Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo, Professor of Anthropology, Rice University

Imagine a creature nearly twice the size of a modern African elephant (which can weigh up to 6,000kg. This was Elephas (Paleoxodon) recki, a prehistoric titan that roamed the landscape of what is now Tanzania nearly two million years ago. Now, imagine a group of our ancestors standing over its carcass, then butchering it and eating it.

For decades, archaeologists have debated when the hominin ancestors of humans first started eating megafauna – animals weighing more than 1,000kg.

In a new study, our team of archaeologists studying the evolution of the earliest humans in Africa has identified one of the earliest cases of elephant butchery.

This was at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, a site famous for containing some of the oldest and best preserved remains of our human ancestors. Dating back to 1.80 million years ago, this discovery at the site known as EAK reveals that our ancestors were engaging with megafauna substantially earlier than previously thought (about 1.5 million years ago was the previous estimate at Olduvai), and in a more sophisticated way.

This finding suggests that hominins (most likely, Homo erectus) may have been living in large social groups at this period, probably because their brains were developing and demanding higher-calorie diets rich in fatty acids.

‘Smoking guns’

Part of the reason our ancient diet has been debated is that it is not easy to find evidence of how much animal food early humans were eating and how they were acquiring it.

In traditional archaeology, the “smoking gun” for butchery (cutting up carcasses) is a cut mark left on a bone by a stone tool. However, when dealing with big animals like elephants, these marks are difficult to find. An elephant’s skin is several centimetres thick, and its muscle mass is so vast that a butcher’s tool might never touch the bone. Furthermore, millions of years of burial can weather the bone surface, erasing any subtle traces. And if a bone is deposited in an abrasive sediment, trampling by other animals may generate marks on bones that look like cut marks.

At the EAK site, we found the partial skeleton of a single Elephas recki individual in the same place as Oldowan stone tools. But to prove that this wasn’t just a natural death or the work of scavengers, we couldn’t rely on bone marks. Instead, we turned to a new kind of detective work: spatial taphonomy. This is the study of how stone artefacts and bones occur spatially on the same site. We also turned to more direct evidence: bones from those fossilised elephants that had been splintered while they were fresh (“green breaks”).

The geometry of a carcass

To solve this 1.8-million-year-old mystery, we analysed the way the bones were scattered across the site. Every agent that interacts with a carcass – whether it’s a pride of lions, a group of hyenas, or a band of humans – leaves a unique “spatial fingerprint”. Lions and hyenas tend to drag bones away, scattering them in predictable patterns based on their weight and the amount of attached meat. Natural deaths, like an elephant dying in a swamp, result in a different, more localised skeletal “collapse”.

By using advanced spatial statistics, and later comparing the EAK site to several modern elephant carcasses that we studied in Botswana (not yet published), we found that the spatial configuration at EAK was unique. The clustering of the bones and the density of the stone tools among them did not match the “random” or “scavenger-driven” models. Instead, it reflected a focused, high-intensity processing event. The spatial signature was a match for hominin butchery, which has also been documented at Olduvai sites that are half a million years younger.

This was confirmed by the presence of green-broken long bones not just at EAK, but in several locations in the landscape where other elephant and hippopotamus carcasses were butchered. Today, only humans can break elephant long bone shafts; not even spotted hyenas, which have very powerful jaws, can do it.

Glimpses of this behaviour can be detected at other sites too. For example, a cut-marked bone fragment of a large animal (probably a hippopotamus) was documented at El-Kherba (Algeria) dated to 1.78 million years ago.

This intensive and repeated discovery of multiple elephant and hippopotamus carcasses butchered at different landscape locations indicates that humans were butchering the remains of large animals, whether hunted or scavenged.

Why does an elephant meal matter?

This discovery isn’t just about a prehistoric menu; it’s about the evolution of the human brain and social structure. There is a long-standing theory in paleoanthropology called the “expensive tissue hypothesis”. It suggests that as our ancestors’ brains grew larger, they required a massive increase in high-quality calories, specifically fat and protein. Large mammals like elephants are essentially giant “packages” of these calories. Processing even a single elephant provides a caloric windfall that could sustain a group for weeks.

