominins Homo habilis and Australopithecus boisei of Tanzania. South
Afr. J. Sci. 104, 153–155. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/27727.
Verri, G., Barkai, R., Bordeanu, C., Gopher, A., Hass, M., Kaufman, A., Kubik, P.,
Montanari, E., Paul, M., Ronen, A., Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., 2004. Flint mining in
prehistory recorded by in situ produced cosmogenic 10Be. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
101, 7880–7884. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402302101.
Verri, G., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Hass, M., Kubik, P.W., Paul, M., Ronen, A., Weiner, S.,
Boaretto, E., 2005. Flint procurement strategies in the late lower palaeolithic
recorded by in situ produced cosmogenic 10Be in tabun and Qesem caves (Israel).
J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.09.001.
20
Quaternary Science Advances 9 (2023) 100068
Vogel, N., Nomade, S., Negash, A., Renne, P.R., 2006. Forensic 40Ar/39Ar dating: a
provenance study of Middle Stone Age obsidian artifacts from Ethiopia. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 33, 1749–1765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.03.008.
Wadley, L., Kempson, H., 2011. A review of rock studies for archaeologists, and an
analysis of dolerite and hornfels from the Sibudu area, KwaZulu-Natal. South. Afr.
Humanit. 23, 87–107. https://www.sahumanities.org/index.php/sah/article/view
/329.
Weaver, J., Stross, F., 1965. Analysis by X-Ray Fluorescence of Some American
Obsidians, vol. 1. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological
Research Facility, pp. 89–93.
Weigand, P.C., Harbottle, G., Sayre, E.V., 1977. Turquoise sources and source analysis:
mesoamerica and the Southwestern USA. In: Earle, T.K., Ericson, J.E. (Eds.),
Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic Press, New York, pp. 15–34. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-227650-7.50008-0.
Wilson, L., 2007. Understanding prehistoric lithic raw material selection: application of a
gravity model. J. Archaeol. Method Theor 14, 388–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10816-007-9042-4.
Wocel, J., 1854. Archäologische parallelen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen. Akademie
der Wissenschafien. Philosophisch-Historische Classe (Wien) 11, 716–761.
Wojtczak, D., 2015. Cores on flakes and bladelet production, a question of recycling? The
perspective from the Hummalian industry of Hummal, Central Syria. Quat. Int. 361,
155–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.10.021.
Zaid, S.M., Elbadry, O., Ramadan, F., Mohamed, M., 2015. Petrography and
geochemistry of Pharaonic sandstone monuments in Tall San Al Hagr, Al Sharqiya
Governorate, Egypt: implications for provenance and tectonic setting. Turk. J. Earth
Sci. 24, 344–364. https://doi.org/10.3906/yer-1407-20.
Zaidner, Y., Centi, L., Prévost, M., Mercier, N., Falguères, C., Guérin, G., Valladas, H.,
Richard, M., Galy, A., Pécheyran, C., Tombret, O., Pons-Branchu, E., Porat, N.,
Shahack-Gross, R., Friesem, D.E., Yeshurun, R., Turgeman-Yaffe, Z., Frumkin, A.,
Herzlinger, G., Ekshtain, R., Shemer, M., Varoner, O., Sarig, R., May, H.,
Hershkovitz, I., 2021. Middle Pleistocene Homo behavior and culture at 140,000 to
120,000 years ago and interactions with Homo sapiens. Science 372, 1429–1433.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh3020.