The Ancients - The First Tools

Episode Date: April 23, 2026

What if the first technology was just a stone?Tristan Hughes and Dr. Emma Finestone travel back over 3 million years to Africa, where early hominins began shaping stone tools that transformed survival, diet, and behaviour. From the earliest finds to the widespread tool making industry in northern Tanzania, they explore who made these tools, how they worked, and why they matter.MORERise of HumansListen on AppleListen on SpotifyOrigins of the WheelListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Tristan Hughes. Audio editor is Hannah Feodorov. The producer is Joseph Knight. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic SoundsThe Ancients is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever wondered why the Romans were defeated in the Tudorburg Forest? What secrets lie buried in prehistoric Ireland? Or what made Alexander truly great? With a subscription to History Hit, you can explore our ancient past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand-new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to World War II.

Just visit historyhit.com slash subscribe. Africa, three million years ago, and our distant ancestors have just discovered an ingenious solution to their limitations. They may not be as fast as the cheetah, as powerful as the hippopotamus, as agile as the antelope. But from now on, bit by bit by bit, this imbalance of power in the ancient African landscape will slowly start to shift. At some point, one of these hominins picks up a stone, weathered and unremarkable. Then they smash it against another rock. They modify it, giving them a sharper object, a tool to forage wild plants, to craft wood, to slice flesh from bone, to reach the marrow hidden within.

No longer is this the world as it is. This is changing it. And in that long-lost moment, something novel is born. The first technology. So what do we know about the people who made these earliest tools and how big a leap in our evolutionary story really was this moment? Welcome to the ancients. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host. And today we are traveling back millions of years to the very very ancient. infancy of technology itself, unearthing the origins of this prehistoric industrial revolution that would alter the course of human history forever. Our guest today is Dr. Emma Feinstone, Associate Curator of Human Origins at Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Emma, it is such a pleasure

to have you on the podcast. Thanks. I'm really glad to be here. And to talk about the earliest tools, I mean, Emma, I feel it's important stating right at the beginning that this is a story that takes us long before our species, homo sapiens, long before Neander's tools too. This is a story that takes us back over a million years. It's incredible. Yeah, it's actually over several million years. So, yeah, tools are a broad thing. It's not just humans. And talking about a broad term, I mean, the word tool, what do we mean? How do we classify a tool? Yeah, that's a good question. You might not find the answer particularly helpful because it's also very broad. So a tool is really any object that's used to obtain an outcome or a function.

It doesn't even have to be modified. So by this definition of a tool, many, many animals use tools. It's not just humans. It's an object that helps us to obtain an outcome. So that includes things that birds do. I mean, if you're listening, you might think even your dog is maybe using tools sometimes. But what makes human tool use unique is that we take it beyond that initial definition. And taking it beyond that initial definition is that when we're talking about

deliberate modification of an object like a stone for a particular function? That is part of it. But other animals actually do that as well. The longer we've studied tools, the more and more messy it gets in trying to figure out what is distinctly human about the ways that we use tools. So what we do is we don't just use an object for an outcome, but we modify the object and we make things. However, there are other animals that do that too, including other primates.

What humans really do with tools, though, is that we have cumulative culture, so we modify our tools and they are passed from generation to generation. There's a lot of debate about when this begins, but the scale at which we use tools and the way that we've really begun to use tools to solve adaptive problems and rely on tools for our survival is beyond the scope of any other animal. So my next question was going to be like, well, how far back then can we go? We've won the earliest tools were made. But from what you were saying there, Emma, because it's such a broad term and depending how

we're reviewing this, I mean, that could take us back even more millions of years if we're thinking actually if it's just a natural object that was just used and we just don't know the evidence isn't there from the surviving archaeological record. The way that a lot of non-human primates tool use works is that, like, for example, chimpanzees will use sticks for termite fishing. So they'll modify a stick, and then they'll stick it in a termite mound, and they'll eat the termites. So they're modifying an object to eat termites. A stick isn't going to fossilize. So when we're dealing with the archaeological record, we can only begin to see tool use once we start to see modified rocks.

