doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.04.004Contents lists avai
Hunting with Howiesons Poort segments: pilot experimental study and the functional interpretation of archaeological tools
Marlize Lombard a,*, Justin Pargeter b
a Institute for Human Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand, PO WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa b Department of Archaeology, University of the Witwatersrand, PO WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 31 December 2007 Received in revised form 8 April 2008 Accepted 8 April 2008
Keywords: Howiesons Poort Middle Stone Age Experimental archaeology Hunting behaviour Sibudu Cave Umhlatuzana Klasies River Cave
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: marlize.lombard@wits.ac.za (M. Lo
0305-4403/$ – see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.04.004
a b s t r a c t
For many decades the use of backed pieces from the Howiesons Poort, between about 70 ka and 55 ka ago, in South Africa has been a point of discussion. Recently direct evidence has been provided to associate these tools with Middle Stone Age hunting strategies. Yet, whether they were used to tip hunting weapons or as barbs remained an open question. In this paper we introduce a set of pilot experiments designed to test the effectiveness of Howiesons Poort segments, the type fossils of the industry, hafted in four different configurations as tips for hunting weapons. It is shown that the mor- phological type can be used successfully in this way. We present the results of a macrofracture analysis conducted on the experimental tools and compare these to results obtained from three Howiesons Poort backed tool samples. By correlating experimental outcomes, macrofracture data and the interpretation of micro-residue distribution patterns, we provide some insight into the functional variables that might be associated with Howiesons Poort segments.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Few stone tool categories have received as much attention as the backed tools from the Howiesons Poort Industry in South Africa. From early on they were considered unusual. Initially, the backed tools drew attention because they seemed so similar to Later Stone Age and Upper Palaeolithic artefacts, but appeared much earlier in the archaeological sequence (e.g. Deacon, J., 1995). When debates about the origins of modern human behaviour became increasingly relevant, they were studied in terms of their symbolic or stylistic potential (e.g. Deacon, 1989; Wurz, 1999). Recently, a series of studies was launched to generate evidence about the functions and hafting technologies associated with Howiesons Poort segments, the backed tool category that is considered the type specimen for the industry (e.g. Delagnes et al., 2006; Gibson et al., 2004; Lombard, 2005a, 2006, 2007a, 2008; Pargeter, 2007; Wurz and Lombard, 2007).
This paper continues along this line of investigation, combining archaeological use-trace evidence with new macrofracture data from experimental work. We build upon previous interpretations of these tools as insets in composite (hafted) hunting weapons. As our methods are chosen explicitly to explore and assess this particular function we do not exclude the possibility that segments were also
mbard).
All rights reserved.
used for other activities. In fact, it is most likely their functional flexibility that contributes to the repeated appearances of similar blade-based technologies across the globe over the last 300 ka or so (Barham, 2002; Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999; Bleed, 2002; Elston and Brantingham, 2002; Hiscock, 2002; Lombard and Parsons, in press; Marean et al., 2007; McDonald et al., 2007; Mitchell, 1988, 1995; Soriano et al,. 2007; Wadley, 1996, 2005).
Increasing interest in Middle Stone Age hunting technologies and their role in modern or complex human behaviour stimulate discussions around all tool types that could have been used in weapon systems. One of the debates centres on the origins and antiquity of projectile weaponry, where weapons are not hand- delivered (spears), but projected with the aid of spear throwers or bows (darts and arrows) (e.g. Brooks et al., 2006; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000; Shea, 2006; Villa and Lenoir, 2006). Because of their morphology and/or the uncertainty about whether Howiesons Poort segments were used to tip hunting weapons or not, these tools are often excluded from morphometric studies concerned with the evolution of hunting technologies (e.g. Brooks et al., 2006; Shea, 2006). Our methods are not yet suitable to generate convincing evidence for or against either in- terpretation. However, with this paper we aim to provide and discuss some evidence that suggests Howiesons Poort segments could have been used to tip hunting weapons, and that stone- tipped hunting technology during this phase was variable and adaptable.
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–25312524
It has always been assumed that backed artefacts from the Holocene were hafted as parts of weaponry (e.g. Bocquentin and Bar-Yosef, 2004; Clark, 1977; Clark et al., 1974; Crombe et al., 2001; Nuzhnyi, 2000; Phillipson, 1976; Wadley, 1987). Previous experi- ments with backed microliths similar to those of the Eurasian Mesolithic have shown them to be useful when used to tip and/or barb hunting weapons (e.g. Barton and Bergman, 1982; Crombe et al., 2001). Conversely, an experiment by Binneman and Hall with replicated San (ethnographic hunter-gatherers) bows and arrows, where segments were hafted transversely or end-on, showed them ineffective for penetrating a calf carcass (Binneman, 1994). Seeing that most ideas about the possible uses of Howiesons Poort segments have been based on Later Stone Age/San ethnographic examples, the question of whether these segments could have been used successfully to tip hunting weapons remained open-ended. The Pargeter (2007) experiments are the first to focus specifically on testing whether Howiesons Poort-like segments, hafted in a variety of positions can be used effectively to tip hunting weapons. The resulting macrofractures therefore represent the first modern reference sample that is directly relevant to the study of Howiesons Poort segments that could have been used in this way.
