New knapping methods in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa)

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e17

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

New knapping methods in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa)

Paloma de la Peña*, Lyn WadleyEvolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, PO Wits 2050, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:Middle Stone AgeHowiesons PoortLithic technologyCoreKnapping method

* Corresponding author. Evolutionary Studies InstGeography & Environmental Studies, Yale Road, JoAfrica.

E-mail address: [email protected] (P.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.0431040-6182/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: de la PeñaAfrica), Quaternary International (2014), htt

a b s t r a c t

The lithic technology study of layer Grey Sand at Sibudu reveals a large number of cores on flakes.Varying knapping methods of core reduction are presented here. Most of the core reduction techniquescan be attributed to bladelet or small flake production. Also, we point to a new type of blade production,from prismatic cores, revealed by the study of debitage. These innovative knapping methods demon-strate the technological variability associated with Howiesons Poort lithic assemblages.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: background to Howiesons Poort technology

The Howiesons Poort of the southern African Middle Stone Age(MSA) has fascinated archaeologists for almost a century. It was firstdescribed at the beginning of the twentieth century (Stapleton andHewitt, 1927, 1928; Goodwin, 1929), at which stage it was definedas a ‘variation’, not as an industry within theMSA (Wurz, 1999). TheHowiesons Poort, with its well-developed blade technology, backedtools, particularly segments (also called crescents or lunates), someof which are microlithic, and a preference for fine-grained rocktypes, is in some ways reminiscent of mid-Holocene Later StoneAge (LSA) industries. For some years, archaeologists claimed thatHowiesons Poort material culture demonstrated that complexityattributed to the LSA appeared much earlier than expected in thearchaeological record (Clark, 1959; Deacon, 1989). For as long as itwas thought to be a precursor to the LSA, the Howiesons Poort wasregarded as precocious. Unfortunately, such an interpretationcomplicates the distinction betweenMSA and LSA, because it buildson a list of techno-typological criteria that appear and disappearand do not reflect developmental trajectories. The Howiesons Poortwas regarded differently once it was realized that it was replaced inthe cultural sequence by assemblages that bore little resemblanceto the LSA, but were more like pre-Howiesons Poort MSA ones. TheHowiesons Poort was then seen as enigmatic because it seemedunimaginable that this ostensibly advanced industry should

itute, School of Archaeology,hannesburg, Gauteng, South

de la Peña).

reserved.

, P., Wadley, L., New knappinp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quain

disappear rather than progress. Singer and Wymer (1982) went sofar as to suggest population replacement as an explanation, that is,the makers of ‘traditional’ MSA tools were replaced by a newpopulation with Howiesons Poort tools, and that the originalsouthern African inhabitants returned to their homeland after thedemise of the Howiesons Poort. This explanation no longer hasfollowers. Over time, the Howiesons Poort has become one of thebest known African industries, considered by some to be a horizonmarker within the MSA (Deacon and Wurz, 1996, 2005). Moregenerally, the Howiesons Poort, as the Still Bay, is now thought of asa ’techno-tradition‘ (Henshilwood, 2012) and it continues to receivemuch attention (for example, Wurz, 1999, 2000; Minichillo, 2005;Soriano et al., 2007; Wadley, 2008; Mackay, 2009; Villa et al.,2010; Porraz et al., 2013). Part of the reason for renewed interestin the Howiesons Poort is the variety of material culture that is nowknown to accompany the lithic component at some sites. A range ofworked bone is present in Klasies, Apollo 11 and Sibudu (Singer andWymer, 1982; Vogelsang, 1998; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007;Backwell et al., 2008; d’Errico et al., 2012). Engraved ochre wasfound at Klein Kliphuis (Mackay and Welz, 2008), and ostricheggshell engravings, probably originally from eggshell water bot-tles, at Diepkloof and Klipdrift, suggest geometric design traditions(Texier et al., 2010; Henshilwood et al., 2014).

The chrono-stratigraphic development of the Howiesons Poorthas long been a topic of discussion. Unfathomably recent radio-carbon ages for the Howiesons Poort, for example at the name site(Deacon,1995), should be discarded or, at best, viewed as minimumages. Electron spin resonance dating was used at Border Cave,where a range of ages between 75 � 4 ka and 55 � 2 ka was ob-tained for the Howiesons Poort (Grün et al., 2003). More recently,

g methods in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, Southt.2014.03.043

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.043



P. de la Peña, L. Wadley / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e172

Jacobs et al. (2008) calculated single-grain optically stimulatedluminescence ages for the Howiesons Poort at Apollo 11, KlasiesRiver, Melikane, Klein Kliphuis, Rose Cottage Cave and Sibudu andsuggested that it spanned not more than about five thousand years,ending at about 62 ka. Recently published backed tools with ages ofw71 ka from Pinnacle Point (Brown et al., 2012) imply that earlierHowiesons Poort expressions may occur at some sites. Older ther-moluminescence ages obtained for the Howiesons Poort fromDiepkloof have reopened chronological discussions (Tribolo et al.,2013).

The principal technological hallmark of the Howiesons Poort isits well-developed blade technology, with backed tools as thedominant formal tool. In the last decade, technology and functionalanalysis have become some of the main ways of defining theHowiesons Poort. From the classic sequence of Klasies River, Wurz(2000) made the first technological study demonstrating that bladeblanks were the main objective of the lithic production. Later, thetechnological studies of Rose Cottage Cave (Soriano et al., 2007),Diepkloof (Porraz et al., 2013), and Klasies River (Villa et al., 2010),added to the recognition of blade production in the industry. AtDiepkloof, other knappingmethods have been announced, but theyare not yet presented in detail.

Core technology has also been shown to be highly informative inHowiesons Poort analyses. As is the case with other elements of atechnological production, it reflects cultural choices (Lemonnier,1986). Clarkson’s (2010) studies of Howiesons Poort core technol-ogy have highlighted its potential for showing considerable vari-ability between sites. The first technological study of HowiesonsPoort cores (Wurz, 2000) describes a core reduction strategydesigned to produce blanks for making backed artefacts at Klasies(in respect of backed tool blank production see also Mackay, 2008,2009). Wurz described how thick flakes were selected as cores andtwo different types of surfaces were created: an ‘active‘ or ’upper’surface, where the blanks were obtained; and a ‘passive’ or ‘under’surface where a preparation-striking platform was created bycentripetal removals (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Examples of technological descriptio

Please cite this article in press as: de la Peña, P., Wadley, L., New knappinAfrica), Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quain

In a more recent publication, Villa et al. (2010) give an evenmore detailed model of the Klasies Howiesons Poort ‘core-type’,which essentially repeats the model proposed by Wurz: “The twosurfaces are ranked, i.e. they are not interchangeable. One surface,the less convex one, carries almost exclusively blade or bladeletremovals, the other is the core back and forms the striking platform.The debitage surface is generally quadrangular or oval, rarely tri-angular(.). Some cores abandoned before exhaustion or knappingaccidents show a Levallois-like morphology, with a centripetalmanagement of lateral and distal convexities, but the geometry ofthe flaking surface and the knapping techniques are completelydifferent. In a Levallois core, the intersection of the debitage surfaceand the platform surface is a plane (Boëda, 1995). In a Klasies HPblade core the intersection does not form a plane because theconvexities of the debitage surface are more pronounced” (Fig. 1)(Villa et al., 2010: 641e643). This model is presented to explain allproduction of blades and bladelets, seen as a continuum. Almost38% of the Klasies cores are made on flakes (Villa et al., 2010: Ta-ble 9). Recently, Porraz et al. (2013) have also mentioned that thistype of core appears in the three phases of the Howiesons Poortassemblages defined for Diepkloof.