So we base our understanding of human tool use in an evolutionary context. We base it off of when we see modified rocks because those are preserved. They don't disintegrate. But I think most archaeologists would agree that all of our lineage, even before modified rocks, enter the archaeological record, we're using tools in one way or another. Okay. I think I'll still try and make sure that the producer calls this episode the first tools rather than the first modified rocks because it's not quite the same. but we will be focusing on those earliest modified rocks.

So Emma, I mean, how far back are we going with these earliest, fine, earliest and modified rocks? We can call them stone tools. That might be easier. Okay, let's do it. Yes, so the earliest stone tools are found 3.3 million years ago in West Turkana, Kenya at a site called Lamequi 3. And then those tools, which are called the Lumequian industry,

disappear from the archaeological record, and then at around 2.9, we see the next industry, which is called the Oldowan, which is the industry that I study. It's the first widespread and persistent tool industry. So rather than appearing in one place at one time, it spreads all across Africa and out of Africa, and it evolves and persists for over a million years in time. So 3.3 is the earliest stone tools, and then 2.9 is when we get a record that, becomes continuous. Okay. So Lamequie is almost has the gold medal for the oldest.

But as you're saying, in regards to the significance, in regards to the amount of archaeological discoveries made, this other technology, slightly later, a few hundred thousands of years later, the older one, it becomes more widespread. I don't want to use the word more important, but I guess more prominent in the surviving archaeological record. Yes. And we know a lot more about it because there's so many sites. It's practiced by more hominins.

It shows up more places. so we're able to learn more from it, but also I think you could make the argument that it is more important to the hominins at that stage because they're all practicing it in different places through time. However, I will say that the Lomequian, we weren't even looking for tools 3.3 million years ago until these were discovered in 2016. So right now, it's localized to West Turkana, Kenya, but I do suspect that that could change, and perhaps the Lamequians a little bit more widespread and persistent than what we currently understand. Gosh, okay.

And before kind of exploring the key differences between the two, you've mentioned dates like, so over three million years ago from Lemeckri, almost three million years for Olderuan. I've got to ask about the dating first off. How can you and your colleagues, how can you date these tools? Yeah, that's a good question.

And it's its own specialty. So we have geologists who specialize in dating sites that come to our sites and help us to figure out how old they are. For a lot of the Olderwans, sites and the Lomequian sites, they're able to date because there's a lot of volcanic activity in the past in those regions. And the volcanic ash, you can actually date because there's parts in the volcanic ash that decay at a known rate and they're able to measure how long ago it was

that the volcanic ash erupted and then settled on the landscape. So when you find an archaeological assemblage, whether it's below or above a specific layer of volcanic ash that constrains what time period you're dealing with. And what sorts of landscape should we be imagining where these tools have been discovered, including, of course, the sites that you've been working on in Western Kenya? Yeah, that's a good question. So in the past, for example, at the site I work at, we have reconstructed what the past environment looked like. It's on the modern shores of Lake Victoria, but Lake Victoria was not present at the time. The lake developed later. But there was a freshwater spring in the past that was nearby. So there would have been actually.

access to fresh water. A lot of sites obviously accumulate around places where there's access to water and also access to stone material. So stones are often found in rivers, riverbed, streams, and a lot of sites accumulate in those places because you need those resources in order to make the tools. And then there also has to be food resources. And this can vary a lot from site to site. like the site I work at is more wooded, and there's a stream along a channel with some woody cover. Other sites are more open and grassland dominated, but wherever it is, there has to be access to stones, access to food resources, and proximity to water generally. Something interesting is that the 2.9 million-year-old Old-Wan site, which is where I work,

isn't near good quality stones, and our research has shown that they actually, foraged for stones over distances of over 10 kilometers. So it doesn't have to be right next to a high quality source of stone, but you need to be somewhere in the vicinity of able to access high quality stones to make tools, food resources, whether it's plant or animal materials to eat. And then also generally having access to water some form of shade is often important too. But that's really interesting there, Emma, because this seems to be another area where geology is really, really helpful, whether it's with big stone age monuments from the last few thousands of years, like stone circles and so on, or back to your old around site 2.9 million years ago,

by looking at the geology of the rocks, let's say, of these early tools, is figuring out the source, you know, whereabouts they were found and then getting a sense of the distances involved of these early humans that used them, you know, almost three million years ago. Yeah, and to figure out where the stones were coming from, was actually quite complicated and it took years to survey all of the ancient riverbeds. We actually looked at the geochemistry of the different rock types and then of the tool assemblage. So we linked the artifacts to their sources from the geochemistry. So what types of trace elements are present in the rocks?

