Early Hominids

UNIT 6 HOMO HABILIS*

Contents
6.0 Introduction
6.1 Distribution and Age of Early Hominids
6.2 Homo habilis
6.2.1 Morphological Features
6.2.2 Lifeways
6.3 Phylogenetic Status of Homo habilis
6.4 Summary
6.5 References
6.6 Answers to Check Your Progress
Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, you will be able to:
learn evolution and distribution of hominids;
know the characteristics and lifeways of Homo habilis; and
understand its phylogenetic status and implications.

6.0 INTRODUCTION
Before we proceed about the species Homo habilis under the genus Homo, it is
imperative to talk about hominid evolution. Dating to the end of the Miocene,
the earliest hominid traces that have been found so far included primarily dental
and cranial pieces. And what have been preserved of the copious hominoid fossils
from throughout the Miocene are mainly teeth and jaws. But dental features
alone do not describe the special features of hominids and are not the most
distinctive of the later stages of human evolution. Modern humans as well as our
most immediate ancestors are distinguished from the great apes by certain
characteristics such as bipedal locomotion, large brain size and tool making
behaviour as being significant in defining a hominid. It is also emphasized that
all these characteristics developed simultaneously or at the same pace. Over the
last several million years the components of dentition, locomotion, brain size
and tool making have developed at quite different rates. A pattern of evolution
where physiological or behavioural systems evolve at different rates is called
mosaic evolution. It is important to note that the single most important defining
characteristic for the full course of hominid evolution is bipedal locomotion. In
the earlier stages of hominid emergence, skeletal evidence indicating bipedal
locomotion is the only truly reliable indicator that the fossils were indeed
hominids. However, in the later stages of hominid evolution, other features like
brain development and behaviour have become highly significant.

78 * Prof. Satwanti Kapoor (Retired), Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, Delhi.

 Table 1: Mosaic evolution of hominid characteristics Homo Habilis

Locomotion Brain Dentition Toolmaking Behaviour

Modern Bipedal: shortened Greatly increased Small incisors, canines Stone tools found after
Homo pelvis, body size larger, brain size further reduced, molar 2.5 mya, increasing trend
sapiens legs longer, fingers and tooth enamel thick of cultural dependency
toes not as long apparent in later hominds
Bipedal: shortened Larger than Moderately large front In earliest stages
Early
pelvis, some differences Miocene forms teeth (incisors), canines unknown, no stone tool
Hominid but small
from later hominids, somewhat reduced, used prior to 2.5 mya,
showing smaller body compared to molars quite large large probably somewhat
size and long arms modern humans with very thick enamel more oriented toward
relative to legs, long tool manufacture and use
fingers and toes, than chimpanzee
probably capable of
considerable climbing
Miocene Quadrupedal: long Small compared to Large front Unknwon- no stone
generalized pelvis, some forms hominids, but teeth(including canines), tools, probably had
hominid capable of considerable large compared to molar teeth variable, capabilities similar to
arm swinging, other primates depending on species, chimpanzees
suspensory locomotion some have thin enamel
caps, others thick
enamel caps

6.1 DISTRIBUTION AND AGE OF EARLY

HOMINIDS
The first finds of the hominid fossil was from South Africa but by the 1970s,
East Africa (particularly along the Rift valley in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania)
had taken pre-eminence. The geological circumstances found in East Africa
produce a clearer stratigraphic picture and better association of hominids with
archaeological artifacts and equally important is that these materials are much
more easily datable. According to Kimbel & colleagues (1997) the earliest fossils
of our own genus, Homo, are found in East Africa and dated to 2.3 mya. These
early specimens showed similar brain and body size with Australopithecus, but
differences in their molar teeth suggested that there was a change in diet. But
others have opined that by at least 1.8 mya, early members of our genus were
using primitive stone tools to butcher animal carcasses, which indicated that
there is addition of energy-rich meat and bone marrow to their plant-based diet.