2. A short background to the Howiesons Poort of South Africa
Lombard (2005b) provided a full review of research conducted since the Howiesons Poort was first identified elsewhere. Here we briefly highlight the most relevant points concerning the industry, its evolutionary themes and dating. The Howiesons Poort is characterised by a blade-based technology and found primarily in sub-Saharan Africa south of the Limpopo River (Fig. 1). The label was first used by Stapleton and Hewitt (1927, 1928) to describe a stone artefact assemblage from a small rock shelter in the Eastern Cape. They gave the main characteristics for the ‘‘Howiesons Poort Series’’ as the presence of burins, large segments, obliquely pointed blades, and trimmed points. However, the Stapleton and Hewitt assemblage is probably from a mixed context as more recent excavations at stratified sites show that points are absent or rare during the Howiesons Poort, and that the technocomplex is rather characterised by its distinctive backed pieces such as segments (also referred to as crescents or lunates) and trapezes made on blades (Singer and Wymer, 1982; Deacon, H.J., 1995; Deacon, J., 1995; Deacon and Wurz, 1996; Wadley, 2005, in press; Wurz, 1999, 2000, 2002).
Fig. 1. Archaeological sites with the Howiesons Poort mentioned in the text.
The industry has been recorded at more than 20 sites in South Africa, a number of which have been comprehensively dated (Feathers, 2002; Grun et al., 1990; Grun and Beaumont, 2001; Miller et al., 1999; Parkington, 1999; Tribolo et al., 2005; Valladas et al., 2005; Vogel, 2001; Wadley and Jacobs, 2006). Age calcula- tions obtained from various dating methods applied to samples from Border Cave, Klasies River, Rose Cottage Cave and Diepkloof point to the placement of Howiesons Poort assemblages firmly within the period of 70 ka to 60 ka ago. Recent thermolumines- cence data support this consensus, indicating that the Howiesons Poort appeared about 70 ka ago and that it was still in use at 54 ka to 62 ka ago at sites such as Rose Cottage Cave (Valladas et al., 2005).
The age of the industry, its similarities to Holocene backed tool industries, and the use of unusual raw materials resulted in far- reaching behavioural hypotheses concerning the origins of human modernity (Lombard 2005b). Some of these models discuss aspects such as mobility patterns, gift exchange, symbolic behaviour, technical conventions and the origin of San languages (e.g. Ambrose, 2006; Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990; Deacon, 1989, 1992; Deacon, H.J., 1995; Deacon and Shuurman, 1992; Deacon and Wurz, 1996, 2001, 2005; Minichillo, 2006; Wurz, 1999). Most recently, hunting technologies other than those based on stone tools are tentatively associated with the Howiesons Poort. Faunal data from Sibudu Cave indicate a predominance of the small blue duiker (Philantomba monticola) in the Howiesons Poort assemblage, suggesting the use of traps to capture these small antelope (see Clark and Plug, in press; Wadley, 2006), and an argument for a bone-tipped bow-and-arrow technology at the site during the same period was presented recently (Backwell et al., 2008).
3. The experiments
It has long been acknowledged that not all variables can be tested with a single set of experiments, and that controlled experiments are most useful when variables are limited in order to isolate and address specific questions (e.g. Ingersoll and Macdon- ald, 1977; Mathieu, 2002; Odell and Cowan, 1986; Shea et al., 2002). Within this paradigm, Pargeter’s work (Pargeter, 2006, 2007) represents the pilot study in a series of experiments that will each seek to address specific questions regarding the use and hafting of backed tools from the Howiesons Poort. Shea (2006: 841) indicates that most researchers who have discussed Middle Stone Age backed pieces as possible weapon armatures have proposed they were mounted as barbs on the sides of spears and other weapons, rather than on the tip. Nevertheless, use-trace studies indicate that at least some pieces could have been used to tip hunting weapons and that there could have been variability in the preferred hafting configurations of such weapons (Lombard, 2005a, 2008; Wurz and Lombard, 2007).
Thus, for the purposes of this study we are not concerned with variability in aspects such as raw materials, velocity, weight, angle of impact or the stopping power of targets. Rather, the experiments were designed explicitly to investigate whether segments, hafted in four different configurations, could function effectively as tips for hunting weapons, and to provide some initial macrofracture data. Sylvain Soriano prepared 33 flint segments that were used to construct 27 hunting weapons. This is an average sample size for experimentation with a single morphological type used for a single function, and proved adequate for testing the effectiveness of the different hafting configurations. Although the sample size is too small for the statistical analysis of macrofracture frequencies, the initial macrofracture data raised interesting questions with regard to the interpretation of some archaeological pieces, and some of these aspects will be explored and assessed during future experimentation.
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–2531 2525
The morphological characteristics of the replicated segments are comparable to Howiesons Poort backed tools excavated from sites such as Sibudu Cave, Rose Cottage Cave and Klasies River Cave. They are thus suitable for establishing whether Howiesons Poort segments, as a distinct morphological type, can be used effectively to tip hunting weapons. The segments were glued into slotted and weighted pinewood shafts in four different hafting positions. These positions included longitudinal (n ¼ 7) (Fig. 2a), transverse (n ¼ 7) (Fig. 2b), diagonal (7 ¼ ) (Fig. 2c), and back-to-back hafting (n ¼ 6) (Fig. 2d). The weapons were launched at a suspended impala (Aepyceros melampus) carcass using a machine built for this purpose. In this way variations in load, velocity and angles of delivery that can be expected during hand delivery was controlled (e.g. Shea et al., 2002). The weapons were each fired into the carcass ten times or until they became unusable. This was done to assess the robustness of the hafting configurations, and because it is likely that hunters would have re-used undamaged weapons until they needed re-hafting or became too damaged for effective use. For the full description and protocol of the experiments we refer to Pargeter (2007).