What types of rocks are present in different ancient river systems? And that's how we were able to figure out where the rocks were coming from. So it's a good deal of geology. Well, let's now delve into Lamekrian versus Oldowan. So you have these two different types of technologies, very early technologies. Emma, can you describe both of them and then explain how they differ? So with Oldowan tools, you're able to produce sharp cutting edges by the most common technique they would use is they'd use both hands and they would bash one rock against another, which sounds simple, but it's actually quite hard to do your first time. You probably won't get a sharp cutting edge detached. You need to strike it at exactly the right angle and in the right location in order for a sharp piece to pop off that has, it's like a stone knife. It has a sharp cutting edge that actually is sharp enough in our experimental studies.

We use it to butcher a variety of animals that, like, at a goat roast sometimes we'll do experimental studies. We'll use flakes that we make to butcher goats that we were, of course, already eating and to process different types of plant materials, even ones that are quite hard. So these stone knives are really sharp. They're as sharp as the knives we have now, depending on the type of stone that you use. but some stones can produce really sharp knives. And you have to actually be careful when you're napping them to not cut yourself. So that is the old one generally, is that there's two stones held in hand that you fracture,

and then you get this sharp piece, which is called a flake. There's other ways to produce old one tools, but that is the most common. And the two stones are the size that you can hold them in your hand. Now, the Lomechuan is also focused on producing stone knives, but the tools are much bigger. and the method for producing them is different. The most common way that Lomechian tool makers seem to have produced tools is either by a type of percussion where they just have a stationary anvil on the ground

and they have a core that they strike on the stationary anvil and a flake, the sharp cutting piece, pops off. So they're striking two rocks together, but they're not holding them in their hand. There's an anvil stationary on the ground. Or there's a type of percussion called bipolar percussion, where you place one rock between an anvil and then you smash the top of it. And so the impact coming from both sides, that's why it's called bipolar, will shatter off pieces that have sharp flakes.

This is a technique also used sometimes in the old awan, but not as often. And it's also more similar to the technique that non-human primates would use because it's similar to nut cracking, but instead of the nut being smashed against the anvil and struck from above, it's a stone that is and it produces these flakes. that have sharp cutting edges, which is, it seems like that is really what the tool makers are after, is the cutting tools, both for the Lomequian and the Oldowan, although they also sometimes pound food items using the cores and larger rocks.

So can you argue that the leap from Lamequian to Odwan, can we say that it is then a technological leap forwards? How with the Old War, you don't have that anvil, it's just two stones together to create those really, really sharp knives. Is it fair to say that there is a technological leap forwards, a development between these two early technologies? Yeah, I would say that the older one is another level of refinement, you could say, because holding two stones in a hand and using what we call handheld percussion to produce a flake, it gives you more control over the resulting flake.

So you can standardize the size more easily. You can maximize the cutting edge to the mass of the flake. and with the Lomechuan techniques, there's not as much control. And so part of this also might have to do with, it takes more manual dexterity to do the handheld percussion, and the Lomequian tools, it takes less manual dexterity. So I will say that if a technique works, you don't always need to reinvent the wheel.

And so like how we see in the old one, they still do bipolar percussion, even though that uses less control. It produces sharp edges that can be used to cut things. so sometimes that's enough. Emma, here on The Ancients, we love delving into the nerdy details, and we're absolutely going to do that with the rocks themselves. Because I've got to ask about these,

the rocks that were used at the Old Ordoin sites, including the one you've been working at, should we be imagining two very hard, I guess, that vulgar igneous stones that they're using, or that always one of the stones harder than the other, so they're using the harder stone to kind of bash a little bit off of the one which they can make the tool from, I mean, do we know much about the stones themselves?