Blumenschine et al. (2003) were of the view that the oldest member of the genus
Homo, Homo habilis (2.3–1.4 mya) is found in East Africa and is associated
with the use of simple stone tools and butchered animal. According to them, the
more formidable and widespread descendant, of H. erectus, is found throughout
Africa and Eurasia which is believed to have existed from 1.9 mya to 100 kya,
and perhaps even later (Anton, 2003). Like modern humans, H. erectus lacked
the forelimb adaptations for climbing seen in Australopithecus. The global
expansion of H. erectus suggests its ecological flexibility, with the cognitive
capacity to adapt and thrive in vastly different environments. Not surprisingly, it
is with H. erectus that we begin to see a major increase in brain size, upto 1,250
cc for later Asian specimens (Anton, 2003). Molar size is reduced in H. erectus
relative to Australopithecus, reflecting its softer, richer diet.
79
Early Hominids Around 700 kya, and perhaps earlier, H. erectus in Africa gave rise to H.
heidelbergensis, a species very much like humans in terms of body proportions,
dental adaptations, and cognitive ability (Rightmire, 2009). H. heidelbergensis,
was an active big-game hunter, produced sophisticated Levallois style tools, and
by at least 400 kya had learned to control fire and was often referred to as an
“archaic” Homo sapiens, (Roebroeks and Villa, 2011). Neanderthals (H.
neanderthalensis) are also cold-adapted hominins with stout physiques, complex
behaviors, and brain size similar to the present day humans. They are thought to
have evolved at least 250 kya from H. heidelbergensis populations in Europe
(Rightmire, 2008; Hublin, 2009).
Fossil and DNA evidences suggest that Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa 200
kya (Relethford, 2008; Rightmire, 2009), probably from H. heidelbergensis. The
increased behavioral sophistication of Homo sapiens, as indicated by large brains
(1,400 cc) and archeological evidence of a broader tool set and clever hunting
techniques, allowed the species to flourish and grow on the African continent.
By 100 kya, Homo sapiens spilled into Eurasia, eventually expanding across the
entire globe into Australia and the Americas (DiGiorgio et al. 2009). Along the
way the species of Homo sapiens displaced other hominins they encountered,
including Neanderthals in Europe and similar forms in Asia. Studies of ancient
DNA extracted from Neanderthal fossils suggest the Homo sapiens species may
have occasionally interbred with them (Green et al., 2010). Cultural innovations
such as agriculture and urbanization shape the landscape and species around us
but the increasing global impact continues today.
The approximate dates of widely recognised members of the hominin family
tree are shown in Table 2 based on Lewin and Foley (2004).
Table 2: Dates and distributions of commonly recognised hominin species
Date(mya)* Geographical distribution
Earliest hominins
Sahelanthropus tchadensis 7.5 Central Africa: Chad
Orrorin tugenensis 6 East Africa: Kenya
Ardipethicus ramidus 4.5 East Africa: Ethiopia
Gracile Australopithecines
Australopithecus anamensis 4.5 East Africa: Kenya
Australopithecus afarensis 4.3 East Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya,
Australopithecus africanus 3.5.2 Tanzania
Australopithecus 3.6 South Africa: South AfricaCentral
bahrelghazali Africa: Chad
Robust Australopithecines
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.5-1 East Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya
Australopithecus boisei 2-1 East Africa: Tanzania
Australopithecus robustus 2-1 South Africa: South Africa
Transitional Homo species
Homo rudolfensis 2.5-1.8 South Africa: Malawi
Homo habilis 1.8-1 East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania;
South Africa: South Africa
Homo
Homo erectus 1.8-1 East Africa: Ethiopia, Kenya,
Tanzania; South Africa: South
Africa;

80
 Homo Habilis
Homo heidelbergensis 0.5-0.2 North Africa: Morrocco; Europe:
Homo neanderthalensis 0.2-0.1 Italy; Asia: Indonesia, China
Homo sapiens 0.2-present Europe, Africa, Asia
Europe
Global
*mya – millions of years before present
Source: Lewin & Foley, 2004