Butchering an elephant is a monumental task, however. It requires sharp stone tools and, most importantly, social cooperation. Our ancestors had to work together to defend the carcass from predators like sabre-toothed cats and giant hyenas, while others worked to extract the meat and marrow.

This suggests that even 1.8 million years ago, our ancestors already possessed a level of social organisation and environmental awareness that was truly “human”.

The discovery also has another dimension. Humans at that time, like modern carnivores, consumed animals whose size was related to their own group size. Small prides of lions eat wildebeests; larger prides eat buffalo and in some places even juvenile elephants. The evidence that those early humans were exploiting large animals comes in parallel with evidence that they were living in much larger sites than before, probably reflecting bigger group sizes.

Why early humans started living in large groups at that time remains to be explained, but this indicates that they certainly needed more food.

A shift in the ecosystem

The EAK site also tells us about the environment. By analysing the tiny fossils of plants and microscopic animals found in the same soil layers, we reconstructed a landscape that was transitioning from a lush, wooded lake margin to a more open, grassy savanna. Our ancestors were already eating smaller game. There is evidence that two million years ago, they were hunting small and medium-sized animals (like gazelles and waterbucks). A little earlier, they began using technology (stone tools) to bypass their biological limitations.

---

Read more: Large mammals shaped the evolution of humans: here’s why it happened in Africa

---

The evidence from Olduvai Gorge shows that our ancestors were remarkably adaptable, capable of thriving in changing climates by developing new behaviours.

As we look at the spatial layout of these ancient remains, we aren’t just looking at the bones of an extinct elephant. We are looking at the traces of a pivotal moment in our own history – when a small group of hominins looked at a giant and saw not just a threat, but a key to their survival.

– How to eat an elephant: fossil find in Tanzania shows oldest signs of butchering these giant mammals
– https://theconversation.com/how-to-eat-an-elephant-fossil-find-in-tanzania-shows-oldest-signs-of-butchering-these-giant-mammals-276907

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Frederick Kibon Changwony, Lecturer in Accounting & Finance, University of Stirling

Kenya devolved power and public spending to 47 counties in 2013. This was in line with a global trend in which governments were pushing power and resources down to local levels in the hope that decisions made closer to people would lead to better outcomes.

The logic was straightforward: local governments should be better placed to understand and respond to local needs.

Kenya’s version of this – set out in its 2010 constitution and implemented three years later – was particularly ambitious. It guaranteed counties a share of national revenue and directed extra funds to 14 historically marginalised counties through an equity-based formula and an “equalisation fund”.

Before devolution, the differences between marginalised counties and the 33 others were large. For example, households in marginalised counties spent about half as much as those in the rest of the country – Sh3,250 (US$25) vs Sh6,149 (US$47) before the reform – on total consumption. This made addressing regional inequality a priority.

The constitution’s aim was to bring basic services, such as water, roads, electricity and healthcare, closer to national standards in areas that had long lagged behind.

Kenya counties classified by marginalisation

So did the extra county shillings change everyday life? Did households actually become better off?

I study public finance, regional inequality and behavioural finance, with a focus on how fiscal reforms and behaviour shape household financial decisions and everyday welfare. To answer these questions, I analysed four waves of Kenya’s nationally representative FinAccess Household Survey. This covered the period before the constitutional changes (2009, 2013) and after devolution (2015, 2018).

I compared trends in the 14 marginalised counties with those in the other 33 counties. I used a “before‑after, here‑there” method that evaluates how outcomes change over time between two groups. This approach helped isolate the effects of devolution from other changes happening in the economy.

The overall picture suggests that households in marginalised regions are now better off. Total household consumption more than doubled after devolution, rising from Sh3,250 (US$25) before 2013 to Sh7,549 (US$58) afterwards. By contrast, other counties saw a much smaller increase – from Sh6,149 (US$47) to Sh8,526 (US$66).

Spending on education increased by roughly 37%, and medical spending by about 43%. Rent went up by around 39%, while spending on utilities – such as electricity, water and cooking fuel – rose by about 29%. Even everyday expenses like mobile airtime increased by around 16%.

