↓ Skip to main content

3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
343 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
639 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya
Published in
Nature, May 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature14464
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonia Harmand, Jason E. Lewis, Craig S. Feibel, Christopher J. Lepre, Sandrine Prat, Arnaud Lenoble, Xavier Boës, Rhonda L. Quinn, Michel Brenet, Adrian Arroyo, Nicholas Taylor, Sophie Clément, Guillaume Daver, Jean-Philip Brugal, Louise Leakey, Richard A. Mortlock, James D. Wright, Sammy Lokorodi, Christopher Kirwa, Dennis V. Kent, Hélène Roche

Abstract

Human evolutionary scholars have long supposed that the earliest stone tools were made by the genus Homo and that this technological development was directly linked to climate change and the spread of savannah grasslands. New fieldwork in West Turkana, Kenya, has identified evidence of much earlier hominin technological behaviour. We report the discovery of Lomekwi 3, a 3.3-million-year-old archaeological site where in situ stone artefacts occur in spatiotemporal association with Pliocene hominin fossils in a wooded palaeoenvironment. The Lomekwi 3 knappers, with a developing understanding of stone's fracture properties, combined core reduction with battering activities. Given the implications of the Lomekwi 3 assemblage for models aiming to converge environmental change, hominin evolution and technological origins, we propose for it the name 'Lomekwian', which predates the Oldowan by 700,000 years and marks a new beginning to the known archaeological record.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 629 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 639 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Portugal 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 6 <1%
Unknown 611 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 146 23%
Student > Bachelor 97 15%
Researcher 94 15%
Student > Master 81 13%
Professor 38 6%
Other 118 18%
Unknown 65 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 140 22%
Social Sciences 118 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 114 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 45 7%
Environmental Science 19 3%
Other 96 15%
Unknown 107 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1618. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,311
of 15,569,608 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#345
of 75,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22
of 235,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#6
of 995 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,569,608 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 75,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 995 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.