Fig. 1: Distribution of early hominids

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica

6.2 HOMO HABILIS

In mankind’s evolutionary journey to the present, there were many starts and
stops, most attempts didn’t work out well but with each try by the scientists, we
got a little better and moved to a little closer to whatever we are today. Homo
habilis is the one that is believed to be the first of the “great Ape” type creatures
to have evolved to the point where he could be called “Homo” (Man). This was
possible with the discovery of fragmentary remains at Olduvai Gorge by Louis
Leakey in the early 1960s. This suggested a significantly larger brain than seen
in australopi thecines which signalled the earliest appearance of genus Homo in
East Africa. The name Homo habilis meaning ‘handy man’ was given by Louis
Leaky because they were the early Olduvai toolmakers and that they were the
human ancestors. Homo habilis is now extinct, but had inhabited parts of sub-
Saharan Africa about 2 million to 1.5 million years ago. Homo habilis is generally
accepted as following Australopithecus and preceding Homo erectus. Homo
habilis was the earliest creature to make tools for specific purposes. For instance,
if he needed a sharp edge to cut meat, he would strike two pieces of flint against
each other, and the pieces that broke away would usually have a sharp edge and
serve as an instant knife.

81
Early Hominids
Check Your Progress
1) When were the earliest fossils of genus Homo found? Write down their
characteristics.
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
2) Who discovered Homo habilis? Why it is known as “Handy Man”?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

6.2.1 Morphological Features

The fossil remains of Homo habilis were discovered by Leakey at Olduvai Gorge
in East Africa in 1962. The remains consist of parts of skull, upper jaw and lower
jaw. Zinjanthropus and Homo habilis seem to have lived during the same time.
Homo habilis, however, represents a more advanced type. According to Leakey,
Tobias and Napier Homo habilis represents a hominid stage of evolution between
Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and therefore, they want to establish a new
genus for Homo habilis. To establish their claim they have demonstrated that in
respect of cranial vault, nuchal region, dentition etc. Homo habilis resembles
Homo sapiens. But others do not agree it. To them Homo habilis is a variety of
Australopithecine and may be regarded as a relatively progressive
Australopithecus (Das, 1993).

Homo habilis is characterized by the following features: A mean cranial capacity

greater than that of members of the genus Australopithecus; but smaller than that
of Homo erectus; muscular ridges on the cranium ranging from slight to strongly
marked; chin region retreating; maxillae and mandibles smaller than those of
Australopithecus and within the range for Homo erectus and Homo sapiens;
dentition characterized by incisors which are relatively large in comparison with
those of both Australopithecus and Homo erectus; canines which are
proportionately large relative to the premolars; premolars which are narrower
(in bucco-lingual breadth) than those of Australopithecus, but which fall within
the range for Homo erectus; molars in which the absolute dimensions range
between the lower part of the range in Australopithecus and the upper part of the
range in Homo erectus; a marked tendency towards bucco-lingual narrowing
and mesiodistal elongation of all the teeth, which is especially evident in the
lower premolars (where it expresses itself as a marked elongation of the talonid)
and in the lower molars (where it is accompanied by a rearrangement of the
distal cusps); the sagittal curvature of the parietal bone varies from slight (within
82
the hominine range) to moderate (within the australopithecine range); the external Homo Habilis
sagittal curvature of the occipital bone is slighter than in Australopithecus or in
Homo erectus, and lies within the range of Homo sapiens; in curvature as well as
in some other morphological traits, the clavicle resembles, but is not identical to,
that of Homo sapiens sapiens; the hand bones differ from those of Homo sapiens
sapiens in robustness, in the presence of broad, stout, terminal phalanges on
fingers and thumb; in many of the characters the foot bones lie within the range
of variation of Homo sapiens sapiens; the hallux is stout, adducted and plantigrade;
there are well-marked longitudinal and transverse arches; on the other hand, the
3rd metatarsal is relatively more robust than it is in modern man, and there is no
marked difference in the radii of curvature of the medial and lateral profiles of
the trochlea of the talus (Leakey et al., 1964).

