1(c) Osteodontokeratic Culture and Its Makers (10M)

Introduction

The term Osteodontokeratic Culture was coined by Raymond A. Dart (1957, “The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus prometheus”) following excavations at Makapansgat/Makapan Valley, South Africa. Dart proposed that early hominins, specifically Australopithecus africanus (earlier termed A. prometheus), deliberately manufactured and used tools made of bone (osteo), teeth (odonto), and horn/antler (keratic). He suggested that this culture represented a pre-stone technological phase in human evolution. This interpretation became central to the “Killer Ape Hypothesis” (Dart, 1953, South African Journal of Science), which emphasized aggression and hunting in shaping human evolution.

Body

1. 1 Cultural Assemblage and Interpretation
   • At Makapan Valley, Dart (1957) observed fractured animal bones, sharpened teeth fragments, and antelope horns.
   • He interpreted these as intentionally manufactured tools used for clubbing, scraping, piercing, and hunting.
   • Dart argued that Australopithecus africanus displayed a technological innovation before stone tools, marking a transition from natural object use to a tool culture.
2. 2 Makers of the Culture
   • Dart (1925, Nature) attributed the culture to Australopithecus africanus, whom he described as an aggressive, predatory species unlike extant apes.
   • He suggested they were active hunters, using osteodontokeratic tools to kill prey — reinforcing the “Man the Hunter” model later echoed by Washburn and Lancaster (1968).
3. 3 Critiques and Reinterpretations
   • C.K. Brain (1969–1981, “The Hunters or the Hunted?”, 1981) reexamined the Makapan assemblage using taphonomic analysis.
   • He demonstrated that bones were primarily accumulated and fractured by carnivores (notably hyenas), not by hominins.
   • Brain’s work shifted interpretation from Dart’s “bone tool culture” to a natural accumulation, emphasizing that early hominins were likely scavengers rather than hunters.
   • Richard Klein (1999, “The Human Career”) further supported Brain, noting that true evidence for tool manufacture appears only with the Oldowan (~2.6 MYA), not Australopithecus.
4. 4 Theoretical Significance
   • Despite being disproved, the Osteodontokeratic hypothesis had lasting influence:
   • It initiated debates on behavioral inference from fossil assemblages (Dart, 1957; Brain, 1981).
   • It catalyzed the development of taphonomy as a sub-discipline (Brain, 1969 onwards).
   • It highlighted the danger of overinterpreting fragmentary evidence, shaping more cautious approaches in palaeoanthropology.

Prominent Studies

1. 1 Lyman (2023)

   In “Inaccurate Ideas as Stimuli to Learn About the World: The ODK Culture and Spiral Fractures of Bones” (Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences), Lyman critically examined Dart’s ODK hypothesis. He focused on spiral fractures once considered evidence of hominin tool use, showing that they can also result from natural processes — urging more rigorous taphonomic analysis.

2. 2 Hanon (2021)

   In “New Evidence of Bone Tool Use by Early Pleistocene Hominins” (Palaeontologia Africana), Hanon re-evaluated the criteria for identifying bone tools and stressed challenges in distinguishing anthropogenic modifications from carnivore activity — highlighting the need for refined methods to confirm hominin agency in bone assemblages.

Conclusion

The Osteodontokeratic culture represents an important but controversial stage in anthropological thought. While Dart’s interpretation of bone, tooth, and horn “tools” as cultural markers has been rejected, the debate itself advanced archaeological methods and refined our understanding of early hominin behaviour.