The 27 weapons were shot into the carcass 167 times. Eighty- five percent of the weapons were considered successful as they penetrated the target’s hide and flesh. Of these successful weapons, 33% penetrated deep into the carcass (30 mm), and a further 33% of these penetrations could have damaged vital organs. The remaining successful weapons caused less severe damage to the animal’s hide or flesh. Only 15% of the replicated weapons were unable to penetrate the target. Thirty-seven percent of the weapons survived all ten shots. The various hafting configurations showed slight differences in success rates. Of the seven weapons hafted longitudinally, six successfully penetrated the carcass. The seven transversely hafted weapons lacerated, rather than penetrated the animal’s hide and flesh. Three of these penetrated somewhat, but the other four deflected off the animal causing cuts to the hide and tissue. Although such wounds would not kill or cripple an animal, they are sufficient to create a blood trail for tracking down wounded prey or introducing poison into the bloodstream.
Five diagonally hafted weapons successfully pierced the animal’s hide and flesh. The slicing action of the diagonal cutting edge caused deep penetrations and relatively wide lacerations. The depth of the cuts in combination with the barbs lodged these
Fig. 2. Different hafting configurations of the replicated hunting weapons; (a) longi- tudinal, (b) transverse, (c) diagonal and (d) back-to-back.
weapons firmly in the carcass (Fig. 3). Of the six back-to-back hafted weapons five penetrated the carcass’s hide and flesh. Again, the slicing action caused by the cutting edges of the segments proved to be very effective. These weapons created large gaping wounds in the carcass (Fig. 4). Although we do not consider these experimental results as direct evidence for the interpretation of archaeological material, we believe that they clearly indicate that Howiesons Poort-type segments, hafted in various positions, could function successfully as tips for hunting weapons. In order to start building a comparable database we conducted a macrofracture analysis on this first experimental sample.
4. Macrofracture analysis
4.1. Background
Many fractures on archaeological tools no doubt resulted accidentally, but some fractures are the result of use (Barton and Bergman, 1982; Bergman and Newcomer, 1983; Moss and Newcomer, 1982; Shea, 1988). There is a wide degree of variation in fracture patterns (combinations of fracture types and positions) associated with impact damage because hunting weapons are subject to a wide range of targets, velocities, angles of impact and fracture initiations (e.g. Odell, 1981). Thus, even though ‘‘typical patterns’’ cannot always be reliably defined, there are certain aspects of fracture mechanics that can allow the elimination of other causes (Odell, 1981; Dockall, 1997). For example, when isolated, some fracture types produced by impact have certain traits that distinguish them from those caused under other circum- stances (Geneste and Plisson, 1993; but also see Shea et al., 2002).
In order to establish a tightly defined and replicable analytical method, and to build a directly comparable database, we closely follow Fischer et al. (1984). They conducted experiments to isolate and define types of fractures that could be considered diagnostic for impact use of stone-tipped hunting weapons. The term ‘‘diagnostic impact fracture’’ (DIF) refers to evidence for impact use in the form of fracture types that could hardly have originated in any other way than through forceful longitudinal collisions (Fischer et al., 1984). These wear traces are also diagnostic of the fracture mechanics of brittle solids subjected to both static and dynamic loadings (Cotterell and Kamminga, 1987).
Many other researchers have conducted hunting experiments with stone tools and have discussed resulting fractures (see Dockall, 1997 and references therein), and although terminology frequently differs, it seems that the formation of the fracture types is similar regardless of the type of hunting experiment (Dockall,
Fig. 3. Deep penetration of a weapon tipped with a diagonally hafted segment.
Fig. 4. Large wound caused by a weapon tipped with segments in the back-to-back position.
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–25312526
1997: 321), tool morphology (Fischer et al., 1984), or raw materials (Lombard et al., 2004). However, it is important to note that, although we consider macrofracture analysis a useful preliminary indicator of whether an archaeological tool class could have been used to tip hunting weapons, we do not necessarily consider such results conclusive (e.g. Shea et al., 2002). Functional inferences for archaeological samples, including hunting interpretations, should ideally be assessed with additional strands of evidence such as morphometric analyses and more extensive functional analyses such as microwear and micro-residues.
4.2. Method
The simplest DIFs are step terminating bending fractures. These result from longitudinal pressure from the distal and proximal ends of the objects. In the case of occasional damaging processes, such as trampling, bending fractures will initiate by means of transverse pressure more or less perpendicular to the dorsal and ventral sides of the objects. Probably the most easily recognisable DIFs are bending fractures from which ‘‘spin-offs’’ initiate (see Fischer et al., 1984). Bending fractures that result from pressure perpendicular to the dorsal and ventral sides of the objects will result in spin-offs on only one broad side to a limited extent. But on artefacts used as impact tools, where the forces run parallel to the broad sides, the spin-off fractures can have considerable dimensions (>6 mm), and long spin-offs can occur on one, or even both, sides. Spin-off fractures on both sides, initiating from the same bending fracture, can in practice occur in hardly any other way than through use as a hafted impact implement. This type of fracture is therefore considered diagnostic for impact use, irrespective of the dimensions of the fractures (for further fracture definitions and illustrations see Fischer et al., 1984; Ho Ho Committee, 1979).
Another fracture associated with impact use sometimes resembles the effect of a burin blow (pseudo burination or impact burination). These fractures usually occur along either one of the lateral edges (Barton and Bergman, 1982; Bergman and Newcomer, 1983). They are difficult to distinguish from intentional burination, but usually lack the negative bulb of percussion at the burin initi- ation or Herzian ripples usually associated with intentional removals (Lombard et al., 2004; Paola Villa, pers. commun., 2004). Dockall (1997) describes these fractures as lateral macrofractures, and reports that it was documented on several experimental samples used to replicate hunting activities and many
archaeological samples associated with hunting (see Dockall, 1997: 326). We are unaware of such fractures having been recorded in association with other use-related activities. Other fracture types that occur on broken stone tools such as snap terminating and hinge or feather terminating bending fractures are recorded and presented in the data. These fracture types could result from impact-use, but have also been recorded as a result of trampling or accidental breakage and are therefore not considered unambiguous evidence for stone-tipped hunting weapons.
