Beyond the genus stereotype. Who were the first toolmarkers in Africa? Crossed views between archaeology and anatomy
L'Anthropologie, ISSN: 0003-5521, Vol: 127, Issue: 4, Page: 103187
2023
- 2Citations
- 5Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The evolutionary history of hominins and archaeological assemblages has become considerably more complex in the last twenty-five years due to the contribution of innovative analytical methods and new archaeological and paleoanthropological discoveries. The discoveries unearthed in eastern and southern Africa show a high biological and cultural diversity. But what is the nature of the relationships between hominins and the different material cultures? Singularity or plurality of the stone and bone-tool makers and archaeological assemblages? We propose a crossed view on these questions based on investigations of hominin/culture associations in the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene fieldwork records, morphology-underlying hominins with manual skills as well on interdisciplinary research conducted recently. Our work highlights the plurality of bone and stone toolmakers, in particular Paranthropus, H. habilis and H. erectus/ergaster for Oldowan assemblages. Similarly, in terms of anatomy, the type of dexterity required to make Oldowan assemblages is likely not limited to Homo genus. The frequency of Paranthropus remains associated with Oldowan assemblages is not negligible and insignificant. The occurrences between Oldowan assemblages and Paranthropus seem not to be coincidental and Paranthropus should be therefore considered as a stone and bone-tool maker in the same way as it is for early Homo. L’histoire évolutive des hominines et des assemblages archéologiques est devenue considérablement plus complexe au cours des vingt-cinq dernières années grâce à l’apport de méthodes analytiques novatrices et de nouvelles découvertes tant archéologiques que paléoanthropologiques. Les découvertes mises au jour en Afrique orientale et australe montrent une grande diversité tant sur le plan biologique que culturel. Mais quelle est la relation entre les hominines et les différentes cultures matérielles ? Singularité ou pluralité des artisans des artefacts lithiques et osseux et des assemblages archéologiques ? Nous proposons un regard croisé sur ces questionnements à partir d’une part, d’une analyse des associations hominines/assemblages archéologiques au Pliocène supérieur et au Pléistocène inférieur, et d’autre part, de l’anatomie de ces hominines et des recherches interdisciplinaires menées ces dernières années. Notre travail met en évidence une pluralité des fabricants d’outils en os et en pierre, en particulier Paranthropus, H. habilis et H. erectus/ergaster pour les assemblages Oldowayens. De même, d’un point de vue anatomique, le type de dextérité requis pour réaliser les assemblages Oldowayens n’est probablement pas limité au genre Homo. La fréquence des restes de Paranthropus associés aux assemblages Oldowayens est loin d’être négligeable et insignifiante. Les occurrences entre les assemblages Oldowayens et le genre Paranthropus ne semblent pas être une coïncidence et le genre Paranthropus devrait donc être considéré comme un artisan des artefacts lithiques et osseux au même titre que les premiers représentants du genre Homo.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003552123000845; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2023.103187; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85175037483&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003552123000845; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2023.103187
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know