For the Howiesons Poort of Rose Cottage Cave another type ofcore was recognised for the knapping of opaline. In this case theknapping of blade/bladelets was begun with minimal preparationof the striking platform, or with none. The narrow side of thecobbles was exploited to start the knapping, advancing towards thebroader part of the cores. The trimming of these types of cores wasperformed through plunging flake blades and crested and semi-crested blades (Soriano et al., 2007). However, this type of reduc-tion sequence may be heavily influenced by the rock type availablefrom the Drakensberg: small opaline cobbles.

2. The new Howiesons Poort study of layer Grey Sand, Sibudu

It seems clear that rock types influence core production. Here,we aim to investigate the way in which knappers at Sibudu, in

ns of ‘Klasies Howiesons Poort cores’.


Fig. 2. On the left upper part of the figure, location of Sibudu Cave in southern Africa. On the left bottom part, map of Sibudu. The squares analysed in this paper have beenhighlighted in grey. On the right, stratigraphy of the north wall of Sibudu. Layer Grey Sand (GS) has been highlighted with an arrow.

P. de la Peña, L. Wadley / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e17 3

KwaZulu-Natal, produced cores from the three main rock typesoccurring at this site: dolerite, hornfels, and quartz. We concentrateon a single Howiesons Poort layer, Grey Sand (GS). Intuitively, wenoticed high proportions of quartz both amongst retouched toolsand cores, and we aim to investigate this quartz technology (de laPeña and Wadley, 2014). We have already shown that, unexpect-edly, a large number of quartz bifacial points occur in the finalHowiesons Poort at Sibudu (de la Peña et al., 2013). We observedthat quartz cores include both freehand and bipolar types, and itseems from a preliminary study that new, unreported core typesmight be present in other rock types. Then we aim to investigatewhether there is a difference in the chaînes opératoires of quartzversus dolerite and hornfels.

In order to achieve our aims, we present a variety of knappingmethodsmainly associatedwith bladelet production from a generalanalysis of cores from Sibudu’s layer Grey Sand. When workingwith cores, we are dealing with residual elements of reductionsequences and it is essential to supplement the information oncores with the analyses of the debitage (Soriano et al., 2007). Inother words, cores give us a somewhat partial view of the wholetechnology that must be completed with other technologicalsources of information (such as trimming and preparation by-


products and qualitative blank characteristics). We believe thatthe importance of studying the Howiesons Poort knappingmethods is, on the one hand, that this will provide better under-standing of the technological organization of this techno-tradition.On the other hand, new strategies might become importantdefining markers for future regional studies within the HowiesonsPoort. Moreover, we demonstrate the interest that knappers had inmicrolithic blanks during the Howiesons Poort. We describe theSibudu Howiesons Poort assemblage from layer Grey Sand andplace it within the larger context of the site.

3. The Howiesons Poort sample: layer Grey Sand, Sibudu,KwaZulu-Natal

Sibudu is located approximately 40 km north of Durban (Fig. 2),about 15 km inland of the Indian Ocean, on a steep cliff overlookingthe uThongathi River. The shelter is 55 m long and 18 m in breadthand has a long occupation sequence with several layers and fea-tures corresponding to the pre-Still Bay, Still Bay, Howiesons Poort,post-Howiesons Poort, late MSA, final MSA and Iron Age (Wadleyand Jacobs, 2006).


Table 1Variables taken into account for the quartz core study.

Variables taken into accountfor the core quartz study

Type of blankPresence of cortexLength, Breadth, Thickness and WeightVolumetric shapeNumber of striking platformsOrientation of striking platformsLength and Breadth of Striking platforms(in case of several, the larger)Type of preparation of the striking platformLength and Breadth of knapping surfaceGeometric shape of knapping surfaceOrientation of last negativesLength and Breadth of last negativePresence of conchoidal negatives (Yes/No)Presence of fissuration in overhang or strikingplatform (Yes/No)Presence of bluntness in overhang or strikingplatform (Yes/No)Freehand or Bipolar coresType of core: Prismatic, core on flake, multifacial,discoidal, Howiesons Poort type, bipolarRecycled core (from freehand to bipolar)Comments/Observations

Table 2Variables taken into account for the dolerite and hornfels core study.

Variables taken into accountfor the core hornfels anddolerite study

Type of blankFragment (Yes/No)Type of fractureLength, Breadth, Thickness and WeightVolumetric shapeLateral trimming (crest or semicrest, sensuPelegrin, 1995) (Yes/No)Number of lateral trimmingsOther type of trimmingNumber of striking platformsOrientation of the striking platformsPreparation of the striking platformsShape of the striking platformsShape of the exploitation surfaceLength and Breadth of the exploitation surfaceCurvature of the exploitation surface (Yes/No)Length and Breadth of last negativeType of shape of last blankObservationsType of core: Prismatic, core on flake, multifacial,discoidal, Howiesons Poort type, bipolar


Howiesons Poort occupations reported here come from GreySand in six square metres (squares B4, B5, B6, C4, C5 and C6) ofWadley’s excavations in the deep sounding. The layers associatedwith the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu are (from the base to the top):Pinkish Grey Sand (PGS), Grey Sand (GS, GS2 and GS3), Dark Red-dish Grey (DRG) and Grey Rocky (GR and GR2) (Fig. 2).

The stratigraphy is clear, combustion features are discernible(Wadley, 2012), and micromorphology implies that most Sibudulayers have stratigraphic integrity (Goldberg et al., 2009), althoughrock fall between the oldest Howiesons Poort layer, PGS, and theunderlying Still Bay layer, Reddish Grey Sand (RGS), has causedsome disturbance. Earlier rock fall also disrupted pre-Still Baylayers.

The layer that we discuss here is GS, which has an age estimateof 63.8 � 2.5 kyr obtained from single grain optically stimulatedluminescence on sediment from GS2 (Jacobs and Roberts, 2008).This grey (5 YR 5/1) layer has an average thickness of 20 cm, and itsfield description is silty sand with ash and many small rock spalls.GS2 and GS3 are spits to divide GS artificially for excavation pur-poses, thus GS is about 10 cm deep and GS2 and GS3 are, together,also about 10 cm thick. The choice of this layer for the detailedanalysis of the quartz technology stems from a preliminary analysisconducted on the Howiesons Poort assemblages during which alarger sample of cores was identified in GS compared to the otherHowiesons Poort layers in Sibudu. In other words, the core samplein this layer possessed, a priori, some ideal conditions for pre-senting different knapping methods.

4. Methodology

For the technological study we followed the chaîne opératoireapproach (Lemonnier, 1976; Karlin et al., 1991; Pelegrin, 1995). Themain objective of this paper is to describe, in a qualitative manner,the knappingmethods revealed by cores and part of the debitage (asdefined by Inizan et al., 1995). For this purpose we studied all thecores (n ¼ 255) and trimming and preparation by-products(n ¼ 113) of this layer in the three main rock types (to selectthese pieces wewent through all the lithic material of the 6 squaresexcavated at GS), all the quartz blanks (n ¼ 15,175) and all thehornfels and dolerite blade/bladelets blanks from square C4 over2 cm (dolerite, n ¼ 265; hornfels n ¼ 147). Moreover, the retouchedpieces of this layer in the three main rock types were also analysedfrom a technological point of view (dolerite n¼ 51, hornfels n¼ 114,quartz n ¼ 216). We also analysed blanks that displayed evidencefor knapping accidents, because usually these kinds of pieces arehighly informative.