Yes, and you're right to ask about, does one have to be harder than the other? The hammerstone, which is the one that is fracturing, that is percussing against the core, which is the rock that the flake comes from, has to be harder because otherwise it would fracture. So the hammerstone needs to be very hard. Sometimes these are igneous rocks, but often it's also rocks that are like quartzite or quartz. At the site I work at, they use both quartz, quartzite, but then also volcanic rocks like riolyte. Rialite is the main one in the region that I work. Different study areas have different types of rock.

It's usually quartzite, quartz, rialite, basalt. It's a combination of different types of rock, and it doesn't necessarily have to be volcanic, but it does have to be hard. What actually makes volcanic rocks sometimes better than rocks like quartz or quartzite is if there's finer grain sizes, then it fractures more predictably. Quartz and courts have larger grains and more irregularities. So that makes the resulting flake sometimes more difficult to control because the grains can cause fractures in ways that a finer grain, like a volcanic material, will fracture more smoothly and predictably. But what really matters is the hardness and the durability.

And so if quartz and quartzite are able to produce durable sharp edges, they'll still use those, even if they don't fracture as predictably. And you see a lot of assemblages that use quartz, even though quartz is a very difficult material to flake and has often large grain sizes. Well, this is the thing. They're not all going to be exactly the same in how they look, but they can still all serve an important function. They don't go to waste, almost, Emma. Yes, exactly. They'll use, sometimes we see even really bad materials. that they made one flake out of and then they didn't try again.

But I suspect that they try to flake most of the rocks that are available to them. And then they have preferences for some rocks over others, but any material will do. And do we find at these Odwan sites, do we find lots of hammerstones, lots of cores together in regards to the quantity when you do find one of these sites? Is it notable just how many there are that survive in a small area? Hammerstones are actually fairly rare. You get less hammerstones. You also get less cores than the detached pieces, but sometimes you can still get a good percentage of them. We have over 20% cores at the Nyanga assemblage, which is the 2.9 million-year-old old old one site that I work at. The most common type are usually what we call angular fragments, which are pieces that flaked off, but unlike a flake, they aren't complete and they don't preserve. the elements that we look for on a flake. These are especially common if they're working materials like quartz that fracture less predictably. So actually, most of what you get are what we call

angular fragments, but most of our analysis focuses on the flakes and the cores, which usually still make up a decent portion of the assemblage. Like I said, cores are 20% of the assemblage that I studied the 2.9 million-year-old site. And we had a good number. of flakes too. We had more flakes than we had cores. So you still get a good number of them. All right. So function. So what do we think, Emma, these people, whoever made these tools, modified stones, what would they have used them for? What would they have used the flakes for? And I guess what would they have used the course for? That's the question. And we do have a lot of evidence now that can answer it. But when we talked about different types of tools not fossilizing

and how that limits our ability to understand what the tools were before stone tools, we have this problem with studying the materials that they would be eating because a lot of the materials that they were likely accessing with these tools wouldn't fossilize, like the plants, potentially if they're woodworking, if they're processing fruits, those sorts of things, you're not going to find evidence of them in the archaeological record. What we do have is animal bones that bear the marks from flakes cutting into them. So we have cut marks on bones.

And so that tells us that at least one of the functions of ancient tools, at least in the old one industry, was accessing animals. We have a cutmarked hippo at the, actually we have two cutmarked hippos published from the site that I work at. So they were accessing even large animals, although these. were likely scavenged and not hunted because it's so early in the Oldowan industry. You also find lots of cut marks on antelope in the Old Dewan record. A variety of different mammals you see cut marks.

So we know from the cut marks that they are accessing meat and also sometimes marrow, so they would break apart a bone to access marrow at the center. But the real unknown is how much of the Oldoan is for things like plant processing or behaviors that aren't associated with butchery. And we might suspect that that actually was a huge function of the old one because that's a big part of human diets. And when we're talking about millions of years ago, it was likely the main part of diets for hominins when we're talking like 3.3 million years ago,

2.9. And one way we can get at understanding how much plant processing is happening is looking at, it's called useware. and we look at the edges of the stone tool to try to figure out what type of contact material the edge was working because the edge will chip in a different way, whether it's cutting into different types of plants or animals. And what we found at our sites is that plant processing was actually the majority of use.

