Lithic Perspectives from the Antipodes || ON THE PRODUCTION OF BLADES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BACKED...

Maney Publishing

ON THE PRODUCTION OF BLADES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BACKED ARTEFACTS IN THEHOWIESONS POORT AT DIEPKLOOF, SOUTH AFRICAAuthor(s): Alex MackaySource: Lithic Technology, Vol. 33, No. 1, Lithic Perspectives from the Antipodes (Spring2008), pp. 87-99Published by: Maney PublishingStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23273622 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Lithic Technology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:59:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=maney

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23273622?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


.82

ON THE PRODUCTION OF BLADES

AND ITS RELATIONSHIP

TO BACKED ARTEFACTS IN THE

HOWIESON S POORT AT

DIEPKLOOF, SOUTH AFRICA

by

Alex Mackay

Abstract

Thepresence of blades is one identifyingfeature ofHowiesons Poort technologies, along with thepresence of backed artefacts and relatively highfrequencies offine-grained rocks.

Blades in this context are commonly understood to have been produced to serve as blanks

for the manufacture of backed artefacts. This paper explores the relationship between

blades and backed artefacts in detail, using data from the Howiesons Poort layers at the

site ofDiepkloof It is found that there is limited evidence for a direct relationship between

these two assemblage elements. Instead, it is suggested that blades were used as a means

of improvingflaking yield, primarily towards the end of core use-lives.

INTRODUCTION

The Howiesons Poort (HP) has been one of the

more intensively studied of Africa's Middle Stone

Age (MSA) industries. The term refers to a culture

historic unit first identified at the type site, Howiesons Poort Shelter and subsequently applied to MSA assemblages in which fine-grained rocks

and blades are common and in which backed

artefacts are the dominant implement form

(Stapleton and Hewitt 1927; Goodwin and Van Riet

Lowe 1929; Singer and Wymer 1982; Thackeray

1992; Wurz 1999; Lombard 2005). Available dates

place Howiesons Poort occurrences at a variety of

sites at between 70 and 55kya (Grun and Beaumont

2001; Vogel 2001; Lombard 2005; Parkington et

al. 2005; Tribolo et al. 2005), making it broadly coeval with Oxygen Isotope Stage 4 (though note

Valladas et al. 2005). To that extent, the HP has

been viewed as a relatively early expression of the

kind of blade-and-backed-artefact technological

systems which become prevalent globally after

4okya (Kuhn and Elston 2002).

Alex Mackay, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Acton 0200



yy

Competing explanations are available for several of the key facets of the HP, including why backed artefacts were made (Deacon 1992; Deacon and Wurz 1996; Wurz 1997,1999; Ambrose 2002; Wurz and Lombard 2007), and why fine-grained rocks were chosen in such large proportions (Ambrose and Lorenz 1990; Minichillo 2005; Mackay 2008). Among recent studies, however, a

degree of consensus appears to have been established on the role played by blades in the

industry. Specifically, blades are understood to have been manufactured primarily to serve as blanks for backed artefacts (Wurz 1997, 1999; Soriano et al. 2007). This proposition deserves further scrutiny for three reasons. First, blades are not necessaiy for the production of backed artefacts - early backed artefact industries such as the

Lupemban are not necessarily blade-rich (Barham 2002; see also Hiscock 2002). Second, given that

backing may result in significant modification of

original blank morphology, it is open to doubt how

easily we can infer initial blank form from final retouched form. Third, the number of backed artefacts in any given assemblage is invariably overwhelmed by the number of blades. If blades are made to serve as blanks, why are so few of them

ultimately transformed?

With these points in mind, this paper seeks to answer the following questions:

l. Were HP backed artelacts always made on blades?

2. Were blades made to be transformed into backed artefacts?

3- It blades were not made to be transformed into backed artefacts, how else might we explain them?

Prior to considering these questions, the sample to be used in this research is discussed.

THE HOWIESONS POORT SAMPLE FROM DIEPKLOOF ROCK SHELTER

Diepkloof is a rock shelter site located on the banks of the Verlorenvlei, a large coastal lake on the west coast of South Africa, some 200km north of Cape Town (Figure 1). The site was first excavated in 1973, and is currently the subject of excavations by a combined team of South African and French researchers . The Diepkloof sequence

includes several named Middle Stone Age (MSA) industries, including the Still Bay, Howiesons

Poort, and post-Howiesons Poort (Rigaud et al.