We follow Fischer et al. (1984), using only the four DIF types (step terminating bending fractures, unifacial spin-off fractures 6 mm, bifacial spin-off fractures and impact burination) as analytical criteria. Some adaptations have been made to the Fischer et al. (1984) method in an effort to further reduce the margin of interpretative error on archaeological samples. For example, flakes manufactured using the bipolar technique are exposed to forces similar to those that tips of hunting tools are exposed to. Odell and Cowan (1986) addressed this problem, and established the major differences between use-impact fractures and bipolar knapping fractures, the most important being that the location of bipolar damage coincides with other knapping characteristics. Normally these traces are not located along the distal ends of the piece, and are not in association with a usable sharp tip or edge that could have functioned as the business end of a hunting tool (Odell and Cowan, 1986). Therefore, DIFs occurring in close association with striking platforms, ripples and bulbs of percussion are not included in the data. During the analysis of archaeological samples, consid- eration is also given to the morphology of the pieces, and whether the tools could have been used for other impact functions such as chopping (Fischer et al., 1984).
Fischer et al. (1984) showed that the morphology of the stone pieces did not affect the fracture types that developed as a result of hunting use. DIFs were recorded on 39% of their experimental arrowheads, ranging from transverse to acutely angled in shape, and 55% of the points that were used as tips for throwing spears. A large number of prehistoric flint points from various sites, differing in age, size and shape, also displayed DIFs, suggesting that the defined characteristics of impact function are universal for stone tips of flint and related raw materials (Fischer et al., 1984). Exper- iments conducted with convergent flakes made from South African raw materials, and with considerable variation in proportions, demonstrated that local stones of various grain sizes and dimensions develop similar frequencies of DIFs (57%) when all the pieces were used as stabbing or throwing spears (see Lombard et al., 2004). The seeming differences between DIF frequencies from experimental samples that have been hand-delivered (55–57%) and those that were used as projectiles (30–40%) could possibly indicate variation between the two weapon systems. While this might be a future possibility we are, however, not confident that the current data can be used in this way. Continued experimenta- tion with this question in mind is needed.
4.3. Results
Of the replicated segments used in this experiment (n ¼ 33), 30 tools were analysed for macrofractures. The remaining three were unusable because of severe fracturing in the carcass. This observa- tion may account for the presence of many broken stone tool fragments excavated from archaeological sites associated with the processing and consumption of hunted prey. Also, it might be of interest to note that even though stone tips or insets are prone to such severe fracturing, some ethnographically-known hunters be- lieve that they are more lethal when they break up in the prey as the fragments increase tissue damage and bleeding (e.g. Rudner, 1979).
Forty percent of the analysed pieces developed DIFs and many more had non-diagnostic fractures. While the non-diagnostic
Fig. 5. Diagnostic impact fractures and impact notches documented on the experi- mental tools; (a) impact notches, (b) impact burination, (c) unifacial spin-off fracture 6 mm with step termination, (d) step terminating fracture, (e) impact burination and (f) unifacial spin-off fracture 6 mm.
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–2531 2527
fracture types are not indicative of hunting on their own, when combined with the DIFs recorded in this analysis, they represent a useful indication of fracture patterns that might occur on stone tipped hunting weapons. Table 1 provides the results of the detailed macrofracture analysis according to hafting configurations summarised below:
One longitudinally hafted segment developed an impact burination. Two transversely hafted pieces also developed impact burina-
tions, while two smooth, semi-circular notches developed on the cutting edge on one of these tools (Fig. 5a). Five segments hafted back-to-back developed DIFs in the form
of impact burinations (Fig. 5b), unifacial spin-off fractures >6 mm (Fig. 5c), and a step terminating fracture (Fig. 5d). The diagonally hafted segments developed the highest DIF
frequencies (66%), three of which are impact burinations (Fig. 5e). One of the impact burinations has an associated unifacial spin off fracture >6 mm (Fig. 5f).
These results verify previous conclusions that DIFs develop on stone tools used to tip hunting weapons regardless of raw material, tool morphology, dimension or mode of delivery. Macrofracture results obtained from archaeological samples such as Howiesons Poort segments can thus be compared successfully with results from other tool types and industries to generate comparable data for hunting technologies and their associated behaviours across time and space (e.g. Lombard, 2007b). The frequencies of impact burination on the experimental tools, and the development of smooth, semi-circular notches on one of the transversely hafted segments have implications for the interpretation of archaeological assemblages and deserve some consideration.
5. Discussion
5.1. Impact burination and impact notching
The experimental sample shows a relatively high frequency of impact burination (26%). Impact burination were documented on 4% of the backed tool sample from Sibudu Cave (n ¼ 132), 10% on the sample from Umhlatuzana (n ¼ 101) and only 2% of the sample from Klasies River Cave 2 (n ¼ 85) (Table 2) (Fig. 6c, f). This could be due to the fact that all of the experimental tools were shot into the carcass multiple times, testing them towards the upper limits of their stress tolerance. Therefore, they could have developed such fractures more frequently than the archaeological samples, some of which may also have been used as barbs, cutting insets, functions other than hunting or not used at all. It is further possible that nuances in DIF type frequencies may reflect aspects of variables such as haft weight, velocity of delivery, angle of impact and
Table 1 Macrofracture results according to the different hafting configurations
Fracture types Vertical (n ¼ 6) Horizontal (n ¼ 7)
n % n %
Step terminating 0 0 0 0 Bifacial spin-off 0 0 0 0 Unif. Spin-off >6 mm 0 0 0 0 Impact burination 1 16 2 28 Unif. Spin-off <6 mm 0 0 0 0 Snap terminating 1 16 1 14 Hinge/feather term. 1 16 0 0 Impact notching 0 0 1 14
Note that more than one diagnostic impact fracture can occur on a single tool, therefore impact fractures.
resistance on impact. For example, impact burination has been attributed to a direct hit on a hard object (Bergman and Newcomer, 1983; Shimelmitz et al., 2004). This would be consistent with Pargeter’s experiment where the weapon launcher was placed in a direct line with the unmoving carcass and all weapons were launched from the same spot resulting mostly in direct hits into the ribcage of the animal. Of course, real hunting scenarios are more variable, and will therefore probably result in different combina- tions and frequencies of DIF types.