Morphologically, Homo habilis is said to have had a larger brain than

Australopithecus, (it has been estimated at 680 c.c.), and a smoother skull,
especially in contrast to the robust form of australopithecine. The teeth attributed
to Homo habilis are supposed to be more modern than those of any comparable
early hominid. Leakey argues that the foot skeleton derived from Bed I, Olduvai
Gorge belongs to Homo habilis.it is said to be similar to the foot of modern man
and could morphologically allow upright posture, walking, and running. Leakey,
as well as Napier, places the Bed I hand bones with Homo habilis. Some of the
material found at Omo by the 1967 expedition has also been associated with
Homo habilis (Poirier, 1973). Homo habilis has similar skull proportions and,
like Australopithecus africanus, brow ridges, a prognathous face, and a cranium
that is broader at the base than at the parietal level; it is probable that the two
species were similar in appearance (Laet et al., 1994).

6.2.2 Lifeways
Homo habilis was a meat-eater, as indicated by the shape of their teeth, and was
the first of our ancestors to use stone tools. Stone tools are used by meat-eaters
but not by plant-eaters because plants do not run away. Homo habilis was the
first of our ancestors whose diet consisted of an appreciable amount of meat.
This shift in traits was necessary because of the change in available food resources
in the drier climate of the East-African savannah. An animal species that eats
both plants and animals is more likely to continue to exist through a climate
change than is an animal species whose diet is restricted to just plant, or to just
meat. The previous existence of our opposable thumb, social groupings, increased
brain size, and the climate-caused shift to a meat-eating diet played a large part
in our development of stone tools. Oldowan stone technology was associated
with Homo habilis, from 2.5 to 1.4 million years ago. These stone tools were
simply broken to give a sharp edge; No additional modification was done to
change the shape of the rock. Acheulean stone technology was used from 1.4
million years to 50,000 years ago, and was begun by the hominid named Homo
erectus. In this case, the shape of the rock was changed to produce either a sharper
surface or a pointed end. Microscopic examination of stone cutting surfaces
indicates that some stones were used to cut just meat, just wood, or just plants.
Through time, we found ways to obtain more cutting edge per pound of stone
(Dalling, 2006).

83
Early Hominids

Fig. 2: Chopper tools Used by Homo habilis

Source: https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2017

In Homo habilis, humankind reached a new evolutionary level which was to

influence the whole of its subsequent development. The evidence of that Cultural
Revolution comes mainly from eastern Africa. Flake tools, choppers, and chopping
tools are the most frequently preserved objects, although there can be no doubt
that bone and especially wood must have played an important or even essential
role. The preservation of the latter, unfortunately, is mostly a matter of chance,
and it is less easy than in the case of stone objects to be sure of intentional
fabrication or retouch. Stone, bone and wooden tools, however, are only one
facet of the cultural life of these first humans, even though they are the most
tangible, the most measurable. Several eastern African sites in Ethiopia, Kenya
and Tanzania have given us an image of their daily life that is moving and
instructive, if still somewhat lacking in clarity. The DK I site at Olduvai and
Gombore I at Melka Kunture are the most famous. These are riverside living
floors where Homo habilis made permanent settlements. A circle of large stones
at Olduvai and a raised emplacement at Melka Kunture suggest a first organizing
of space which prefigures the partitioning of dwelling space we find with Homo
erectus. The ground is strewn with waste flakes, abandoned tools and split bones.
A breakdown of the anatomical elements of the species represented shows that
only certain parts of the hunted beasts or of corpses disputed with other scavengers
were brought back to camp; the large animals were torn to pieces where they had
died (examples of such butchery sites, too, are known); hippopotamus, antelope,
zebra and giraffe were the commonest prey. Yet the animal component of the
diet must be overrepresented, since vegetable remains do not preserve nearly so
well (Laet et al., 1994).
Homo habilis were the first of our ancestors to begin using base camps. We
know that the large brains of our babies today result in infants who are born
early and are especially helpless for many months (For many other mammal
species, infants are ready to run with the herd within a few minutes). Given the
increased helplessness of its infants, it is easy to believe that base camps served
as a place for mother and child to stay and for the child to grow. Base camps
soon led to other social changes, such as increased labor differences among group
members (Dalling, 2006).
84
Evidence of intense social and family life, with complex relations inside the Homo Habilis
group, has led to the suggestion that a language was used which was more
elaborate than that of the apes, even if it was far from having the complexity of
our own. The production of phonemes and their rapid association to form words
entails also the power to form and co-ordinate through the interplay of palate,
tongue and lips, sounds produced by the vocal chords. In humans of the modern
type, the palate is deep, the tongue mobile and the larynx low, this arrangement
leaves the bucco-pharyngeal cavity enough space for ample and complex
movements. In the apes, the palate is shallow, the tongue less mobile because the
chin recedes and the larynx is high, so that certain processes of the base of the
skull have a different orientation. These bone arrangements are to be found in
Homo habilis and would seem to indicate that the latter, like apes, had a bucco-
pharyngeal cavity that was not large enough for the emission of articulated sounds.
Anatomical study of the production of sounds and their cerebral control can
provide a clear answer to this question of the mastery of articulated language by
Homo habilis (Laet et al., 1994).