2006).

For the purposes of this study, a sample of

complete flakes (this term being used to

incorporate both blade and non-blade forms) and cores was analysed from 25 stratigraphic levels of a single meter square of the site, denoted L6. Only flakes >i5mm were analysed. All of the selected levels have been ascribed to the Howiesons Poort. The sample of complete backed artefacts from this one square meter was relatively small (n=7), and these are supplemented with the addition of 63 backed artefacts from comparable layers in

adjacent squares.

WERE THE DRS HP BACKED ARTEFACTS MADE ON BLADES?

Before addressing the issue of whether blades were used in the manufacture of backed artefacts in the HP at DRS, it is necessary to settle on a

working definition of blade. The most commonly espoused definition relates to elongation, specifically that a blade is a flake the length of which exceeds its width by a ratio of 2:1 or more. While more complex definitions may take into account mode of manufacture, the definition based on

elongation has the advantages of being explicit, simple and replicable. As noted elsewhere, more

complex definitions can obviate all of these

advantages, resulting in significant inter-observer

variability (Mackay 2006). Thus, for the purposes of this paper, a blade is defined as a complete flake the length of which exceeds its maximum width by 2:1 or more. To this is added the caveat that the dorsal surface of the flake must exhibit less than

50% cortex - cortical flakes struck from angular cobbles will not be considered blades in this paper.

With blades thus defined, consideration is given to whether they were used exclusively in the manufacture of backed artefacts in the HP sample at DRS. Resolving this issue is less straightforward than it appears, with analysts often stating, rather than demonstrating, that backed artefacts were made using blades. Backing commonly involves alteration of both flake length and flake width, making original blank form difficult to discern.



Mackav - On the Production of Blades -89

Figure l. Location of Diepkloof

Moreover, different configurations of backing will affect these variables differently. For example, truncation of a flake will diminish length without

altering width. Consequently, elongation will be reduced. The manufacture of segments and

triangles, on the other hand, may significantly reduce width with either minor or major alterations to length. Consequently, elongation may be either increased or decreased, depending on the

proportions of the changes. While a method exists for inferring original blank form from final retouched form (e.g.., Eren etal. 2005), this relies on relatively consistent cross-sectional tapering from flake centre to flake margin - something of limited applicability to backed artefacts, from which platforms were often removed.

One way around this problem is to use backed artefact dimensions as minimum estimates of blank dimensions. Retouch in any form can only reduce the dimensions of an artefact, and thus backed arte fact length and width represent the minimum pos sible value of those dimensions as they existed on the original blanks.

Figure 2 plots length and maximum width val

ues, all complete non-blades, blades and backed artefacts in the sample. Length was measured from the point of initiation along the axis of percussion, while maximum width was measured at the widest

point perpendicular to this axis. When reading Fig ure 2, it is important to note that retouch can only have altered backed artefact dimension values down and/or to the left of the graph. Thus, origi nal blank values were necessarily at some point up and/or to the right of present values.

From Figure 2, it can be seen that backed arte fact values are distributed relatively equally on ei ther side of the invisible line y=ix, which separates blades from non-blades. As noted earlier, however, backed artefact elongation is probably not a secure

guide to original blank elongation. Even the clus ter of backed artefact values falling comfortably in the non-blade region defined by 14 < x < 20,18 <y < 25 could conceivably have been of blade propor tions, given removal by retouch of more than 50% of original length.