Cores were analysed using a combination of metrical andtechnological (qualitative) attributes. The variables taken into ac-count for quartz (Table 1) are different from the ones for hornfelsand dolerite (Table 2). Most of the qualitative variables for thehornfels and dolerite core study come from the Pelegrin method-ological proposal for Chatelperronian cores (see Pelegrin, 1995).Meanwhile, the study of cores on flakes has followed previoustechnological and experimental works, such as Mourre (1996a),Klaric (2003); de la Peña (2011), and Le Brun-Ricalens (2005). Thestudy of Sibudu’s quartz cores has been made using the attributespresented in previous quartz studies such as the ones of: Callahan(1985), Knutsson (1988b), Driscoll (2010), and Díez-Martín et al.(2009). We have added other attributes. The selected attributestake into account not only the general size of the pieces, butmeasurements of the knapping surface and specific characteristicssuch as fissures, blunting, etc., that may be typical of bipolarknapping, even if freehand knapping of quartz may also producesuch attributes (Lombera-Hermida, 2009). A general classificationof the core type is also presented, based on the reduction sequence


performed. We have selected broad categories for core morphologyand method of reduction such as: prismatic core, multifacial core,Klasies’s Howiesons Poort core (following the Wurz, 2000; Villaet al., 2010 descriptions), core on flake (see subtypes in Fig. 3),and bipolar core.

Cores on flakes were recognized early on in Middle Palaeolithicsites in the Middle East. At the Nahr Ibrahim site (Lebanon) Soleckiand Solecki (1970) mentioned a distinctive technique consisting oftruncating one of the sides of a flint flake and the utilization of thefacet created as a platform for flake removals. Subsequently, therehave been numerous studies that have described this kind oftechnique (Dibble, 1984; Nishiaki, 1985; Goren-Inbar, 1988). Coreson flakes were recognized early in African studies, but mainly froma typological point of view, see for example Owen (1938). One ofthe first studies of core on flake technology in an African context isfrom an LSA assemblage at Gamble’s Cave in Kenya. In that paper,


Fig. 3. Different types of cores on flakes mentioned in the text.


Hivernel-Guerre and Newcomer (1974) divided cores on flakes intofour groups depending on the part of the flake exploited: the onesthat exploit the dorsal part of flakes (i.e. Nahr Ibrahim or Kostienkicores), the ones that exploit the ventral part of flakes (i.e. Kombewacores), the ones that exploit the lateral part (i.e. burin cores) and,finally, the ones that exploit both faces of cores (i.e. bipolar cores)(see Fig. 3). Although bipolar cores can be started from pebbles,they also can be made from flakes (for pebbles see for exampleBarham, 1987; for flakes see for example de la Peña and VegaToscano, 2013). Bipolar knapping, contrary to freehand knapping,is defined as a method in which the core is placed on an anvil andheld with the bare hand. The rock is struck, causing removal ofblanks from the top and also from the edge which is in directcontact with the anvil (Crabtree, 1972). Therefore, bipolar coreshave two opposed striking platforms (one from the direct percus-sion and the other one from contact with the anvil). Usually, bipolarcores present quadrangular or rectangular shapes. Both the strikingplatform and the edge in contact with the anvil are rectilinear, withmuch evidence for blunting and fissuring, and a striking platform-surface with a knapping angle close to 90� (Mourre, 1996a).

For the trimming products analysis we followed a very similarapproach to that of the cores. The main attributes are recorded inTable 3. The types of trimming products are explained in Fig. 4. Ascan be seen, most of these types of knapping by-products arerelated to blade-bladelet production.

Table 3Variables taken into account for the study of trimming products.

Variables taken into accountfor the trimming products study

Type of blankPresence of cortexLength, Breadth, Thickness and WeightType (see Fig. 1)Is it showing previous accidents? Which?Observations/comments


When we refer to ‘bladelets’, we mean elongated by-productswith parallel ridges (Pelegrin, 1995) and breadth less than 12 mm(Tixier, 1963). Therefore, all elongated by-products with breadthover 12 mm are considered as blades (or long blade production).We are aware that this is an arbitrary division, but as it is commonlyused in technology studies we think it is useful as a comparativemeasurement.

5. The rock types in GS

In the Howiesons Poort layers the majority of rocks knapped aredolerite, hornfels, and quartz. Dolerite is a coarse-grained igneousrock available in the vicinity of the site; it occurs as rounded alluvialcobbles on the banks of the uThongathi River and as tabular slabs insills and dykes (Wadley and Kempson, 2011). Hornfels is much finergrained than dolerite and it is available today some 20 km south ofSibudu, but it may also have been collected closer to the site fromoutcrops that are now covered with dune sand (Cochrane, 2006;Wadley and Kempson, 2011). In the Sibudu area there are con-glomerates containing quartz clasts and vein quartz, and somequartz and quartzite pebbles also occur in the river and on the riverterraces (Wadley and Kempson, 2011, and personal observation).Quartz can be divided into two broad categories: crystalline quartz,commonly called macrocrystalline quartz, and the dense andcompact forms, which usually are named cryptocrystalline ormicrocrystalline. The differences between these two broad cate-gories are simply a consequence of the way they form. Macro-crystalline quartz grows by adding molecules to the crystal’ssurface, whereas cryptocrystalline forms come from colloidalwatery solutions of silica. Both varieties appear at Sibudu. However,cryptocrystalline material is extremely rare in Sibudu’s HowiesonsPoort layers. On the contrary, crystalline quartz is very abundant.Within the crystalline quartz assemblage at Sibudu we can


Fig. 4. Different types of maintenance and trimming by-products (in grey) found in Sibudu’s layer GS lithic sample. A. Semicrested blade to correct a hinge accident duringknapping. B. Crested blade to give a carination shape to a blade core. C. Overshoot flake-blade to eliminate a hinge negative. D. Blade exploiting an overhang (as a guiding ridge) tochange the direction of knapping.

Table 4Types of cores in the three rock types in layer GS of Sibudu.

Type of cores Hornfels Dolerite Quartz

N % N % N %

Prismatic 1 2.33 4 11.4 21 12.57Multifacial 2 4.65 0 1 0.599Discoidal 0 0 2 1.198Core on flake 15 34.9 10 28.6 0‘Klasies HP core’ 4 9.3 1 2.86 0Bipolar core 19 44.2 13 37.1 134 80.24Indeterminate and/or fragment 2 4.65 7 20 9 5.389Total 43 100 35 100 167 100


distinguish three main categories: vein quartz (milky), rock quartz(glassy) and crystal quartz. In GS, the layer under discussion, mostof the quartz knapped is crystalline, and rock quartz is especiallyabundant. During the technological analyses we did not make thedistinction between these last categories, owing to the fact thatcolour and transparency are highly subjective parameters. Quartz,which is 100% silica, is hard (7 on Moh’s scale) so it produces long-lasting, sharp tool edges. Its disadvantage is that it contains faultsand routinely shatters, often causing tools to break during knap-ping. Dolerite is tough and rigid with a rough surface, whereashornfels is brittle, less tough than dolerite, and is fine-grainedcompared with dolerite (Wadley and Kempson, 2011). The tough-ness of dolerite is partly why this rock is more difficult to knap thanhornfels. Although dolerite flakes are more challenging to producethan hornfels ones, they keep usable edges more effectively thanhornfels flakes (Cochrane, 2006; Wadley and Kempson, 2011).Cochrane (2006) was able to demonstrate that fewer of Sibudu’sdolerite tools are broken than hornfels ones. Hornfels is relativelyeasy to knap, and produces sharp, thin edges, an attribute that isespecially sought-after for blades, but hornfels products are morelikely to break than those made from dolerite. Hornfels and doleritein GS have a 48 and 49% representation (pieces above 2 cm);meanwhile quartz does not even reach 3% in squares B4 and B5(Cochrane, 2006). However, this proportion inverts completely if


the representation of cores by rock type is taken into account(Table 4). The percentage of quartz cores is much greater than thatof hornfels and dolerite cores. This means that quartz, although aminority Sibudu rock type in the Howiesons Poort, was highlyexploited.

6. Grey Sand’s knapping methods

Most core types represented (Table 4) are cores on flakes andbipolar cores (that are sometimes also cores on flakes). These two


Fig. 5. Different typometrical measurements for cores and debitage in layer GS, Sibudu. A. Box-plot with the maximum length by rock type of cores, blades and bladelets, andmaintenance by-products (MBP). B. Box-plot with the length of the last negative on cores by rock type. C. Length of knapping surface in quartz and dolerite (hornfels has not beenincluded because the sample was too small). D. Histogram with breadth distribution of blades/bladelets in square C4.


broad categories are in the majority and they occur on the threemain rock types.