Animal processing was still important, but over 50% of the useware signals plant processing. And also we found evidence of woodworking. So it's possible that they're using these stone knives to also shape wood. So it's like using a tool to make another tool, which is really interesting if you think about it, because that's now a step removed from just directly accessing food. You're using a tool to make another tool. Yeah, so almost kind of the Swiss Army knife equivalent of three million years ago.

And when you're talking about it's kind of cutting plants, should we be thinking like foraging bushes or mushrooms or, or what should we be thinking? You swear can't tell you the exact type of food item that they were processing. So we can tell that some are plants that are similar to things like tubers. So think like potatoes, yams, those sorts of things. There's also evidence for processing things that are more like grasses or reeds. But I imagine it was a wide variety of foraging for different plant materials, like how you brought up mushrooms. Certainly, I think that that would be something that hominins would have

eaten. It's just we're limited in the archaeological record to see exactly what the food items were that they were eating when they're not fossilizing. So it's kind of a guessing game. Fair enough. But is this somewhere where experimental archaeology can help, at least when, let's say the function that people might think of straight away, which is the getting meat of the bone of an animal. Do we know how effective an old one, a sharp olduan tool, a flake would have been? Yeah, well, experimental studies are really the way to get at these questions.

And I'll add that the useware is experimental because they're experimentally processing different animal and plant materials and then using that to interpret the archaeological record. So experimental studies are really one of the only ways that you're going to fully understand these questions about old to one use. And the flakes very efficiently can deflesh a carcass. And I mentioned this earlier, but we we do that in the field all the time and we use the flakes for the experimental use where studies. It works the same as a knife. It takes more than one flake usually because the

flakes dull. And this is what would have happened for the hominens too because they discarded flakes, which is why we find them associated with carcasses in the archaeological record or else they'd only ever need to make one and they would carry it around with them for their whole life. And then we wouldn't have these assemblages of many, many stone tools. So it takes more than one flake to be able to efficiently process an animal. But you can definitely do it with a handful of flakes, especially if it's a type of material that doesn't dull easily. I mentioned that they really prefer hard and durable material. And part of that is because you need to have the edge stay sharp for a decent amount of time because you'd just be discarding flakes and making new ones all the time

if you were using a soft material. So I said anything worked before in terms of stone, but there's some stones that aren't going to be sharp enough, and there's some stones that you're going to have to discard quickly. So having the right type of material will lead to a stone knife that can really efficiently process an animal. Emma, is the word weapon? Is that word banned for when we're going this far back in time? I mean, has there been any thought about, you know, these kind of stones being used as weapons, or is that just something we just have no idea about? At least in the part of the Oldowan record that I work in, we don't even ask that question. It's clear that the stone knives are useful for processing foods, but they are almost certainly scavenging the

animals, and they're coming across them on the landscape. Now, I'm talking about 2.9. As you move later, they do start to sometimes actively hunt, and there's evidence based on the location of where cut marks are in relation to other damage from animals like carnivores that they had primary access to carcasses. But we're not in the time period where we're imagining that they have spheres that they're taking the animal down with. So, I mean, it does eventually become a weapon. I wouldn't say that term is banned when thinking about the old one, but I at least, see the flakes not so much as weapons but like a fork in knife like do we think of those as weapons depends on the yeah depends on how the dinner party's going i guess but anyways moving on from

that we've been dancing around this next question which i'm sure many of you listening are shouting at already we've talked a lot about the the rocks themselves emma the big question is who who are the potential can't that were making these tools around three million years ago? Yes. Who is the question? And it's been a question for decades and decades of research. The history of it is actually interesting because the first Oldowan stone tools were

discovered at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania in Bed 1. And initially they were attributed to a skull that was nearby. The skull was OH5, and it was close. called zinganthropus. Nowadays, peranthropus is the term we generally use for this group. Its nickname is the Nutcracker Man because it had enormous teeth, like four times the size of our teeth today, and really robust jaws and cranial features that supported robust chewing musculature. So it was nicknamed the Nutcracker. Likely wasn't eating nuts, but that was an idea a while ago. Because it had such heavy chewing.