Segments with burination from the Howiesons Poort layers at Diepkloof are interpreted as having been handheld and used to score the surfaces of ostrich eggshell water containers (Parkington et al., 2005). It is not clear whether the removals on the Diepkloof segments have characteristics indicating intentional burination, or whether impact burination was considered. Even though there now exist multiple strands of evidence that some segments at other Middle Stone Age sites were hafted and used in hunting weapons (Lombard, 2005a, 2008; Wurz and Lombard, 2007), we encourage consideration of multi-faceted explanations. For example, where negative bulbs of percussion are lacking, pieces damaged during hunting could have been employed subsequently to mark the surfaces of other materials. Use-trace analyses should be able to give a glimpse into such recycling behaviour practiced in the past. This could add interesting dimensions with regard to behavioural comparisons between contemporaneous groups who had access to resources such as ostrich eggshells (e.g. Diepkloof, Western Cape),
Back-to-back (n ¼ 11)
Diagonal (n ¼ 6)
n % n % n %
1 9 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 1 16 3 10 2 18 3 50 8 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 1 16 5 16 1 9 1 16 3 10 0 0 0 0 1 3
DIF frequencies do not necessarily correlate to the number of tools with diagnostic
Table 2 Results of the experimental sample compared to the results obtained for three archaeological samples from Howiesons Poort contexts
Fracture types Pargeter experiments (n ¼ 30)
Sibudu Cave HP (n ¼ 132)
Umhlatuzana HP (n ¼ 101)
Klasies River Cave 2 HP (n ¼ 85)
n % n % n % n %
Step terminating 1 3 13 10 15 14 12 14 Bifacial spin-off 0 0 6 4.5 0 0 2 2 Unif. spin-off >6 mm 3 10 9 7 0 0 2 2 Impact burination 8 26 5 4 10 10 2 2 Unretouched notches 2 7 5 4 4 4 No rec. No rec. Unif. spin-off <6 mm 0 0 9 7 1 1 3 4 Snap terminating 6 20 51 39 42 42 24 28 Hinge/feather term. 3 10 21 16 3 3 3 4
Tools with DIFs 12 40 29 22 24 24 18 21
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–25312528
and those who occupied environmental niches where such resources were absent (Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal), but, none the less used similar stone tool industries.
An unexpected outcome relates to the development of the semi- circular impact notches on one of the experimental pieces. Notches are often observed on backed tools from the Howiesons Poort, and sometimes they are intentionally retouched (Singer and Wymer, 1982; Wurz, 2000). Some segments from Sibudu Cave and Umh- latuzana, however, also have smooth (un-retouched), semi-circular notches similar to those documented on the experimental tool (Fig. 6a,b,e). On the Sibudu sample subjected to microresidue analysis, combinations of bone, fat, collagen and animal tissue residues were documented in close approximation to the notches on five tools, supporting a hunting hypothesis. While intentionally retouched notches could have been used for functions such as shaping bone or wood points and shafts, Pargeter’s experiments show that smooth notches could also develop inadvertently as
Fig. 6. Archaeological examples with notches and impact burination; (a, b) notches on hornfels segments from the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu Cave, (c) impact burination on a felsite segment from Umhlatuzana, (d) step terminating impact fractures on the opposite end of the same tool, fractures, (e) notch on a dolerite segment from Umhlatuzana and (f) impact burination on the same tool.
a result of impact. As in the case of impact burination, we are not aware that impact notching has previously been described as a use- trace or a result from trampling. Future experimentation will investigate these possibilities. Again, we propose that intentionally manufactured notches will probably display small negative bulbs of percussion or Herzian ripples, analogous to retouch scars, while impact notches lack them. It is not yet apparent whether these notches are similar to those recorded as ‘‘simple notches’’ on tools from European Middle Palaeolithic sites such Combe Geral, La Quina, Combe-Capelle and Pech de l’Aze (Hiscock and Clarkson, 2007; Holdaway et al., 1996).
5.2. Variability in Howiesons Poort hunting technology
When compared to the macrofracture results from Pargeter’s and other experiments, percentages for Howiesons Poort backed tool samples from Sibudu Cave, Umhlatuzana and Klasies River Cave 2 with DIFs seem relatively lowd between 21% and 24% (Table 2). This is well within the range documented on European archaeological samples consisting of points or transverse artefacts from the Holocene known to have been used as weapon tips (Fischer et al., 1984). The Howiesons Poort archaeological samples included all the backed pieces, whole and broken, from the assemblages, as segment fragments are not always distinguishable from other broken backed pieces. Independent hunting experi- ments conducted with microliths comparable to those from the European Mesolithic might provide further explanation for the observed pattern. During these experiments conducted by Crombe et al. (2001), geometrically-shaped pieces such as segments, triangles and obliquely truncated points were used as barbs while microlithic points were used to tip arrows shot into sheep cadavers with a bow. More than 30% of the tools used as projectile tips de- veloped DIFs as a result of these experiments. Segments and tri- angles used exclusively as barbs, however, showed a low frequency of diagnostic impact fractures, only about 5% (Crombe et al., 2001).