Another interesting characteristic is that the length distributionof the cores is strikingly small, especially for quartz (Fig. 5A) (de laPeña and Wadley, 2014). The different parameters shown in Fig. 5reveal the importance of the production of small blanks, such asbladelets or micro-flakes. For example the length of the last nega-tive on these cores (excluding accidental-knapping negatives) is, inthe majority of cases, below 30 mm (Fig. 5B). In addition, theknapping surface of the cores is also conspicuously small (Fig. 5D).

It is also evident that there is a typometrical difference betweenquartz and dolerite- hornfels (see Fig. 5B and C). This is probablyinfluenced by the way these nodules appear naturally in thelandscape. Nonetheless, the natural morphology of the nodulesnecessitated the deployment of different knapping methods foreach of the three rock types represented in Sibudu.


After studying the cores from the six square meters togetherwith the C4 debitage, it is clear that the cores do not reflect theblade blank production. What the cores are reflecting is mainlythe bladelet and the small flake production. However, thebreadth dispersion of blades and bladelets over 2 cm in hornfelsand dolerite (Fig. 5D) implies large blade production comingfrom large cores that do not occur in our core sample. The rea-sons for this can be multiple: either the cores were completelyreduced, or the large blade cores are still in other unexcavatedparts of Sibudu, or large blades were imported to the site. Thefirst solution seems the most reasonable, as there are trimmingand maintenance by-products which also reveal a large bladeproduction in situ (Fig. 5A and Table 5). Below, we present themain types of cores found and, moreover, the questions that arisefrom this particular typometric distribution of core and debitagemeasurements (Fig. 5).


Table 5Maintenance and/or trimming knapping by-products in hornfels and dolerite inlayer GS of Sibudu. In quartz no trimming and maintenance by-products have beenfound.

Maintenance and or trimmingknapping by-products

Hornfels Dolerite

N % N %

Crest 0 0 7 10.45Semicrest on flake/burin spall 2 4.35 0 0Semicrest 21 45.7 25 37.31Tablet (cleaning striking platform) 2 4.35 7 10.45Cleaning plunging flake/blade of a

knapping surface20 43.5 27 40.3

Change of knapping direction flake 1 2.17 1 1.493Total 46 100 67 100


6.1. Which new modalities of knapping are shown in these cores?

It has not previously been observed that different varieties ofcores on flakes occur in Sibudu’s Howiesons Poort. In the first placethere are cores exploiting the laterals of small hornfels and doleriteflakes. This type of product can be classified as a burin-like core(Fig. 6). Usually there is a small striking platform (truncation)prepared on one or several edges of the flake.

In addition, there are also examples of cores exploiting thedorsal face of flakes, after a short preparation of a striking platform,like a truncation, on the ventral face. Sometimes there is distalpreparation and semicrested ridges on the lateral of the cores, togive them the desired shape (Fig. 7). Following previous core on

Fig. 6. Examples of hornfels and dolerite burin-like cores in laye


flake studies (see above) they could be classified as truncatedfaceted pieces or Kostienki cores (see also Fig. 3).

Other cores on flakes exploit the dorsal part of the flake in adiscoidal manner or, on the same flake, a different part of the faceand edge is knapped. Even though they are unstandardized, theyhave in common with the previous examples, first, the pursuit ofsmall blanks and, secondly, their manufacture on flakes (Fig. 8).Trimming and maintenance by-products associated with thesecores on flakes have also been found, such as small semicrestedridges, plunging flake/blades, and even knapping accidents whichalso show examples of these kinds of cores (Fig. 8FeL).

The frequent presence of bipolar coresmust also be emphasized.These types of cores are especially abundant in quartz (above 80% ofthe core sample, Fig. 9 and Table 4). In the case of quartz it is verydifficult to recognize the original form of the core. What seemsapparent is that theywere transformed from freehand cores (see dela Peña andWadley, 2014). Bipolar cores also appear in dolerite andhornfels (Fig. 9), but for these two rock types they should beconsidered cores on flakes, because when the blank of the core canbe recognized, it is usually a flake. Moreover, bipolar production inhornfels and dolerite seems more opportunistic than in quartz. Themain knapping attributes for recognizing bipolar knapping are theappearance of fissured and blunted edges, and rectilinear oppositeedges (de la Peña, 2011; de la Peña and Vega Toscano, 2013). Themain objective of knapping during the reduction of cores on flakes,and bipolar cores, was obtaining small blanks such as bladelets andflakes, sometimes under 10 mm in length (such as in the case of thequartz pieces Fig. 5A, C).

r GS, Sibudu. The surface removals are marked with arrows.


Fig. 7. Examples of Kostienki-like cores, on hornfels (A, B, C, D) and dolerite (E) in layer GS, Sibudu. On the right pieces A and B presented in detail. The striking platform, theexploitation surface extractions and the trimming and preparation extractions are highlighted.


6.2. Was there large blade production from hornfels and dolerite onsite?

We began by describing the production of bladelets and smallflakes. However, the breadth of blade debitage in square C4 (Fig. 5D)and the trimming and/or maintenance by-products from all sixsquares (such as plunging blades and crested and semicrestedblades) (Table 5, Fig. 5A) show a bigger size range that does notmatch the size of the cores studied in hornfels and dolerite. Thehistogram in Fig. 5D shows blade production between 20 and 45e50 mm. This would have not been noticed when only looking at thecores. In other words, the cores studied seem to be the very laststeps of the reduction sequence, or an independent type of


production. For hornfels and dolerite the maintenance by-productsand the debitage show a true blade production (blanks over 12 mmin breadth) which is not evident in the cores. Even though someexamples of the ‘Klasies Howiesons Poort cores’ have been found inhornfels (all of themmade from nodules, not flakes) (Fig. 10) we donot believe that these types of cores explain all the blade produc-tion (blanks over 12 mm in breadth) for the Howiesons Poort, atleast not for this sample from layer GS at Sibudu. It seems morelikely that ‘Klasies Howiesons Poort cores’ were designed for bla-delet production (blanks under 12 mm in breadth).

From the typometric and qualitative characteristics of bladedebitage, and the trimming and/or maintenance by-products, itseems that blades were produced from big prismatic cores. These


Fig. 8. AeE: Different types of core on unstandardized flakes standardized from layer GS, Sibudu: A. Hornfels core for bladelets which is exploiting the dorsal and the left flank ofthe blank. B. Thick flake which has been knapped on the proximal part. C. Thick and carinated flake exploited as an end-scraper core in the distal and dorsal part of the blank. D andE. Discoidal flake cores in dolerite. FeL. Trimming and/or maintenance by-products of cores on flakes in hornfels. F, G, I, K, L core flakes, all of them overshoots. H. Semicrestedbladelet. L. Core fragment of a piece very similar to C.


were probably heavily reduced and the original cores are no longerpresent in the GS assemblage. In Fig.11 we show different examplesof dolerite blades with prismatic sections and platforms, togetherwith trimming and/or maintenance by-products that evoke bladeproduction (blanks over 12 mm in breadth), probably from pris-matic cores.

We have also found maintenance and/or trimming by-productsrelated to large blade technology (blanks over 12 mm in breadth).Semicrested blades are amongst the most common by-products.They should originate from two different types of strategies. Onthe one hand, they correct knapping accidents, such as hinge/stepnegatives, by creating a ridge that allows the removal of an elon-gated blank and, thereafter, continued knapping. On the otherhand, as mentioned by Villa et al. (2010), semicrested blades canhelp to produce a desired shape or to increase the distal or lateralconvexity of a core. Similarly, there are also plunging blades thatwere struck to compensate for an accident, to improve the con-vexity of a core or simply as an overshoot accident that indirectlydisplays a large portion of a core. We have also detected blanks thatresemble semicrested blades, but instead are removals that


eliminated the overhang of a core. These are possibly related to achange of direction during knapping. These types of blanksdemonstrate that the cores were heavily reduced; this may be onereason why there are no surviving large cores (see Figs. 4 and 11).