Check Your Progress

3) Write a comparative note on the morphology of Australopithecus and
Homo habilis.
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
4) Write a short note on the stone tool technology of Homo habilis?
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................

6.3 PHYLOGENETIC STATUS OF HOMO HABILIS

According to Leakey, and those who agree with him, Homo habilis lived side by
side with the robust australopithecines in East Africa between one and two million
years ago. Leakey argues that the shape of their heads was very close to that of
modern man, only smaller; they walked erect; their hands allowed manufacture
of precision tools; and they built shelters. Leakey believes that Homo habilis
represents an independent line of hominid evolution. It is this form, he argues,
that made the stone tools found throughout East and South African Lower
Pleistocene depositions. Leakey is convinced that Homo habilis is on the direct
line leading to modern man; other claimants to that position should be pushed
aside. Thus, the australopithecines who lived contemporaneously in east Africa
would represent an evolutionary dead end. On the other hand, many maintain
85
Early Hominids that the form that Dr. Leakey calls Homo habilis is nothing other than a gracile
austalopithecine, A. africanus. Some view habilis as merely an advanced member
of the gracile australopithecine group, a form on its phylogenetic way toward
producing the next hominid stage in human evolution (Poirier, 1973).

Several lists of fossil hominid specimens assignable to H. habilis have been

made, notably by Howell, Campbell and Tobais. The specimens which all three
investigators have identified as belonging to Homo habilis have come from
Olduvai, Koobi Fora, Omo and Sterkfontein. In 1964, Koenigswald and Tobias
claimed to recognize what is called the habiline grade of organization in some
Javanese hominids, such as the type mandible of Meganthropus palaeojavanicus.
Opinions still differ on the precise hypodigm of Homo habilis among known
early African hominid fossils (Tobias, 1989).

In preparing the diagnosis of Homo habilis, this fact has not been overlooked
that there are several other African (and perhaps Asain) fossil hominids whose
status may now require re-examination in the light of the new discoveries and of
the setting up of this new species. The specimens originally described by Broom
and Robinson as Telanthropus capensis and which were later transformed by
Robinsosn to Homo erectus may well prove, on closer comparative investigation,
to belong to Homo habilis. The Kanam mandibular fragment, discovered by the
expedition in 1932 by L. S. B. Leakey, and which has been shown to possess
archaic features, may well justify further investigation along these lines. The
Lake Chad craniofacial fragment, provisionally described by M. Yves Coppens
in 1962, as an australopithecine, is not a member of this sub-family. The discoverer
himself, following his investigation of the australopithecine originals from South
Africa and Tanganyika shares this view. It is believed that australopithecine is
very probably a northern representative of Homo habilis. Outside Africa, the
possibility will have to be considered that the teeth and cranial fragments found
at Ubeidiyah on the Jordan River in Israel may also belong to Homo habilis
rather than to Australopithecus (Leakey, 1964). A general meeting of the minds
is evidently not available, so we must await further developments.

6.4 SUMMARY
In the early 1960s L. B. S. Leakey discovered and named the new hominid species,
Homo habilis, to accommodate a cluster of Olduvai fossils. These specimens
showed a number of morphological traits which seemed to preclude their owners
from membership of Australopithecus africanus, A. robustsus, A. boisei, Homo
erectus or Homo sapiens, the five principal hominid taxa most widely recognized
and accepted at the time. It seemed to its nomenclators that its morphology,
perhaps its place in time and its inferred phylogenetic status marked it as a homind
more advanced than A. africanus but not as hominized as H. erectus (Tobais,
1989). Homo habilis were the earliest creature who made stone tools for particular
purposes. They also had intense socio-cultural life and used language which was
more complex than apes.

