Large cutting tools variations of early Sudan Paleolithic from the site of Jebel Elgrain east of lower Atbara River

Pioneering research in the early stone ages of south east Africa contributed significantly to the development of broader issues in early African prehistory, such as the spread of the transition of lithic tools from south/east to the north/east Africa including large cutting tools.

Early beginnings of stone tools studies in Africa started in Oldvai and Kenya by Leakey from 1931 – 1971, to answer some questions about the early human behavior. Besides that, there is little research focused in the sites of Omo, Awash, Olorgesailie and Ismailia. The early study of Oldvai and its Acheulean phase became the standard of classifying large cutting tools in Africa (Leakey 1951).

The large cutting tools from these sites show primary sloping transition in technology and typology from cobble one side to bifacial tools to MSA small bifacial tools. These complex sites also provided early camps and particular attention has been paid to the hominid fossils, climate changes, economy and social structures (Cooke 1963:32).

In the Sudan, there was no specific research into large cutting tools. Large cutting tools were mentioned through the history of Sudan and Old Stone Age in the Nile Valley (Arkell 1949, Wendorf 1968, Chmielewski 1987, Wendorf & Schild 1974).

In general, the Sudan Paleolithic culture developed for over half a million years. This date is given based on the relative dating of lithics attested from a wide geographical expanse. Further dating using organic remains from the site of Kaddanarti puts the Sudan Paleolothic culture at one and a half million years ago (Louis et-al 2000:37).

The complete work of early Sudan Paleolithic tools, is its large cutting tools (LCTs), primary disc and a few side chopping and hand axes (see Arkell 1949, and Chmielewski 1968). A comprehensive overview of late Acheulean and early MSA technology has demonstrated that discoveries in northern Sudan show complex development of taxonomical items. Indeed, the large cutting tools from the site of Khor Abu Anga, studied by A.J. Arkell in 1949, is where hand axes were first identified as early prehistoric stone tools in the Sudan (Arkell 1949: 22-32). This identification is supported by many finds from central Sudan around Khartoum province.

Many taxonomic items were used by Arkell to describe the Khor Abu Anga collections, most of its related to the Leakey method in Kenya, some of which later disappeared. After Arkell, no assemblages parallel to the Khor Abu Anga have been reported from any others sites in the Sudan. However, many sites in northern Sudan and the desert containing large flakes and disc tools relatively dated to the Middle and Late Paleolithic have been discovered.

For all that has been cited above, the logical conclusion is that the early large cutting tools in Sudan were different and later than the early African discoveries. There is no indication of Oldvai tools, and early Acheulean tools are rare. Even Khor Abu Anga which is an example of the early Paleolithic, only revealed small and bifacial tools.

In general, the early large cutting tools are still mysterious. There are no clear developments and transitions from one phase to another. However, different methods have been taken to classify the assemblages which increased the depth of understanding of the Paleolithic in Sudan.

 The goal of this paper is to understand the roots of problems related to the large cutting tools in the Sudan, which will be summarized as follows:

1-   Most studies on early Paleolithic Sudan focused on the time, place and environment.

2-   The presence of large geographical gaps in understanding early Paleolithic Sudan

3-   The complexity of taxonomical items used to classify the Paleolithic stone tools in the Sudan which is based on taxonomical items used in south east Africa and the Sahara.

4-   Lack of preserved sites to offer a precise dating.

5-   The mystery of the beginning and the end of Acheulean age in the Sudan.