6.3. What about quartz? Why such a different core-typerepresentation?

In quartz, a large distinction can be made between freehand andbipolar cores. The dissimilarity between these two main categoriesof cores has been recognised during experimental work which hasallowed observations of different qualitative characteristics(Callahan, 1985; Knutsson, 1988a, b; Mourre, 1996b; Díez-Martínet al., 2009; Driscoll, 2010). For example, conchoidal negatives arepresent abundantly on freehand cores, whereas bluntness andfissuring are visible on the striking platforms of bipolar cores. Thisdistinction has also been noted when typometrical distributionswere taken into account (de la Peña and Wadley, 2014).

Blade and bladelet production in quartz is mainly from pris-matic freehand cores (see Table 6 for a description of the quartz


Fig. 9. Bipolar cores on quartz (AeH) and dolerite (IeM) in layer GS, Sibudu.


Please cite this article in press as: de la Peña, P., Wadley, L., New knapping methods in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, SouthAfrica), Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.043

Fig. 10. On the left, drawings of ‘Klasies Howiesons Poort cores’ in hornfels from layer GS, Sibudu. On the right both pieces presented in detail, highlighting the striking platform, theexploitation surface and shaping removals (different colours). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of thisarticle.)

Table 6Main categories of debitage in quartz over 1 cm (without debris and retouchedpieces) from layer GS, Sibudu.

Pieces >1 cm N %

Platform flake 588 30Bipolar flake 379 19.34Blade/Bladelet 221 11.28Fragment without platform 585 29.85Chunk 187 9.54Total 1960 100


blanks in GS). These cores come from small river pebbles andhave either modest preparation or none at all. A simple flake wasusually removed to prepare the striking platform; while for theknapping surface, the longest side of the core was generallychosen. For freehand cores, unifacial (36.8%) and opposed (47.4%)scars of the last negatives are dominant. The most typical mor-photypes are pyramidal-unipolar cores and opposed platformprismatic cores. However, it looks as though freehand quartzcores were exploited more from the restrictions imposed by themorphological characteristics of the quartz pebbles, and lessfrom a preconceived design. Most of the laminar freehand coreshave plenty of negatives from step and hinge accidents(Fig. 12).

Please cite this article in press as: de la Peña, P., Wadley, L., New knapping methods in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, SouthAfrica), Quaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.043

Fig. 11. Blades and trimming and maintenance by-products from layer GS, Sibudu. On the left (AeH) dolerite large blades (>12 mm in breadth). Note the prismatic platforms andsections. On the right, trimming and maintenance by-products in dolerite for the same kind of production: I, J, K. Semicrested blades. L and M. Plunging blades of prismatic cores. Nand O. Change of knapping direction flake.


Bipolar cores have quadrangular or rectangular shapes. Both thestriking platform and the edge in contact with the anvil are recti-linear with much evidence of blunting and fissuring (Fig. 9). Thesmall size of bipolar cores in the GS sample is particularly striking:the length, breadth and thickness means are 15.81, 10.68, and6.22 mm, respectively (de la Peña and Wadley, 2014).

A plausible hypothesis for the frequent representation of quartzcores (Table 5) is that many freehand cores were transformed intobipolar cores. Bipolar cores are more abundant than freehand ones,and there are some examples of bipolar cores with characteristics offreehand cores in a previous knapping cycle, as if knappingcontinued through anvil percussion. Perhaps when freehandknapping was no longer possible, because of the small size of thecore, knappers switched to bipolar knapping. This type of strategyhas been observed in many other archaeological contexts (see forexample Callahan, 1985; Hisckock, 1996).

6.4. Synthesis of knapping methods in layer GS

To summarize, there is great variability within the knappingmethods of the GS sample analysed. For hornfels and dolerite, alarge blade production, from prismatic cores, has been proposedfrom the study of the debitage. ‘Klasies Howiesons Poort cores’have also been found on hornfels. However, they do not seem toexplain all the blade/bladelet production. Many different types of


cores on flakes have also been found to produce small bladelets. Inaddition, bipolar knapping was occasionally used for hornfels anddolerite.

The exploitation of quartz was markedly different from that ofdolerite and hornfels, since it started from small quartz river peb-bles. Apart from a bifacial technology focused on point production(de la Peña et al., 2013), a freehand prismatic-conical like produc-tion was developed in order to obtain bladelets. Moreover, thesecores were exploited beyond this initial use. Our interpretation isthat they were converted into bipolar cores in order to continue theknapping process. This type of strategy seems systematic for quartz.

6.5. What were the objectives of knapping in layer GS?

After presenting the different knapping methods it seems clearthat therewas a strong focus on blade/bladelet production, which isnot a novelty for the Howiesons Poort. However, what does seem anovelty is the variety of reduction methods used, the confirmationof the presence of extensive bipolar knapping and the great dif-ference between quartz and hornfels/dolerite chaînes opératoires.The main question is: what were the objectives of knapping?Judging by the knapping methods it is evident that laminar blankswere desired and, in the case of quartz, small flakes and bladeletswere also sought. The latter were obtained by bipolar knapping (asa recycling strategy) because, as we have already mentioned,



bipolar knapping seems merely opportunistic for hornfels anddolerite.

Formal tools and retouched pieces are generally considered asone of themain objectives of knapping (Table 7). Therefore, anotherquestion that we must formulate is: what tool classes are presentand which are the blanks for those tools? In Table 7 we present theformal tools and retouched pieces in the three main rock types. Thefirst aspect to draw our attention is that in this layer quartz has thehighest frequency of retouched tools. This retouched representa-tion by rock type seems inversely proportional to the abundance ofthe three rocks in Sibudu’s surroundings. The preferences might berelated, on the one hand, to the mechanical properties of the rocks(Wadley and Kempson, 2011) or, as other possibilities, to functionor even to cultural choice. Although all three rocks (dolerite,hornfels, and quartz) are local, dolerite undoubtedly is the mostaccessible and abundant (it even outcrops adjacent to the base ofthe rock shelter). However, the toughness and coarse-grainedtexture of the dolerite possibly rendered it less suitable to beretouched, shaped and re-sharpened.

Table 7Formal tools and retouched pieces in layer GS, Sibudu, according to rock type. Thedifferent backed morphotypes have been highlighted in grey.

Folmal tools and retouchpieces GS

Dolerite Hornfels Quartz

N % N % N %

Micro-notch (single and double) 0 0 42 19.44Notch 1 1.961 3 2.632 0End-scraper 0 0 9 4.167Strangulated piece 1 1.961 6 5.263 0Denticulate 1 1.961 3 2.632 8 3.704Burin 2 3.922 1 0.877 0Marginal retouch bipolar blank 0 0 3 1.389Marginal retouch bladelet 0 3 2.632 10 4.63Borer 3 5.882 0 5 2.315Bifacial fragment 1 1.961 0 0Retouch bipolar blank 0 0 3 1.389Retouch flake 5 9.804 1 0.877 14 6.481Retouch blade 0 8 7.018 0Backed bladelet (straight backed) 1 1.961 0 0Curved backed blade

(segment over 12 mm breadth)5 9.804 2 1.754 0

Indeterminate backed piece 8 15.69 33 28.95 16 7.407Segment 15 29.41 37 32.46 44 20.37Truncation 6 11.76 5 4.386 19 8.796Trapeze 0 1 0.877 0Triangle 2 3.922 2 1.754 5 2.315Diverse 0 9 7.895 1 0.463Bifacial point 0 0 37 17.13Total 51 100 114 100 216 100

Furthermore, the blanks of the formal tools are, in most cases,blades and bladelets, as was also noted at Klasies by Villa et al.(2010). In our study, we have observed that blade/bladelets arethe blanks for 72.5% of dolerite formal tools, 78.8% of hornfelstools and 44.94% of quartz formal tools. Most are backed tools,which are 72.5% for dolerite, 70.1% for hornfels and 38.8% forquartz. Some backed tools from Sibudu appear to have been partsof hunting weapons (Lombard, 2008, 2011), but there is also thepossibility that some backed tools had another function (cf. deIgreja and Porraz, 2013). Microwear analysis of some LSA backedtools demonstrated that they were used for cutting plants(Wadley and Binneman, 1995). Among the segments and backedmorphotypes it seems likely that some were used as projectileelements, while others were different types of hunting weapons.Macrotraces of use are evident and there is a great disparityamongst length and breadth measurements, particularly between


rock types (Lombard, 2008, 2011; Wadley and Mohapi, 2008). Forhornfels and dolerite, there is an evident lack of domestic tools(such as end-scrapers, burins, adzes, etc.), but these are notcommon in quartz either (Table 7). Probably domestic tasks wereperformed with the large numbers of blades that were notretouched.