musculature in such strong jaws. Now, initially, Xenthropist was credited with the first Oldowan tools, but it was only a year later that they discovered another hominin with a slightly larger brain and smaller teeth and an associated partial hand that seemed to have dexterity, and this was then named homo habilis, which you might have been familiar with. And that means handyman. So Homo habilis, poor Zinganthropus was the toolmaker for one year, and then Homo habilis was discovered as a better candidate for the Oldowan tools. And since then, there's been the assumption, which I think is still true that Homo Habilis is the primary maker of Oldowan tools. But there's always been a question mark about how much Zinganthropist now renamed

peranthropist, so I'll call it paranthropist from now on. How much peranthropist could have also been making and using tools? Because they overlap very heavily with the older one in space and time, the same way that Homo Habilis does. First of all, I mean, Paranthropus is such a fascinating species. I remember looking at the skulls that they have, and they've always got a crest in the middle of the head. Really, really fascinating. But I guess the thing to highlight there straight away is, obviously, we are Homo sapiens. So Homo habilis is on our line, I guess. guess, but Paranthropus is not. Yes, thank you.

I forgot to say that. Homo habilis is a member of genus Homo. It's the first species in genus Homo, which is the genus we belong to, and it's our ancestor, or our presumed ancestor. Peranthropus is an offshoot lineage that ends up going extinct. So it's like our extinct aunts and uncles. It's not a direct ancestor to us. So that is another reason that Homo Habilis being the first tool-making.

made so much sense because today we're the tool makers. Like that's who we are. And our lineage has been tool makers, undoubtedly, including homo habilis, that is what we do. But the question now is, is our lineage the only toolmaker, which is what many people believed for a long time. And I think recent evidence, though, has, especially the discovery of the Lomachuan, has made us have to say, you know what, maybe our own lineage isn't the only makers of stone tools and we have to start thinking of other scenarios.

Well, let's continue the story then, Emma. So if we go to the earlier Olduan and the Lomechrian sites, who were the contenders at that time? Yeah. So beyond just the Homo versus Peranthropist for the Oldoan, when the Lomechuan was discovered, this is 3.3 million years ago. Homo habilis doesn't appear until 2.8.

A species' true first appearance is usually longer ago than the first fossil we have, but half a million years is quite a long time. It's a bit of a stretch to think that Homo would have been the makers of the Lomechian tools since they don't enter the fossil record until 500,000 years later. The Lomequian really shook up this idea that Genus Homo was the inventor of stone tools. And the most likely candidates for the Lomequian are hominins that we know from that time period that are members of a different genus. We have Australopithecus aphrensus, which is known from the iconic fossil Lucy, if you're familiar with Lucy.

It's a species of Australopithecine that lived in the same time period as the Lomechian industry lived and overlaps regionally where we find the Lomequian tools. Another hominin called Kenyanthropus platyops, which isn't part of the genus Australopithecus but is quite similar to Australopithecus and a lot of its features. is known specifically from West Turkana Kenya and is alive in that time period. So it's Kenyanthropist, platyops, and Australopithecus aphrens that are the hominins that make the most sense for the Lomechian if we're looking at which hominins are alive at the right place and the right time.

So, I mean, to summarize then, Emma, the research is suggesting that the earliest evidence we have for modified rocks comes from species, not from our, genus. Well, I think, I guess that's it. It comes from species, not from our genus, yes. Yes, exactly. And whether or not they're on our lineage is unknown, or at least debated. But the fact that they're not in genus Homo is the headline, because for a long time, I mean, Homo habilis is named for making and using tools. And making and using tools was part of the definition for us and the other members of genus Homo. So having a toolmaker, especially the very

first toolmaker that wouldn't be in genus Homo, is very different than what the assumption had been for a long time. So what do you think this can tell us, Emma, about these early human species that we still know very, very little about? I guess also about toolmaking, yes, this far back in time. Is it at all possible that we might find evidence of modified rocks that might come from other lineages, maybe more closely aligned with primates and so on going forward? Yeah, it's interesting you say that because there's also been a lot of work published recently about non-human primate tool use. And it's a lot more similar to homin and tool use than we initially thought. There are primates that produce flakes that are nearly identical to the flakes that