In effect, households in marginalised regions went from spending just over half of what better-off counties spent before 2013 to almost catching up afterwards. This before-and-after shift shows how much ground marginalised counties gained once devolution took effect.

However, the gains were not evenly distributed. Poorer households saw the biggest proportional increases in overall consumption. Better-off households, meanwhile, increased spending largely on education and healthcare.

Nevertheless, the changes shown in my research point to a meaningful improvement in households’ living standards over a relatively short period.

This shows Kenya’s devolution did not just move money between levels of government. It changed what households can afford, ranging from school fees to healthcare, housing, utilities and everyday connectivity.

The devolution debate and spending power

Public debate about devolution in Kenya often focuses on who gets what: whether funds are shared fairly, whether counties misuse money, or whether bigger budgets lead to better services.

These are important questions. But they tend to focus on inputs (how much money is allocated) or visible outputs (such as new roads or clinics).

For households, progress shows up in something more immediate: spending power. Can families put food on the table? Pay school fees? Afford medicine? Stay connected?

By looking at what households actually spent, my research showed that Kenya’s equity-focused devolution did more than shift budget lines. It translated into tangible improvements in everyday life in places that had long been left behind.

The results were clear. Households in marginalised counties saw large and broad-based increases in spending compared with households in the 33 other counties.

Total household consumption rose by about 43% in marginalised counties. Education spending in marginalised counties rose sharply, too, from Sh1,140 (US$9) before the reform to Sh4,017 (US$31) afterwards. Medical spending increased from Sh459 (US$4)to Sh1,094 (US$8).

Two main factors explain most of the increases in spending.

First, marginalised counties spent much more on services after 2013. On average, they spent roughly twice as much per person on county operations and development projects. This reflects both the higher transfers they received and the speed with which they converted funds into actual services.

Second, household incomes rose partly because devolution created local jobs and business opportunities through public contracts.

There were, however, important nuances.

Rising spending on utilities, for example, can reflect both progress and pressure. New connections to electricity and water improve quality of life, but they also bring monthly bills.

Kenya’s institutional design likely helped too.

Rules-based transfers (meaning money allocated according to a fixed, transparent formula rather than political negotiations) and the Equalisation Fund (a dedicated pot of money for areas with the greatest service gaps) reduced political discretion in how money was allocated. This resulted in more predictable funding for counties, less room for interference, and a clearer link between need and resources.

In addition, Kenya’s strong mobile money system made it easier for households to respond to new opportunities. People could move money quickly and safely, even in remote areas – allowing them to handle shocks, invest and take advantage of local economic activity generated by county spending. Evidence shows that mobile money transfer service M-Pesa, launched in 2007, has helped lift people out of poverty over time.

What should happen next?

The challenge now is to make those gains last.

First, the equity-based approach to sharing revenue should be protected and regularly updated. Allocation rules need to reflect current data so that funds continue to target real gaps.

The Equalisation Fund is due to expire in 2033. Unless it’s renewed, policymakers face a critical decision about whether, and how, to sustain support for historically marginalised areas.

Second, a small share of transfers could be linked to performance. Counties should be rewarded if they improve revenue collection without overburdening residents, publish timely financial reports, and strengthen transparency in procurement.

This would encourage better financial management while keeping equity at the centre.

Third, policymakers should pay attention to the cost of new services. As more households connect to electricity and water, temporary support, such as lifeline tariffs or targeted subsidies, can help ensure that poorer families are not priced out.

Finally, investment in county capacity and better data is essential. Strong local institutions are needed to plan, deliver and maintain services. Add to this a survey that follows the same households over time, like South Africa’s National Income Dynamics Study or the Indonesia Family Life Survey, so Kenya can track mobility and long‑run reform effects directly.

For other African countries considering decentralisation, Kenya’s experience suggests that design matters.

Predictable transfers, equity-focused allocation and local capacity can turn fiscal reforms into real gains in household welfare.

– Kenya’s counties get budgets to undo inequality – how it’s helped households
– https://theconversation.com/kenyas-counties-get-budgets-to-undo-inequality-how-its-helped-households-279369