Apart from the retouched tool distributions, we observed a highfrequency of pieces without retouch that nevertheless exhibitmacro-traces of use. This has been specifically demonstrated forquartz, where bipolar blanks tend to have evidence for use withoutbeing retouched (de la Peña and Wadley, 2014).

7. Discussion

The Howiesons Poort assemblage from layer GS at Sibudu showsa great variety of technological strategies. There are examples ofbifacial technology (de la Peña et al., 2013), blade and bladeletproduction, and microlithic strategies such as the quartz segmentsand bipolar blanks (de la Peña andWadley, 2014). This combinationof knapping methods makes it clear that the Sibudu HowiesonsPoort techno-tradition does not fit completely into the traditionalconcept of MSA technology, and this comment has been madepreviously by other authors in reference to the wider context ofsouthern African sites (for example Volman, 1984; Thackeray,1992). The archetypal model of an MSA industry is focused onflake knapping methods and points (but see also Thackeray, 1992:389 and Wurz, 2013: S312). Flakes are subsidiaries of blade pro-duction and flakes were sometimes utilized, but they do notnecessarily constitute the main objective of knapping. Thereworking of flakes into cores partially supports this argument. Thepresence of points in the Howiesons Poort is an interesting one thathas been largely neglected or downplayed in the past. HowiesonsPoort points have been mentioned only incidentally in earlierpublications, sometimes together with a comment that they mightbe out-of-context (for example Singer and Wymer, 1982; Wurz,2000). However, in situ bifacial points and bifacial knapping bi-products have been recently identified in the Howiesons Poort atSibudu, and also in Diepkloof (Porraz et al., 2013; de la Peña et al.,2013).

Sibudu joins other South African Howiesons Poort assemblagesin having blade production as a prominent aim of its technology,and in transforming blade and bladelet blanks into a variety ofbacked tools. Although no cores from blade production are presentin our collection, the blades were probably struck from prismaticcores. We think this because of the characteristics of the bladedebitage. Freehand knapping of prismatic cores was probably alsothe initial strategy used for quartz knapping. Our study has, how-ever, demonstrated that Howiesons Poort technology at Sibudu ismore complex than merely blade production. We analysed coresand debitage from layer GS. The technological study reveals a largeproportion of cores on flakes, and also completely exhausted coresthat could not havemore flakes or bladelets removed from them. Inthis paper, varying knapping methods of core reduction are pre-sented, and all can be attributed to bladelet or small flake pro-duction. These are different from the blade/bladelet reductionsequences reported in previous technological analyses of theHowiesons Poort.

We show that there are likely to be regional differences incore production. Five ‘Klasies Howiesons Poort cores’ are presentat Sibudu, but together with other blade/bladelet reductionmodalities. The ‘Klasies Howiesons Poort core’ does not occur onquartz at Sibudu. The Rose Cottage method of working cores wasnot used at Sibudu, probably because the nodules in the Sibuduarea are morphologically different from the Rose Cottage ones.Opaline nodules at Rose Cottage demand a particular reduction


Fig. 12. Different examples of freehand quartz cores from layer GS, Sibudu.


strategy that focuses on the ‘corners’ of nodules as startingpoints.

One of the first features that caught our attention in this Sibuduassemblage from layer GS is the high percentage of cores on flakesamongst the other reduction strategies. We found a high frequencyof cores on flakes, but these occurred only on dolerite and hornfels,not on quartz. They included burin-like cores, Kostienki-like cores,and cores on flakes that exploit the dorsal face in a discoidalmanner. Trimming by-products and maintenance by-products areassociated with all the types of cores on flakes. This knappingmethod emphasizes that the variability within the putatively ho-mogeneous Howiesons Poort techno-tradition must be explored(as suggested by Clarkson, 2010). Cores on flakes have not previ-ously been described in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu. Examplesof cores on flakes are abundant in Middle and Upper Palaeolithiccontexts of Eurasia. These types of cores were recognized early inthe Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Middle East. The same situationcan be recognised in the Mousterian industries of Western Europe,or in the well-known Kostienki knives of the Gravettian, later oninterpreted as cores (Otte, 1980; Klaric, 2000; Dibble andMcPherron, 2007). As Dibble and McPherron (2007) point out,there is no consensus onwhether these lithic types represent a corereduction strategy, a thinning strategy or a technique to produce aspecial type of working edge. However, these pieces always requirea technological in-depth study and not merely recognition of theirexistence.

Microlithic blanks are particularly noteworthy in the SibuduHowiesons Poort; there was a massive production of small blanksprobably used without retouch in layer GS. Bipolar knapping isparticularly prevalent in quartz (Tables 4 and 6), though it alsooccurs to a lesser extent on dolerite and hornfels cores on flakes.The large numbers of quartz bipolar cores represent a reductioncontinuum strategy that enabled the production of small flakesand bladelets. Furthermore, they point to the desirability ofobtaining thin, sharp quartz slivers for the creation of someretouched tools, but also for use with no modification. Theextensive bipolar knapping in Sibudu’s Howiesons Poort predates


the LSA equivalents (Beaumont, 1978; Villa et al., 2012) by morethan 20 ky. Van Riet Lowe (1956), a pioneer in South Africanarchaeology, was one of the first researchers to recognize bipolarknapping in South Africa. Much later, Barham’s experimentalwork (Barham, 1987) contributed significantly to the identifica-tion of pieces with bipolar knapping in African contexts. Bipolarknapping is accepted as an important part of LSA technology(Wadley, 1993; Mercader and Brooks, 2001; Ambrose, 2002;Orton, 2004; Villa et al., 2012). Large amounts of bipolar knap-ping have sometimes been used as a technological marker toindicate the arrival of the LSA (Beaumont, 1978; Villa et al., 2012).In contrast, bipolar knapping in the MSA has been treatedambiguously, and sometimes it has not been mentioned. How-ever, bipolar knapping was common at Diepkloof (65e62 ka and62e60 ka) and also 62e60 ka at Klein Kliphuis (Mackay, 2009).The origins of quartz bipolar knapping are very much earlier, andthe method was sometimes used in the Oldowan of OlduvaiGorge (Leakey, 1971).

In conclusion, the Sibudu Howiesons Poort knapping strategieswere varied and complex, and they included innovative knappingmethods that were the fore-runners of some techniques thatbecame better known at other sites tens of thousands of years later.However, a non-accumulative set of technological characteristics isgenerally demonstrated for MSA industries in southern Africa. TheHowiesons Poort is an example of one particular technologicaldevelopment. It should not be contemplated as more complex oradvanced when it is compared to pre- and post-Howiesons Poorttechno-traditions.