90 lithic Technology voi.3?-i

60.00"

50.00"

40.00

£ U)

20.00"

10.00

1 1 1 1 o

o ! o ★

O O

8° * *

«* o q\! ° 1 *

o ★ **

* *

* *

j— D * * ★

iflK. *

JEr *

—

Artefact category

Non-blade O Blade * Backed artefact

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Maximum width (mm)

Figure 2. Scatterplot of length and width values for non-blades, blades and backed artefacts

Of more relevance to the question of whether backed artefacts were made on blades is the group of backed artefacts with widths exceeding 20mm

(the value denoted by the dotted line). Out of a

population of 165 blades, only three (1.8%) are wider than 20mm, suggesting that blades of such width were rarely made at DRS. In contrast, 14 backed artefacts (or 20.3% of the total) had widths

exceeding this value - and this is without attempt ing to correct for under-estimation of original blank dimensions. It might be tempting to suggest that the number of blades > 20mm wide is under-rep resented because these were preferentially trans formed into backed artefacts. However, this temp tation should be resisted, given that the single square from which the blade data were drawn

yielded only seven complete backed artefacts. Even had all of these originally exceeded 20mm in width, they would have had little impact on the propor tional discrepancy between blades > 20mm wide

and backed artefacts > 20mm wide. Taking into consideration these points, it is much more likely that blanks for these wide backed artefacts were drawn from the non-blade, rather than the blade, population.

Based on these data, it appears reasonable to state that not all backed artefacts in the HP at DRS were made on blades. Indeed, one could suggest that a considerable proportion of all backed

artefacts, perhaps in excess of 25%, were made on non-blade blanks. This addresses, to some extent, the production of backed artefacts in relation to blades - specifically, that the latter were not essential to the production of the former. This does

not, however, resolve the issue of the production of blades in relation to backed artefacts. It remains

possible that the primary objective in making blades was to have blanks for backed artefacts, and that a selection of these blade blanks, with the



Mackay - Qn the Production of Blades -91

25

20

M 0) M 15 w o

o *

10

5

blades

10

backed artefacts

30 40

Artefact length (mm)

•o *

h5 ° o fit

■10 M (D 1/1

■15

60

Figure 3. Line histograms of flake length and backed artefact length

addition of a smaller selection of non-blade blanks, was ultimately transformed. In the following section, the question of whether blades were made to serve as blanks is explored in more detail.

WERE THE DRS HP BLADES MADE TO SERVE AS BLANKS FOR

BACKED ARTEFACTS?

From Figure 2, it can be seen that a large proportion of backed artefacts in the DRS sample appears to have been made on blades. Of equal interest, however, is that the blanks which were transformed appear to have been selected from the

upper size range of the blade population. Wurz

(1997,1999) has previously argued that the size of HP backed artefacts is relatively standardised. The data from Figure 2 suggest clustering in backed artefact dimensions; however, this clustering does not cohere strongly with the clustering of blade dimensions.

Figure 3 is a partial reworking of Figure 2, in which blade and backed artefact lengths are

presented as line histograms. The backed artefact data tend to support Wurz's contention of stan dardisation - the distribution of backed artefact

lengths is relatively normal, with more than 70%

of samples falling within a 14.4mm range from

25.5mm to 39.8mm (mean ± one standard

deviation). What Figure 3 makes clear, however, is that the peak in backed artefact size does not

overlap with the peak in blade size. If we accept 25.5mm as an effective low-end cut-off for backed artefacts blanks (only 12 backed artefacts were smaller than this value, and it should be remembered that this is a minimum estimate), then

57% of blades were too small to have served as blanks for backed artefacts.

This prompts the question: if blades were made to serve as blanks, why were most of them too small for the purpose? One reasonable answer is that small flakes/blades are invariably more common than large flakes/blades, because small flakes can be made from any cobble, whereas large flakes

require large cobbles. Thus, it might simply be that

large numbers of small blades were made incidental to the production of those larger blades which did serve as blanks.

Core data allow some exploration of this

proposition. The Howiesons Poort layers of the L6

sample contain 136 complete cores. In Figures 4 and 5, these cores have been divided into quartile groups on the basis of weight, such that each group contains an approximately equal number of cores



92_

80.00

»> 100.00 o <u o (O +-* c tt> o l_ a> CLVt "

2 60 00" <0 </> v) a> I- > (0 c

«"5> 40.00 Q) <0

(0

a> ro O) c o

Ul

20.00

o.oo

Figure 4. Boxplot of percentage of the last five flake scars which were elongate for core weight quartile groups.