we find and the archaeological record. But the main difference is they don't intentionally produce the flakes and they don't use the flakes. The flakes are just byproducts of other activities that they're doing that are more pounding focused. But actually, these flakes even form archaeological records and they go back in time thousands of years. So there's archaeological records for non-human primates now. So that really muddies the waters. However, I want to emphasize because I get this question a lot, I don't think that hominin archaeological accumulations could have been made by non-human primates because we don't just have the flakes. We also have the cut marks on the fossils that they were used for, which is something non-human

primates don't do. They don't use the flakes for tasks, and they also don't use them to process meat. And we also have evidence of tool transport from longer distances, which isn't something non-human primates does. So I don't think that this calls into question the earliest archaeological assemblages, but it certainly broadens our idea of who could be making modified stones. It's not just humans. It's not just homo. It's not just hominence. It's a variety of primates. But as you were saying that, Emma, and this seems really, really important then, the intentional creating of flakes to then be used as tools for various different tasks, as you've highlighted,

from cutting meat to cutting plants and creating wooden objects as well, which imagine if they'd survive, that'd be incredible. Does that still feel, you know, in the story of our human evolution, seven million-year-old story there and thereabouts, that this is, you know, roughly three million years ago, this is a big kind of step forward. This is a big cognitive leap, that deliberate creating, you know, modification

and creating of these tools for various purposes. Yeah, I think the intentionality is, important and also the level of investment. Rather than just using tools opportunistically, which is what I would say non-human primates tend to do, where they're using a stone that is already nearby to crack open, say, a nut, what hominins start to do is they really ingrained tool use in the daily rhythms of their life and in the way that they're using their landscapes and foraging for both food resources and stone resources. When I mentioned how the hominins at the site I work at were foraging over 10 kilometers to get rocks, and that's something that non-human primates don't do,

if you think about it, that implies a level of investment and importance to tool use that it's beyond just picking up something nearby to achieve immediate solution. It means that they're really starting to rely on tool use and invest in tool use in the same way that they would invest in food resources. And this, I think, is where you get a shift from a non-human primate style of tool use to something that then becomes uniquely human. Because the way we use tools nowadays, we use tools to solve adaptive problems and modify our environments in a way that no other animal does. And the first thing we do, if a new environmental problem arises or, say there's a new disease or a new challenge. The first thing we do is we look to our tools

to find a solution. And so that happens because I think millions of years ago, our ancestors started to really integrate tools into their way of life and their foraging strategies, and they became eventually dependent on it. That's one thing that's different with us. We're dependent on technology for survival and other species aren't. Wow. There you go. The psychology of it and the ramifications down to present day when you think about it, it's the passing down of that archaic knowledge. Can you imagine these groups teaching their young? This is how you make one of these tools.

This is where you get the stones from. We've gone to a new area. We need to find a new source of these stones. But it's that passing on of that technology that ensures for, is it many, many thousands of years, is it? The older one industry is over a million. years. Wow. Okay. So goodness knows how many generations of these early humans across Africa, they continue knowing this technology and sharing it down with generations. Yeah. And they also take it out of Africa. So the earliest migrations out of Africa, they take the tools with them. And there's

Old Dewan tools found as far away as China even two million years ago. Wow. And so how long is the old one industry around for? Because if my memory serves me right, the next big stage, it's the hand axe. It's the more complex tool. So how long is it is the old one thriving until we then see it's almost, dare I say, replacement by early humans? Yeah, that's a good question. And it's a complicated one, as most questions about human origins are. The next industry is the Ashulian, which is, as you're describing hand axes, by faces. It's where they're shaping cores rather than just concentrating on the flakes, that appears potentially as early as 2 million years ago. Definitely a lot of sites pop up by 1.7 million years ago. However, Old Dewan industry persists alongside the Ashulian in many places.