Acknowledgments

Lyn Wadley has received funding from the National ResearchFoundation. Opinions expressed in the paper are not necessarilythose of the NRF. J. M. Maíllo kindly provided some papers forPaloma de la Peña. Lyn Wadley and Paloma de la Peña thank theEvolutionary Studies Institute for support and laboratory space. Wealso thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive



comments that have improved this manuscript. Finally, we thankthe kind invitation and comments from Editor Huw Groucutt.

References

Ambrose, S.H., 2002. Small things remembered: origins of early microlithic in-dustries in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Kuhn, S.L., Elston, R.G. (Eds.), Thinking Small:Global Perspectives on Microlithization. Archaeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association, Arlington, pp. 9e30.

Backwell, L., d’Errico, F., Wadley, L., 2008. Middle Stone Age bone tools from theHowiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 35, 1566e1580.

Barham, L., 1987. The bipolar technique in Southern Africa: a replication experi-ment. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 42 (145), 45e50.

Beaumont, P.B., 1978. Border Cave (MA thesis). University of Cape Town, SouthAfrica.

Boëda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In:Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of LevalloisTechnology, Monographs in World Archaeology, Madison, pp. 41e68.

Brown, K.S., Marean, C.W., Jacobs, Z., Schoville, B.S., Oestmo, S., Fisher, E.C.,Bernatchez, J., Karkanas, P., Matthews, T., 2012. An early and enduringadvanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa. Nature491, 590e593.

Callahan, E., 1985. An Evaluation of the Lithic Technology in Middle Sweden duringthe Mesolithic and Neolithic. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala.

Clark, J.D., 1959. The Prehistory of Southern Africa. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Clarkson, C., 2010. Regional diversity within the core technology of the Howiesons

Poort Techno-Complex. In: Lycet, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectives onOld Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies. Springer, NewYork, pp. 43e59.

Cochrane, G.W.G., 2006. An analysis of lithic artefacts from w60 ka layers of SibuduCave. Southern African Humanities 18 (1), 69e88.

Crabtree, D.E., 1972. An introduction to flint working. In: Occasional Papers of theIdaho State University, Pocatello.

de la Peña, P., 2011. Sobre la identificación macroscópica de las piezas astilladas:Propuesta experimental. Trabajos de Prehistoria 68 (1), 79e98.

de la Peña, P., Vega Toscano, G., 2013. Bipolar knapping method in gravettianocupations of El Palomar rockshelter (Yeste, Southeastern Spain). Journal ofAnthropological Research 69, 33e64.

de la Peña, P., Wadley, L., Lombard, M., 2013. Quartz bifacial points in the Howiesonspoort of Sibudu. South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (198), 136e199.

de la Peña, P., Wadley, L., 2014. New Insights into Howiesons Poort Lithic Tech-nology: the Quartz Knapping Strategies at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa)(under revision).

Deacon, H.J., 1989. Later Pleistocene palaeoecology and archaeology in the southernCape. In: Mellars, P.A., Stringer, C.B. (Eds.), The Human Revolution: Behaviouraland Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh, pp. 547e564.

Deacon, J., 1995. An unsolved mystery at the Howieson’s Poort name site. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 50, 110e120.

Deacon, H.J., Wurz, S., 1996. Klasies River Main site, cave 2: a Howieson’s Poortoccurrence. In: Pwiti, G., Soper, R. (Eds.), Aspects of African Archaeology. Uni-versity of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, pp. 213e218.

Deacon, H.J., Wurz, S., 2005. A Late Pleistocene archive of life at the coast, KlasiesRiver. In: Stahl, A.B. (Ed.), African Archaeology: A Critical Introduction. BlackwellPublishing, Oxford, pp. 130e149.

Dibble, H.L., 1984. The mousterian industry from Bisitun cave (Iran). Paléorient 10(2), 23e34.

Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.P., 2007. Truncated-faceted pieces: hafting modification,retouch or cores? In: McPherron, S.P. (Ed.), Tools versus Cores. AlternativeApproaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Cambridge Scholar Publishing, Newcastle,pp. 75e90.

Díez-Martín, F., Sánchez, P., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Barba, R., 2009. Were OlduvaiHominins making butchering tools or battering tools? Analysis of a recentlyexcavated lithic assemblage from BK (Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Journalof Anthropological Archaeology 28, 274e289.

Driscoll, K., 2010. Understanding Quartz Technology in Early Prehistoric Ireland(Ph.D. thesis). University College Dublin, Ireland.

D’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C.S., 2007. Additional evidence for bone technology in thesouthern African Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution 52, 142e163.

d’Errico, F., Backwell, L., Wadley, L., 2012. Identifying regional variability in MiddleStone Age bone technology: the case of Sibudu Cave. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 39, 2479e2495.

Goldberg, P., Miller, C.E., Schiegl, S., Ligouis, B., Berna, F., Conard, N.J., Wadley, L.,2009. Bedding, hearths, and site maintenance in the Middle Stone Age ofSibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Archaeological and AnthropologicalSciences 1, 95e122.

Goodwin, A.J.H., 1929. The Stone Ages in South Africa. Africa: Journal of the Inter-national African Institute 2 (2), 174e1812.

Goren-Inbar, N., 1988. Too small to be true? Reevaluation of cores on flakes inLevantine Mousterian assemblages. Lithic Technology 17 (1), 37e44.

Grün, R., Beaumont, P.B., Tobias, P.V., Eggins, S.M., 2003. On the age of the BorderCave 5 human mandible. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 155e167.


Henshilwood, C.S., 2012. Late Pleistocene techno-traditions in southern Africa: areview of the still Bay and Howiesons Poort, c. 75e59 ka. Journal of WorldPrehistory 25, 205e237.

Henshilwood, C.S., van Niekerk, K.L., Wurz, S., Delagnes, A., Armitage, S.J.,Rifkin, R.F., Douze, K., Keene, P., Haaland, M.M., Reynard, J., Discamps, E.,Mienies, S.S., 2014. Klipdrift shelter, southern Cape, South Africa: preliminaryreport on the howiesons poort layers. Journal of Archaeological Science 45,284e303.

Hisckock, P., 1996. Mobility and technology in the Kakadu coastal wetlands. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 15, 151e157.

Hivernel-Guerre, F., Newcomer, M.H., 1974. Nucléus sur éclat: technologie et uti-lisation par différentes cultures préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société pré-historique de France 71, 119e128.

Igreja, M., Porraz, G., 2013. Functional insights into the innovative Early HowiesonsPoort technology at Diepkloof Rock Shelter (Western Cape, South Africa).Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (9), 3475e3491.

Inizan, M.-L., Reduron, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J., 1995. Technologie de la pierre taillée.C.R.E.P, Paris.

Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., 2008. Testing times: old and new chronologies for theHowieson’s Poort and Still Bay industries in environmental context. South Af-rican Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 10, 9e34.

Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Galbraith, R.F., Deacon, H.J., Gran, R., Mackay, A., Mitchell, P.,Vogelsang, R., Wadley, L., 2008. Ages for the Middle Stone Age of SouthernAfrica: implications for human behavior and dispersal. Science 322 (5902),733e735.

Karlin, C., Bodu, P., Pelegrin, J., 1991. Processus tecniques et chaînes opératoires.Comment les préhistoriens s’appropient un concept élaboré par les ethno-logues. In: Balfet, H. (Ed.), Observer l’action technique, les chaînes operatoires,pour quoi faire? CNRS, Paris, pp. 101e117.

Klaric, L., 2000. Notes sur la présence de lames aménages par technique de Kos-tienki dans les couches gravettiennes du Blot (Cerzat, Haute-Loire). Bulletin dela Societé Préhistorique Française 97 (4), 625e636.

Klaric, L., 2003. L’unite technique des industries a burin du raysse dans leur contextediachronique. Reflexions sur la diversite culturelle augravettiena partir desdonnesde la Picardie, d’Arcy-Sur-Cure, de Brassempouy et du cirque de la Patrie (Ph.D.thesis). U. F. R. D’Histoire de l’art et de archeologie. Université Paris I, France.