50.00

40.00

E E

O) c 0>

30.00"

20.00"

10.00"

0- 1.725 1.725-2.65 2.65- 7.875 >7.875

Core groups by weight (g)

Figure 5. Boxplot of core lengths for core weight quartile groups



53

Table l. Data for core weight quartile groups

Quartile Range (g) n

l o -1.725 32

2 x.725 -

2.65 29

3 2.65 - 7.875 28

4 7-875 - 33-0 30

(Table l). Figure 4 presents boxplots of the

percentage of the last five flake scars that exceed 2:1 for each of the four core weight groups. Figure 5 presents boxplots of core length (effectively core maximum dimension) for the same four groups.

Rather than supporting the proposition that small blades were made at any time during core

reduction, the data in Figure 4 suggest that the

production of blades (relative to non-blades) increased as cores became smaller. By combining the data from Figures 4 and 5, we can deduce that those cores for which the frequencies of elongate scars exceeded 50% were incapable of producing blanks for backed artefacts. No core in the lowermost two quartile groups exceeded 26mm in

length, yet -83% of backed artefact lengths exceeded this value. Only cores in the uppermost quartile group were large enough to have produced blanks for backed artefacts, and these appear rarely to have been used to make blades.

These core data call into question any assumption that an a priori relationship existed between the manufacture of blades and backed artefacts in the Howiesons Poort at DRS. Blades

may have been preferred blanks for backed

artefacts, but it does not seem reasonable to suggest that the desire to manufacture the former was the

defining concern in the production of the latter.

Given this, it remains to find alternative

explanations for blade production in this context.

WHY WERE BLADES MADE IN THE HPATDRS?

If not to serve as blanks for backed artefacts,

why did people make blades in the Howiesons

Poort at Diepkloof? One possibility is that blades

were made to serve as blanks for other retouched

forms. While backed artefacts are the defining implement of the Howiesons Poort, other types, including burins, unifacial points, scrapers and notched flakes have all been associated with the HP in other contexts {e.g., Stapleton and Hewitt 1927; Goodwin and van Riet Lowe 1929; Volman 1981; Singer and Wymer 1982; Kaplan 1990). Of these, unifacial points are absent from the analysed HP

layers at DRS, while burins and scrapers are rare and generally appear to have been made on other blank forms. Notched pieces, however, are

relatively common and regularly exhibit blade-like

morphology.

Unfortunately, though a reasonable number of notched blades occurs in the L6 sample (n=i6),

only four are complete. Of these, only one falls within the length range in which blades peak, the other three exceeding 34mm. Given this, and the small number of notched pieces relative to blades, there are insufficient grounds to explain the

production of blades in these terms.

Overall, it seems unlikely that blades, and

particularly, small blades, were made primarily to be transformed into retouched artefacts. The alternative is to consider that these artefacts were made to serve roles in an unmodified form. Dibble and McPherron (2006) have made similar

arguments for the production of certain small flakes in the Mousterian. As to the question, why manufacture blades rather than other flake forms, Bar-Yosef and Kuhn (1999) have suggested that the

morphological regularity of blades may have conferred advantages, particularly for technologies incorporating replaceable components. If, as

suggested by Wurz and Lombard (2007; also Lombard 2008), projectile technologies with

composite elements were a feature of the Howiesons Poort, then it seems plausible that small blades may have been made to fulfill roles as barbs

or, less probably, tips.

Yet, while these hypothetical explanations may account for the manufacture of small blades

generally, they fail to account for one of the more

interesting aspects of the results presented so far: the apparent relationship between decreases in core size and increases in blade scar prevalence. After all, there is no obvious reason why medium sized blades could not fulfill the above-mentioned roles . Thus there is no reason why blade scars should be more prevalent among small cores than



94 til na eg iiiwi'i' u mmeeoi

among larger cores. The meaning of this pattern may be clarified by considering some broader

aspects of the HP technology at DRS.

Howiesons Poort technology is identified by three components: the presence of backed arte

facts, the increased frequencies of blades, and the increased frequencies of fine-grained rocks (though see Soriano etal. 2007). Recently, Mackay (2008)

suggested that Howiesons Poort technologies also involved more efficient conversion of provisioned core mass into flake edge length than preceding or

following technological systems. Not discussed in that paper were those aspects of flake morphology which most influence edge length to mass values. Two attributes - flake weight and elongation -

explain much of the observable variation. Figure 6

presents boxplots of edge length-to-mass values

against flake weight for a sample of 6007 complete flakes from five southern African MSA sites. For the purposes of the figure, flakes have been divided into quartile groups based on weight (Table 2).