So it isn't just like a replacement that happens at a particular point in time. You start to see Ashulian assemblages get more numerous around 1.7 and later, but you can still actually actually get Oldowan industries, I mean, really up until now. So I'm not even sure that there was a full extinction or a replacement of the Old Wan industry, but it becomes the less prominent industry by 1.7. It's amazing to think whether, like, you know, what we would see is very simple stone tool, the old one tooled was, you know, for early humans for almost a million years, maybe the most important objects in their communities because of all the functions it had. Emma, is there still so much more still to learn out in Africa at your side and elsewhere

in Africa about, you know, these earliest tools and what they can teach us about these early humans? Yeah, definitely. And I think the discovery of the Lomechuan, because it pushed back the origins of stone tool technology so much further in time than what we were currently thinking about, we've started to look in places that are older than what we normally would have looked at for stone tools. And you see, ever since the discovery of the Lomequian, and especially after Nyanga was published in 2023, there's just so many early Oldowan sites that are getting published, where it was only a handful of sites that were older than 2 million years old. Just a few years ago, we now have a collection of sites that are 2.6 and older. And even in the last six months, there was a 2.5

75 million-year-old Oldowan site published. So I think it's only a matter of time maybe before the Oldowan gets pushed back even further. And part of that is just because we didn't think the Old one went back further than 2.6 and we didn't think there was anything before it until relatively recently. So the field has to catch up in terms of funding and also leading field projects that are looking in earlier deposits. Because no one is going to look at it in deposits that are 3 million years old until there's some evidence that there would be tools there. So now everyone is starting to look more carefully in older deposits. And I think that's going to just increase our sample. And that will help us to understand the emergence of the old one and how it might relate to

the Lomechian even more. Because my last question was going to be, Emma, you know, aside from pushing back the age, pushing back the dates even further, I mean, what other new information could actually be found out about these early people just from finding more and more of these very early tools. But it sounds like there are still many areas that can be learned more about. Yeah, one key question, I think, is about the relationship of the Lomechian to the Oldowan, whether they were just two separate inventions that the Lomechian disappeared and the old one emerged then much later,

or whether perhaps the Lomequian was more persistent and widespread than is currently recognized. and there could be a link between the Lomequian and the Oldowan. There are research groups that do probabilities based on the ages of sites that say that really we should be considering that the Lomequian and the Oldoan might not represent an industry that went extinct and then a new industry that originated, but they could be linked. And if we find more sites that would fill that in and help us to understand whether the Lomequian was the precursor to the old one in a way that we can actually trace through time.

Another big question, well, clearly what we talked about is who made the earliest stone tools. That's a difficult question to answer, but having a greater sample of both archaeological assemblages and also hominin fossils, it helps us to look at the overlap between hominins and tools, and it increases the resolution, the more fossils and the more assemblages we find. And in the last year, I mentioned we have an early old one assemblage published that wasn't published, before, but we also have Paranthropus published in Ethiopia, which is a region that we didn't know Paranthropus from before. So it increases the range of Paranthropus and then adds peranthropus as a question mark next to some assemblages from Ethiopia. So the fossil record is

such a small portion, a snapshot of who was alive where and what assemblages were where at what place and time. And the more we grow the number of fossils and the number of Olduan and Lamekwean occurrences, the more we can really start to understand the relationships of different hominence to tools. Emma, really, really exciting times. I think we'll wrap up there. Lovely to mention Peranthropus again. Anytime we can give Peranthropus, it's time in the sunlight. That's good with me. Emma, it just goes to me to say, thank you so much for taking the time to come on the show. Yeah, thank you so much for having me. I'm really glad that you invited me because I love that this podcast is about history, and I like how the Oldoan and the Lomechuan can be grouped in with human history.

because I really think that it is relevant to everything we do today is thinking about the origin of these technologies. Well, there you go. There was Dr. Emma Feinstone talking all of things, the first tools, how humans made that cognitive leap to modify rocks, to modify stones some three million years ago in Africa. I hope you enjoyed the episode. Thank you so much for listening.

We love doing human evolution ones. They always seem so popular with you, too. Don't worry, we'll be doing more around the story of ours. Distant, distant, distant ancestors. You love it. We love recording them. There is much more to come. In the meantime, if you've been enjoying the ancients,

then please make sure that you're following the show on Spotify or wherever you get to your podcasts. That really helps us. You'll be doing us a big favour. If you'd also be kind enough to leave us a rating as well, well, we'd really appreciate that. Lastly, don't forget, you can also sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries

with a new release every week. Sign up at historyhit.com slash subscribe. That's all from me. I'll see you in the next episode.