Based on (a) the micro-residue and use-wear data from Sibudu Cave segments (see below and Lombard, 2008), (b) the macro- fracture results from Sibudu, Umhlatuzana and Klasies River, and (c) Pargeter’s experiments demonstrating that segments, as a mor- phological type, are functionally effective as tips for hunting weapons, we suggest that segments were part of the Howiesons Poort hunting technology. Even though it cannot be expected that DIFs will form as a constant, the relatively low macrofracture frequencies might indicate that some of these tools could have functioned as cutting insets or barbs along the shafts of weapons or as insets in composite tools used for other tasks. This interpretation is supported by the low frequencies of DIFs (5%) recorded on seg- ments used as barbs (Crombe et al., 2001), and other observations that seem to indicate that fractures usually associated with hunting
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–2531 2529
(but not necessarily DIFs) develop in much lower frequencies on tools used as daggers, butchery knives or chisels, or on trampled tools (Shea et al., 2002).
It is also possible that not all archaeological pieces were used. Some may have been lost before use, or some may have been prepared and stockpiled in anticipation of use. Stone-tipped weapons are composite tools in which the stone component is often expendable (Bamforth and Bleed, 1997). Weapon systems based on blade technologies are especially well adapted to allow the expedient replacement of a damaged tip or inset without having to manufacture a new weapon. Large quantities of blades can be manufactured in a short period of time, thus batches of insets can be produced in anticipation of need (e.g. Elston and Brantingham, 2002). It is consequently conceivable that archaeo- logical samples will often display relatively low frequencies of DIFs compared to some experimental samples where all the tools were used in hunting activities.
Detailed micro-residue and use-wear analyses on 53 segments from Sibudu Cave supports the interpretation of Howiesons Poort segments as adjustable insets used in hunting weapons. Almost 2000 organic residue occurrences were documented on the sample that was excavated and curated under ideal circumstances for micro-residue analysis. Most of the animal residues were docu- mented on the bladed portions of the segments. This is especially true for animal tissue, collagen, blood residue and hair fragments. The distribution patterns of fatty and bone residues were less distinct and it is possible that some tools were hafted to bone (Lombard, 2008). In contrast, plant residues are concentrated on the backed portions of the segments, with 67% of the plant residue component comprising resin or gum, often associated with ochre (Lombard, 2007a). Additional use traces on the Sibudu sample, such as striations, polish, micro-damage to tool edges and edge round- ing, show little indication of cutting, sawing or scraping. We do not, however, rule out multi-functionality for backed tools from the Howiesons Poort. Functions such as knives and implements for cutting plant material have previously been suggested (Deacon, J., 1995; Wadley and Binneman, 1995).
The distribution patterns of the micro-residues associated with hafting provided evidence for variability in hafting configurations. Two main clusters of hafting configurations could be identified. The first cluster represents tools with adhesive residues recorded all along the backed portions that could have been hafted transversely, back-to-back or longitudinally. The second cluster represents tools with adhesive residues restricted to one end of a tool. These tools could have been hafted end-on or in diagonal positions. During the oldest Howiesons Poort layer (PGS) at Sibudu, where segments were mostly made on hornfels and quartz and are generally smaller than during the younger layers, people seem to have preferred longitu- dinal, transverse or back-to-back hafting configurations. During the intermediate layers (GS and GS2) there seem to have been a shift towards diagonal or end-on hafting configurations, with no seeming preferences and a higher degree of variability during the youngest layers (GR and GR 2) (Lombard, 2008; Wadley, in press).
Wadley and Mohapi (Wadley, in press; Wadley and Mohapi, 2008) showed that the tip-cross-sectional area (TCSA) values (see Shea, 2006 for method) for Howiesons Poort segments from Sibudu Cave places them in the range of ethnographically known North American arrowheads. However, if we assume that some were hafted transversely there are differences in the TCSA values for the different morphometric groups that are correlated to raw materials. The short, deep and robust quartz segments, mostly present in the oldest Howiesons Poort layer at Sibudu, still have TCSA values falling within the arrow range. Hornfels segments fall within the range of North American darts, and dolerite segments, mostly from the youngest Howiesons Poort layers at Sibudu, are closer to ex- perimental spears.
Single TCSA values for the experimental sample also fall in the arrow range; however, when the values are calculated for back-to- back hafted weapons they fall in the spear range (Pargeter, 2007). Even though these values represent hypothetical functional possi- bilities, they might be a further indication of change and variability in Howiesons Poort hunting technologies. Increasing evidence for such shifts and variability is of foremost interest for Middle Stone Age behavioural studies, and could have been caused by adapta- tions to aspects of economy, demography, social and symbolic behaviour, procurement, maintainability, reliability, risk manage- ment, and the environment (e.g. Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990; Bleed, 1986; Costa et al., 2005; Fitzhugh, 2001). While direct evidence for or against stone-tipped projectile weaponry during the Howiesons Poort is still lacking, we suggest that tools such as segments could have been used successfully as tips or insets for both hand- delivered and projectile weapon systems in variable, adaptable and changing hunting technologies.
In this context it might be useful to consider real-life hunting scenarios. We do not suggest that recent hunter-gatherer behaviour can or should be indiscriminately mapped onto that of the Howiesons Poort. Yet, ethnographic case studies serve to illustrate that hunters operate in a real world of opportunity and risk, providing examples of the dynamics that could exist within a single social/temporal context (Kusimba, 2002). Such examples provide contextual variables for choices of weapon systems, hunting strategies and prey. More often than not, hunter-gatherer groups use a variety of weapon systems such as bow-and-arrow, spears, clubs, nets and snares. Although some variety in hunting behaviour and equipment may reflect social/group preferences (Bartram, 1997; Hitchcock and Bleed, 1997), the !Kung of the Kalahari and other San groups also vary hunting strategies and the associated weaponry according to season or prey type.