Figure 6 makes clear that small (light-weight) flakes invariably have better edge length-to-mass conversions than large (heavier) flakes. In effect, the figure demonstrates that, as flakes become

larger, weight increases much more rapidly than

edge length. As inferred from this measure, the manufacture of small flakes is, therefore always a more "efficient" use of nT°°]rial than the manuf acture of large flakes.

Flake weight, however, is not the sole determinant of edge length-to-mass. Figure 7 presents the same data as Figure 6, except that each flake weight group has been divided into further

quartile groups on the basis of elongation. Data for the elongation groupings are given in Table 3. Figure 7 suggests that there is a clear, positive relationship between flake elongation and edge length-to-mass. Within each weight class, increasing elongation always results in increased

edge length-to-mass values, such that the difference between any two adjacent elongation groups in each class is significant at a level of 0.05 using a two-tailed t-test. The only exceptions are the lowest two elongation groups which, in all but the lightest flake quartile, were not significantly different at this level.

Taken in concert, these data help to explain the observed patterns of blade production. Cores that had the highest frequency of blade scars were

Table 2. Data for flake weight quartile groups

Quartile Range (g) n

l O - 1.2 1548

2 1.2 - 2.4 1469

3 2.4 -

5-5 1507

4 >5-5 1483

Table 3. Data for flake elongation groups

Quartile Range n

l o - 0.99 1498

2 0.99 -1.32 1498

3 1.32 -1.74 1497

4 > 1-74 1500

generally too small to have produced blanks for most implement forms. Yet these cores still had the

capacity to yield more flakes. If small, elongate flakes conveyed advantages in terms of relative

edge length yield, then their production might represent an attempt to maximise the edge length potential of cores prior to discard. Thus the

production of small blades can more reasonably be seen as an attempt to improve core yields than as an attempt to make blanks.

DISCUSSION

Blades, particularly small blades, do not appear to have been made in the Howiesons Poort at

Diepkloof primarily to serve as blanks for backed artefacts or for any other retouched implement form. Yet they were made nonetheless, and in

reasonably large numbers. This necessitates that we attempt to explain them in their own terms. Viable explanations focus on blades as preferred outcomes, yet these do not explain the production patterns observed here. While it was ultimately with blades-as-products that HP populations had to deal, the data suggest that there may have been an element of blades-as-process in their

production. To phrase this another way, knappers may have been as concerned with improving flaking yields as they were with producing specific artefact forms. It remains to consider why this occurred

during the HP.



Mackav - Qn the Production of Blades -95

200.00

!* 160.00-|

g v> (8 120.00i E

80.00 c 4)

S 40.00"

ooo T T

0-1.2 1.2-2.4 2.4-5.5 >5.5

Flake groups by weight (g)

Figure 6. Boxplot of ELM values for flake weight quartile groups

250.00

0) o>

S 50.00

0- 1.2 1.2-2.4 24-5.5

Flake groups by weight (g)

>5.5

Flake elongation groups

□ < 0 99 □ 099- 1.32 ■ 1 32-1 74 ■ >1.74

Figure 7. Boxplot of ELM values for flake weight quartile groups, sub-divided into

elongation quartile groups



9H

The answer may be found in the relationship between material economics and subsistence behaviours. As Kuhn (1995) has discussed, materials for the manufacture of stone artefacts are not ubiquitous in any landscape. Even in land

scapes where suitable stone is relatively common,

procurement of material entails time spent searching for, testing, and processing cobbles. While stone artefacts may facilitate subsistence

tasks, they are not, in and of themselves, subsistence requirements. Thus, time spent in the

procurement of stone means time not spent in the

procurement of food and water.