Knutsson, K., 1988a. Making and Using Stone Tools. The Analysis of the Lithic As-semblages from Middle Neolithic Sites with Flint in Vasterbotten, NorthernSweden. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala.

Knutsson, K., 1988b. Patterns of Tool Use. Scanning Electron Microscopy of Exper-iments Quartz Tools. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala.

Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), 2005. Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacienchaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles, Luxembourg.

Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge. In: Excavations in Beds I and II, vol. 3. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 1960e1963.

Lemonnier, P., 1976. La description des chaînes opératoires: contribution a l’analysedes systemes techniques. Techniques et Culture vol. 1, 101e150.

Lemonnier, P., 1986. The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology oftechnical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147e186.

Lombard, M., 2008. Finding resolution for the Howiesons Poort through the mi-croscope: micro-residue analysis of segments from Sibudu Cave, South Africa.Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 26e41.

Lombard, M., 2011. Quartz-tipped arrows older than 60 ka: further use-trace evi-dence from Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 38, 1918e1930.

Lombera-Hermida, A., 2009. The scar identification of lithic quartz industries. In:Sternke, F., Costa, L.-J., Eigeland, L. (Eds.), Non-Flint Raw Material Use in Prehis-tory. Old Prejudices and NewDirection, Proceedings of the XVWorld Congress ofthe U.I.S.P.P. BAR International Series. Archeopress, Oxford, pp. 5e11.

Mackay, A., 2008. On the production of blades and its relationship to backed ar-tefacts in the Howiesons Poort at Diepkloof, South Africa. Lithic Technology 33,87e99.

Mackay, A., 2009. History and Selection in the Late Pleistocene Archaeology of theWestern Cape, South Africa (PhD thesis). Australian National University,Australia.

Mackay, A., Welz, A., 2008. Engraved ochre from a Middle Stone Age context at KleinKliphuis in the Western Cape of South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science35, 1521e1532.

Mercader, J., Brooks, A.S., 2001. Across forests and savannas: Later Stone Age as-semblages from Ituri and Semliki, Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal ofAnthropological Research 57 (2), 197e217.

Minichillo, T.J., 2005. Middle Stone Age Lithic Study, South Africa: an Examination ofModern Human Origins (Ph.D. thesis) University of Washington. United Statesof America.

Mourre, V., 1996a. Le debitage sur enclume au Paleolithique inférieur et moyen.Techniques, méthodes et schemas conceptuels. Master thesis. Paris X, France.

Mourre, V., 1996b. Les industries en quartz au Paléolithique: terminologie, méth-odologie et technologie. Paléo 8, 205e223.

Nishiaki, Y., 1985. Truncated-faceted Flakes from Levantine Assemblages. Universityof Tokyo Bulletin 4, pp. 215e226.

Orton, J.D.J., 2004. The Quartz Conundrum: Understanding the Role of Quartz in theComposition of Late Pleistocene and Holocene Lithic Assemblages from theVerlorenvlei area, Western Cape. Masters thesis. University of Cape Town, SouthAfrica.

Otte, M., 1980. Le “couteau de Kostienki”. Helinium 20, 54e58.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00185-2/sref1


















































































































































































































Owen, W.E., 1938. The Kombewa Culture, Kenya colony. Man 38, 203e205.Pelegrin, J., 1995. Technologie lithique. Le Chàtelperronien de Roc-De-Combe (Lot)

et de la Côte (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire, Paris.Porraz, G., Texier, P.J., Archer, W., Piboule, M., Rigaud, J.P., Tribolo, C., 2013. Tech-

nological successions in the Middle Stone Age sequence of Diepkloof RockShelter, Western Cape, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (9),3376e3400.

Singer, R., Wymer, J., 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in SouthAfrica. University of Chicago, Chicago.

Solecki, L., Solecki, R.S., 1970. A new secondary flaking technique at the NahrIbrahim Cave site, Lebanon. Bulletin du Musee de Beyruth XXIII, 138e140.

Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the MiddleStone Age of South Africa: the Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort atRose Cottage Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (5), 681e703.

Stapleton, P., Hewitt, J., 1927. Stone implements from a rock-shelter near Howieson’sPoort near Grahamstown. South African Journal of Science 24, 574e587.

Stapleton, P., Hewitt, J., 1928. Stone implements from Howieson’s Poort, near Gra-hamstown. South African Journal of Science 25, 399e409.

Texier, P.-J., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.-P., Poggenpoel, C., Miller, C.,Tribolo, C., Cartwright, C., Coudenneau, A., Klein, R.G., Steele, T., Verna, C., 2010.Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, USA 107, 6180e6185.

Thackeray, A.I., 1992. The Middle Stone Age south of the Limpopo River. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 6 (4), 385e431.

Tixier, J., 1963. Typologie de l’Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoires du Centre derecherches anthropologiques, préhistoriques et ethnographiques, Arts et Mé-tiers graphiques, París.

Tribolo, C.,Mercier, N., Douville, E., Joron, J.L., Reyss, J.L., Rufer, D., Cantin, N., Lefrais, Y.,Miller, C.E., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.P., Texier, P.J., 2013. OSL and TLdatingof theMiddle StoneAge sequence atDiepkloof Rock Shelter (SouthAfrica):a clarification. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (9), 3401e3411.

Van Riet Lowe, C., 1956. The coastal Smithfield and bipolar technique. South AfricanJournal of Science 42, 240e246.


Villa, P., Soriano, S., Teyssandier, N., Wurz, S., 2010. The Howiesons Poort and MSA IIIat Klasies River main site, Cave 1A. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 630e655.

Villa, P., Soriano, S., Tsanova, T., Degano, I., Higham, T.F.G., d’Errico, F., Backwell, L.,Lucejko, J.J., Colombini, M.P., Beaumont, P.B., 2012. Border Cave and thebeginning of the Later Stone Age in South Africa. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, USA 109 (33), 13208e13213.

Vogelsang, R., 1998. Middle Stone Age Fundstellen in Südwest-Namibia. HeinrichBarth Institut, Köln.

Volman, T.P., 1984. The Middle Stone Age in the Southern Cape (Unpublished PhDdissertation). University of Chicago, Chicago.

Wadley, L., 1993. The Pleistocene Later Stone Age south of the Limpopo River.Journal of World Prehistory 7 (3), 243e296.

Wadley, L., 2008. The Howieson’s Poort Industry of Sibudu Cave. South AfricanArchaeological Society Goodwin Series 10, 122e132.

Wadley, L., 2012. Some combustion features at Sibudu, South Africa, between65,000 and 58,000 years ago. Quaternary International 247, 341e349.

Wadley, L., Binneman, J., 1995. Arrowheads or penknives? A microwear analysis ofmid-Holocene stone segments from Jubilee Shelter, Transvaal. South AfricanJournal of Science 91, 153e155.

Wadley, L., Jacobs, J., 2006. Sibudu Cave: background to the excavations, stratig-raphy and dating. Southern African Humanities 18 (1), 1e26.

Wadley, L., Kempson, H., 2011. A review of rock studies for archeologists, and ananalysis of dolerite and hornfels from the Sibudu area, KwaZulu-Natal. South-ern African Humanities 23, 87e107.

Wadley, L., Mohapi, M., 2008. A segment is not a monolith: evidence from theHowiesons Poort at Sibudu, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 35,2594e2605.

Wurz, S., 1999. The Howiesons Poort backed artefacts from Klasies River: anargument for symbolic behaviour. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 54(169), 38e50.

Wurz, S., 2000. The Middle Stone Age Sequence at Klasies River, South Africa (Ph.D.thesis). University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Wurz, S., 2013. Technological Trends in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa be-tween MIS 7 and MIS 3. Current Anthropology 54 (S8), S305eS319.



























































































Date post:	25-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lyn
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

New knapping methods in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa)

Documents