Schapera (1963) noted that the San would hunt certain antelope species during the rainy season by overtaking them and killing them with wooden clubs or spears. During the dry season they often made pitfalls in game paths, and animals trapped in the pits are killed with spears. Traps are also used mainly in the dry season to catch birds, hares, wild cats, foxes and small antelope. Many varieties of big game are run down until they are exhausted and killed with spears. Some game species such as giraffe, eland, hartebeest and springbok are, however, generally hunted with bow-and-arrow (Schapera, 1963). More recent work with the Kua and Tyua San of Botswana also shows that animal foods are obtained by methods that vary seasonally (Bartram, 1997; Hitchcock and Bleed, 1997). One of the noted differences between spear and bow hunting is that the former is an effective method throughout the year, whereas bow-and-arrow hunting is more restricted to particular seasons. The effectiveness of poisoned arrows is also dependent on season, mainly because of variability in the toxicity of the poison. Data collected amongst the Kua in the eastern Kalahari indicate that the quality of the poison declined in the late dry season, and that during drought years and extremely wet years it was often not available at all (Hitchcock and Bleed, 1997). If we accept that people in southern Africa behaved in a modern way at least since the Still Bay technocomplex or earlier, we predict that evidence for variability and complexity in their hunting behaviours will become increasingly evident. Variation in the hafting configurations of Howiesons Poort segments might provide one such example.
6. Conclusion
Replication experiments produce a range of variability within parameters that can be controlled and understood. When such variability is compared with archaeological assemblages, we gain indirect insight into some aspects associated with the tool classes
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–25312530
under investigation (Andrefsky, 2005). The Pargeter experiments showed that Howiesons Poort segments, as a morphological type, could function effectively as tips for hunting weapons hafted in a variety of positions. Although much larger experimental samples are needed to generate reliable macrofracture data, the initial comparisons between experimental and archaeological samples have highlighted interesting points with regard to impact burina- tion, impact notching and variability in DIF frequencies. These observations can now be used to focus future research, and should lead to increased caution regarding some functional assumptions. It is our opinion that through a reflexive process between replication, experimentation, testing and examination of archaeological material, we are starting to gain insight into the intricacies of hunting behaviour during the Howiesons Poort. Together with the results from morphometric studies on segments (Wadley, in press; Wadley and Mohapi, 2008), faunal material (Clark and Plug, in press) and worked bone (Backwell et al., in press) from Sibudu Cave, the evidence suggests that Howiesons Poort hunting technologies and their associated behaviours were probably much more com- plex, varied and interchangeable than what has been accepted until recently.
Acknowledgements
We thank Sylvain Soriano for producing the segments used in the experiments, Rodger Govender for providing the carcass, and Lyn Wadley and Sarah Wurz for access to the material from Sibudu Cave and Klasies River Cave 2. The comments and suggestions of the reviewers strengthened the paper. J. P. received financial sup- port from the University of the Witwatersrand and the ACACIA Research Unit at the University under the directorship of Lyn Wadley. M. L. received support from the Palaeontological Scientific Trust and the Natal Museum. Opinions expressed in this article, or any oversights, are our own and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funding agencies or colleagues.
References
Ambrose, S.H., 2006. Howiesons Poort lithic raw material procurement patterns and the evolution of human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 50, 365–369.
Ambrose, S.H., Lorenz, K.G., 1990. Social and ecological models for the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 3–33.
Andrefsky Jr., W., 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Backwell, L., d’Errico, F., Wadley, I., 2008. Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1566–1580.
Bamforth, D.B., Bleed, P., 1997. Technology, flaked stone technology, and risk. In: Barton, C.M., Clark, G.A. (Eds.), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropo- logical Association, Arlington, vol. 7, pp. 109–139.
Barham, L.S., 2002. Backed tools in the Middle Pleistocene central Africa and their evolutionary significance. Journal of Human Evolution 43, 585–603.
Barton, R.N.E., Bergman, C.A., 1982. Hunters at Hengistbury: some evidence from experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 14, 237–248.
Bartram, L.E., 1997. A comparison of Kua (Botswana) and Hadza (Tanzania) bow and arrow hunting. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 321–344.
Bar-Yosef, O., Kuhn, S.L., 1999. The big deal about blades: laminar technologies and human evolution. American Anthropologist 101, 322–338.
Bergman, C.A., Newcomer, M.H., 1983. Flint arrowhead breakage: examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology 10, 921–947.
Binneman, J., 1994. A unique stone tipped arrowhead from Adam’s Kranz Cave, Eastern Cape. Southern African Field Archaeology 3, 60–62.
Bleed, P., 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity 51, 737–747.
Bleed, P., 2002. Cheap, regular and reliable: implications of design variation in late Pleistocene Japanese microblade technology. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12, pp. 95–102. Arlington.
Bocquentin, F., Bar-Yosef, O., 2004. Early Natufian remains: evidence for physical conflict from Mt. Carmel, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 47, 19–23.
Brooks, A.S., Nevell, L., Yellen, J.E., Hartman, G., 2006. Projectile technologies of the MSA: implications for modern human origins. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitions Before the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 233–255.
Clark, J., Plug, I. Animal exploitation strategies during the South African Middle Stone Age: Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort fauna from Sibudu Cave. Journal of Human Evolution, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.12.004.
Clark, J.D., 1977. Interpretations of prehistoric technology from ancient Egyptian and other sources. Part II: Prehistoric arrow forms in Africa as shown by surviving examples of traditional arrows of the San Bushmen. Paleorient 3, 127–150.