In most cases, with sufficient time available tor the scheduling of all requisite tasks, this is unlikely to have been an issue. However, under conditions of time-stress, in which predictability of tasks was low and scheduling difficult, groups may have

sought to diminish the time spent on stone

procurement and processing. Increasing the yield from already-procured stone represents one method by which this could have been achieved. While the time saved might have had only marginal effects on subsistence success, such margins may have been significant under difficult conditions. Given its broad correlation with Oxygen Isotope Stage 4, the HP appears to have occurred under such circumstances. As such, it becomes possible to perceive the manufacture of blades from small cores in the HP as an attempt at diminishing time

spent in the procurement of stone. Even if small blades were rarely used, their manufacture may have afforded the potential to meet more tasks than would have been possible with less efficient flaking systems, delaying the need to reprovision.

This explanation may appear to contradict Minichillo's (2006) argument that stone "foraging" patterns in the Howiesons Poort at Klasies River 'KRM) reflect increased, rather than decreased, rime outlaid on procurement of stone. However, :his is not necessarily the case. Minichillo's

irguments pertain to the increased selection of silcrete, which is difficult to find, over quartzite, (vhich is more common in the area around KRM. Rather than as a straight-out increase in time spent, such decision making can be viewed as a trade-off sf outlay against returns. Mackay (2008) has

irgued that the relatively fine-grained nature of silcrete makes it possible to achieve greater edge ength-to-mass returns. Moreover, silcrete is

imong the most predictably fracturing rocks

available in proximity to many sites in South Africa.

Thus, the extra expenditure of time involved in the

procurement of silcrete may have been more than offset by increases in flaking yield and decreases in the frequency of deleterious fracture and associated early cobble discard.

Before embracing this as an explanation of blade

manufacturing patterns in the HP at DRS, it is

necessary to consider some of the limitations of the

argument presented so far. Foremost among these is the use of core scars to infer patterns in blade

production. While scars represent the most readily available source of information, the reductive nature of the flaking process means that old scars are obscured by new scars. Thus, the relative absence of blade scars from large cores does not

necessarily mean that those cores had not

previously produced large numbers of blades, only that the artefacts produced immediately prior to core discard were not blade-like. Conjoining analysis would provide an independent assessment of whether blades were removed from smaller

cores, or were made in equal numbers from small and large cores. In the absence of these data, core scars remain the best basis from which to proceed.

A second set of issues relates to the use of edge [ength-to-mass values as a means of assessing the benefits of different flake forms. This measure does not take into account the stability or variable

efficiency of different core reduction systems averall {e.g.., Brantingham and Kuhn 2001), nor loes it deal with the threshold issues that might irise from reducing small cores. For example, McGregor (2005) has noted that removing or

overcoming step-terminating scars becomes more difficult as platforms become smaller. Thus, in the

process of making small blades, knappers might lave been faced with a need to regularly rejuvenate the working face of the core, with associated waste of material. Understanding the efficiency of a flake production system in the fullest of terms would

require taking into account such issues.

A final concern is that edge length-to-mass does lot discriminate between the use-life potentials of different flake forms (Shott 1989). The potential )f blades, particularly small blades, to sustain ex :ended retouch is likely to have been limited, mak

ng them unsuitable as blanks for long use-life

mplements. Rather than resulting in an overall ncrease in the amount of useable material, a sys



97

tem of small blade production can be seen to in volve trading off an increase in the number of blanks against the diminished utility of each indi vidual blank. It can therefore be argued that small blade production was not a more efficient use of

stone, but simply a reorganisation of the way in which procured material was converted to useable material.

This criticism seems particularly pertinent in

light of Kuhn's (1995) distinction of individual and

place provisioning systems, which favour maintain able implements and sources of new implements. Buffering this concern is the observation that blade

production appears to have been dominant only among cores too small to have produced service

able blanks for curated implements. Rather than

supplanting the production of artefacts suited to extended use-lives, small blades appear to have been a means of providing additional edges from

cores with limited alternative utility.

CONCLUSIONS

The work of characterising the Howiesons

Poort, undertaken by researchers such as Wurz

(1997,1999,2002), provides a descriptive platform on which to build new understandings. With

increasing volumes of work on the subject, new

levels of detail in analysis become possible. These

will almost certainly lead to variable and, at times,

contrasting depictions of the nature of the industry. Such disagreements should not be seen as

inherently problematic. Rather, given the large tracts of time and space across which occurs, it

would be surprising if the Howiesons Poort was

expressed as the same, undifferentiated industry at all times everywhere.