6.5 REFERENCES
Antón, S. C. (2003). Natural history of Homo erectus. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of
Physical Anthropologists, 122(S37), 126-170.
86
Blumenschine, R. J., Peters, C. R., Masao, F. T., Clarke, R. J., Deino, A. L., Hay, Homo Habilis
R. L., ... & Sikes, N. E. (2003). Late Pliocene Homo and hominid land use from
western Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Science, 299(5610), 1217-1221.
Dalling, R. (2006). The Story of Us Humans, From Atoms to Today’s Civilization.
iUniverse.
Das, B. M. (1993). Outlines of Physical Anthropology. Allahabad: Kitab Mahal.
DeGiorgio, M., Jakobsson, M., & Rosenberg, N. A. (2009). Out of Africa: modern
human origins special feature: explaining worldwide patterns of human genetic
variation using a coalescent-based serial founder model of migration outward
from Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 106(38), 16057-16062.
De Laet, S. J. (Ed.). (1994). History of Humanity: Prehistory and the beginnings
of civilization (Vol. 1). Taylor & Francis.
Green, R. E., Krause, J., Briggs, A. W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., ... &
Hansen, N. F. (2010). A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. science,
328(5979), 710-722.
Hublin, J. J. (2009). The origin of Neandertals. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 106(38), 16022-16027.
Kimbel, W. H., Johanson, D. C., & Rak, Y. (1997). Systematic assessment of a
maxilla of Homo from Hadar, Ethiopia. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists, 103(2), 235-262.
Leakey, L. S. B. (1960). Recent discoveries at Olduvai gorge. Nature, 188(4755),
1050-1052.
Leakey, L. S., Tobias, P. V., & Napier, J. R. (1964). A new species of the genus
Homo from Olduvai Gorge.
Poirier, F. E. (1973). Fossil Man: An Evolutionary Journey. Saint Louis: The C.
V. Mosby Company.
Relethford, J. H. (2008). Genetic evidence and the modern human origins
debate. Heredity, 100(6), 555.
Rightmire, G. P. (2008). Homo in the Middle Pleistocene: hypodigms, variation,
and species recognition. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews:
Issues, News, and Reviews, 17(1), 8-21.
Rightmire, G. P. (2009). Out of Africa: Modern Human Origins Special Feature:
Middle and Later Pleistocene Hominins in Africa and Southwest
Asia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 106, 16046-16050.
Roebroeks, W., & Villa, P. (2011). On the earliest evidence for habitual use of
fire in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(13), 5209-
5214.
Tobias, P. V. (1989). The status of Homo habilis in 1987 and some outstanding
problems. Hominidae. Jaca Books, Milan, 141-149.

87
Early Hominids
6.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
1) According to Kimbel & colleagues (1997) the earliest fossils of our own
genus, Homo, are found in East Africa and dated to 2.3 mya. These early
specimens showed similar brain and body size with Australopithecus, but
differences in their molar teeth suggested that there was a change in diet.
For more details kindly refer section 6.1.
2) Homo habilis was discovered by Louis Leakey in the early 1960s. He gave
the name handy man to Homo habilis because they were the early Olduvai
toolmakers and that they were the human ancestors.
3) Morphologically, Homo habilis is said to have had a larger brain than
Australopithecus, (it has been estimated at 680 c.c.), and a smoother skull,
especially in contrast to the robust form of australopithecine. For more details
kindly refer section 6.2.1.
4) Oldowan stone technology was associated with Homo habilis, from 2.5 to
1.4 million years ago. These stone tools were simply broken to give a sharp
edge; No additional modification was done to change the shape of the rock.
Acheulean stone technology was used from 1.4 million years to 50,000 years
ago, and was begun by the hominid named Homo erectus. For more details
kindly refer section 6.2.2.

88