Consequently, there is a danger in being

prescriptive with the results derived from any given

assemblage. The arguments presented here

concerning the Diepkloof material may not hold

true for Howiesons Poort assemblages from other

sites, such as Klasies River, Rose Cottage Cave, or

Sibudu. If they do not, such contrasts deserve to

be explored. Ultimately, we must be prepared to

deal with diversity as much as similarity if we wish

to understand phenomena such as Howiesons

Poort.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to John Partington, Cedric

Poggenpoel, Jean-Philippe Rigaud, and Pierre Jean Texier for permission to work on the

Diepkloof material. Generous financial support for this research has been given by the Australian National University. I am grateful to Chris Clarkson for the invitation to submit this paper and for assistance in its completion. The incisive comments of two anonymous reviewers have significantly improved the final manuscript from its somewhat

shabby initial form. The remaining errors and limitations are my own.

REFERENCES

Ambrose, S.

2002 Small Things Remembered: Origins of

Early Microlithic Industries in Sub Saharan Africa. In Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Micro

lithization, edited by R .G. Elston and S. L. Kuhn, pp. 9-30. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 12.

Ambrose, S., and K.G. Lorenz.

1990 Social and Ecological Models for the Middle Stone Age in Southern Africa. In The Emergence of Modern

Humans, edited by P.A. Mellars, pp 3

33. Edinburgh University Press,

Edinburgh. Barham, L.

2002 Backed Tools in Middle Pleistocene Central Africa and Their Evolutionary

Significance. Journal of Human

Evolution 43: 585-683. Bar-Yosef, O., and S.L. Kuhn

1999 The Big Deal About Blades: Laminar

Technologies and Human Evolution.

American Anthropologist 101:1-17.

Brantingham, J.P., and S.L. Kuhn

2001 Constraints of Levallois Core Technology: a Mathematical Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:747-761.

Deacon, H.J

1992 Southern Africa and Modern Human

Origins. Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society of London B

337:177-183



9-8

Deacon, H., and S. Wurz

1996 Klasies River Main Site, Cave 2: a

Howieson's Poort Occurrence. In

Aspects of African Archaeology:

Papers from the 10th Congress of the Pan African Association for Prehistory and Related Studies, edited by G. Pwiti and R. Soper, pp 213 218. University of Zimbabwe Publi

cations, Harare.

Dibble, H.L., and S.P. McPherron 2006 The Missing Mousterian. Current

Anthropology 47:777-803. Eren, M.I., M. Dominguez-Rodrigo, S.L. Kuhn, D.S.

Adler, I. Le, and O. Bar-Yosef

2005 Defining and Measuring Reduction in

Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1190 1201.

Goodwin, A. J. H., and C. Van Riet Lowe

1929 The Stone Age Cultures of South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 27:1-146.

Grun, R., and P. Beaumont 2001 Border Cave Revisited: a Revised ESR

Chronology. Journal of Human Evolution 40:467-482.

Hiscock, P. 2002 Pattern and Context in the Holocene

Proliferation of Backed Artifacts in Australia. In Thinking Small: Global

Perspectives on Micro-lithization, edited by R. Elston and S. Kuhn, pp. 163 178. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 12.

Kuhn, S.

1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Kuhn, S., and R. Elston 2002 Introduction: Thinking Small Globally.

In Thinking Small: Global Pers

pectives onMicrolithization, edited

by R. Elston and S. Kuhn, pp. 1-8.

Archeological Papers of the American

Anthropological Association, Number 12.

Lombard, M.

2005 The Howiesons Poort of South Africa: What We Know, What We Think We

Know, What We Need to Know. Southern African Humanities

i7:33-55

2008 Finding Resolution for the Howiesons

Poort Through the Microscope: Micro residue Analysis of Segments from

Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of

Archaeological Science 35:26-41.

Mackay, A. 2006 A Characterization of the MSA Stone

Artefact Assemblage from the 1984 Excavations at Klein Kliphuis, Western

Cape. South African Archaeo

logical Bulletin 61:181-188. 2008 A Method for Estimating Edge Length

From Flake Dimensions: Use and

Implications for Technological Change in the Southern African MSA. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:614-622.

McGregor, O.

2005 Abrupt Terminations and Stone Artefact Reduction Potential. In Lithics 'Doum Under': Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use and

Classification, edited by C. Clarkson and L. Lamb, pp. 57-66. British

Archaeological Reports, International Series 1408. Oxford.

Minichillo, T.

2005 Middle Stone Age Lithic Study, South Africa: an Examination of Modern Human Origins. Un

published PhD Thesis. University of

Washington. 2006 Raw Material Use and Behavioral

Modernity: Howiesons Poort Lithic

Foraging Strategies. Journal of Human Evolution 50:359-364.

Parkington, J., C. Poggenpoel, J.-P. Rigaud, and P.-J. Texier

2005 From Tool to Symbol: the Behavioural Context of Intentionally Marked Ostrich

Eggshell from Diepkloof, Western Cape. In From Tools to Symbols: From

Early Hominids to Modern

Humans, edited by F. d'Errico and L.

Backwell, pp. 475-492. Wits University Press, Johannesburg.

Rigaud, J.-P., P.-J. Texier, J. Parkington, and C.

Poggenpoel 2006 Le mobilier Stillbay et Howiesons Poort

de l'abri Diepkloof. La Chronologie du Middle Stone Age Sud-Africain et ses

Implications. Comptes Rendus Palevol 5:839-849.



m

Shott. M. J.

1989 On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assem

blages. American Antiquity 54:9-30.

Singer, R., and J. Wymer. 1982 The Middle Stone Age at Klasies

River Mouth in South Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Soriano, S., P. Villa, and L. Wadley 2007 Blade Technology and Tool Forms in the

Middle Stone Age of South Africa: the Howiesons Poort and Post-Howiesons Poort at Rose Cottage Cave. Journal of

Archaeological Science 34:681-703.

Stapleton, P., and J. Hewitt

1927 Stone Implements from a Rock-Shelter near Howieson's Poort Near

Grahamstown. South African Jour nal of Science 24:574-587.

Thackeray, A. I.

1992 The Middle Stone Age South of the

Limpopo River. Journal of World

Prehistory 6:385-440. Tribolo, C., N. Mercier, and H. Valladas

2005 Chronology of the Howiesons Poort and

Still Bay Techno-Complexes: Assessment and New Data From Luminescence. In

From Tools to Symbols:from Early Hominids to Modern Humans, edited by F. d'Errico and L. Backwell, pp. 493-511- Wits University Press,

Johannesburg. Valladas, H., L. Wadley, N. Mercier, C. Tribolo, J

L Reyss, and J-L Joron

2005 Thermoluminescence Dating on Burnt

Lithics from Middle Stone Age Layers at

Rose Cottage Cave. South African Journal of Science 101: 169-174.

Vogel, J. 2001 Radiometric Dates for the Middle Stone

Age in South Africa. In Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia, edited by P. V. Tobias, M. A.

Raath, J. Moggi-Cecchi, and G. A. Doyle, pp. 261-268. Wits University Press,

Johannesburg. Volman, T.

1981 The Middle Stone Age in the Southern Cape. Unpublished PhD.

dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of Chicago. Wurz, S.

1997 The Howiesons Poort at Klasies River: From Artefacts to

Cognition. Unpublished MA thesis,

University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.

1999 The Howieson's Poort at Klasies River -

an Argument for Symbolic Behaviour. South African Archaeological Bulletin 54:38-50.

2002 Variability in the Middle Stone Age Lithic

Sequence, 115,000-60,000 Years Ago at Klasies River, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:1001 1015.

Wurz, S., and M. Lombard

2007 70,000-Year-Old Geometric Backed Tools from the Howiesons Poort at Klasies River, South Africa: Were They Used for Hunting? Southern African Humanities 19:1-16.



Lithic Perspectives from the Antipodes || ON THE PRODUCTION OF BLADES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BACKED...

Documents

Transcript of Lithic Perspectives from the Antipodes || ON THE PRODUCTION OF BLADES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO BACKED...