Clark, J.D., Phillips, J.L., Staley, P.S., 1974. Interpretations of prehistoric technology from ancient Egyptian and other sources. Part I: Ancient Egyptian bows and arrows and their relevance for African prehistory. Paleorient 2, 323–388.
Costa, L.J., Sternke, F., Woodman, P.C., 2005. Microlith to macrolith: the reasons behind the transformation of production in the Irish Mesolithic. Antiquity 79, 19–33.
Cotterell, B., Kamminga, J., 1987. The formation of flakes. American Antiquity 52, 675–708.
Crombe, P., Perdaen, Y., Sergant, J., Caspar, J.-P., 2001. Wear analysis on early Mesolithic microliths from Verrebroek Site, east Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Field Archaeology 28, 253–269.
Deacon, H.J., 1989. Late Pleistocene Palaeoecology and archaeology in the southern Cape, South Africa. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 547–564.
Deacon, H.J., 1992. Southern Africa and modern human origins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 337, 177–183.
Deacon, H.J., 1995. Two late Pleistocene/Holocene archaeological depositories from the southern Cape, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 50, 121–131.
Deacon, H.J., Shuurman, R., 1992. The origins of modern people: the evidence from Klasies River. In: Brauer, G., Smith, S.H. (Eds.), Continuity or Replacement: Controversies in Homo sapiensEvolution. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 121–129.
Deacon, H.J., Wurz, S., 1996. Klasies River main site, cave 2: a Howiesons Poort occurrence. In: Pwiti, G., Soper, R. (Eds.), Aspects of African Archaeology. University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, pp. 213–281.
Deacon, H.J., Wurz, S., 2001. Middle Pleistocene populations and the emergence of modern behaviour. In: Barham, L., Robson Brown, K. (Eds.), Human Roots: Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene. Western Academic and Specialist Press, Bristol, pp. 55–63.
Deacon, H.J., Wurz, S., 2005. A Late Pleistocene archive of life at the coast, Klasies River. In: Stahl, A.B. (Ed.), African Archaeology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 130–149.
Deacon, J., 1995. An unsolved mystery at the Howiesons Poort name site. South African Archaeological Bulletin 162, 110–120.
Delagnes, A., Wadley, L., Villa, P., Lombard, M., 2006. Crystal quartz backed tools from the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu Cave. Southern African Humanities 18 (1), 43–56.
Dockall, J.E., 1997. Wear traces and projectile impact: a review of the experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 24, 321–331.
Elston, R.G., Brantingham, P.J., 2002. Microlithic technology in Northern Asia: a risk- minimizing strategy of the late Paleolithic and early Holocene. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12, pp. 103– 116. Arlington.
Feathers, J.K., 2002. Luminescence dating in less than ideal conditions: case studies from Klasies River Main site and Duinefontein, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 177–194.
Fischer, A., Vemming Hansen, P., Rasmussen, P., 1984. Macro and micro wear traces on lithic projectile points: experimental results and prehistoric examples. Journal of Danish Archaeology 3, 19–46.
Fitzhugh, B., 2001. Risk and invention in human technological evolution. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 125–167.
Geneste, J.-M., Plisson, H., 1993. Hunting technologies and human behaviour: lithic analysis of Solutrean shouldered points. In: Knecht, H., Pike-Tay, A., White, R. (Eds.), Before Lascaux: The Complex Record of the Early Upper Palaeolithic. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 117–135.
Gibson, N.E., Wadley, L., Williamson, B.S., 2004. Microscopic residues as evidence of hunting on backed tools from the 60,000 to 68,000 year-old Howiesons Poort layers of Rose Cottage Cave, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 16, 1–11.
Grun, R., Beaumont, P., 2001. Border Cave revisited: a revised ESR chronology. Journal of Human Evolution 40, 467–482.
Grun, R., Schackelton, N.J., Deacon, H.J., 1990. Electron-spin resonance dating of tooth enamel from Klasies River Mouth Cave. Current Anthropology 31, 427–432.
Hiscock, P., 2002. Pattern and context in the Holocene proliferation of backed artefacts in Australia. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 12, pp. 163–178. Arlington.
Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., 2007. Retouched notches at Combe Grenal (France) and the reduction hypothesis. American Antiquity 72, 176–190.
Hitchcock, R., Bleed, P., 1997. Each according to need and fashion: spear and arrow use among San hunters of the Kalahari. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 345–368.
Ho Ho Committee, 1979. The Ho Ho classification and nomenclature committee report. In: Hayden, B. (Ed.), Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York, pp. 134–158.
M. Lombard, J. Pargeter / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 2523–2531 2531
Holdaway, S., McPherron, S., Roth, B., 1996. Notched tools and raw material avail- ability in French Middle Paleolithic sites. American Antiquity 61, 377–387.
Ingersoll, D., Macdonald, W.K., 1977. Introduction. In: Ingersoll, D., Yellen, J.E., Macdonald, W.K. (Eds.), Experimental Archaeology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. xi–xviii.
Kusimba, S.B., 2002. What is a Hunter-Gatherer? Variation in the Archaeological Record of Eastern and Southern Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lombard, M., 2005a. A method for identifying Stone Age hunting tools. South African Archaeological Bulletin 60, 115–120.
Lombard, M., 2005b. The Howiesons Poort of South Africa: what we know, what we think we know, what we need to know. Southern African Humanities 17, 33–55.
Lombard, M., 2006. Direct evidence for the use of ochre in the hafting technology of Middle Stone age tools from Sibudu Cave. Southern African Humanities 18 (1), 57–67.
Lombard, M., 2007a. The gripping nature of ochre: the association of ochre with Howiesons Poort adhesives and Later Stone Age mastics from South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 53, 406–419.
Lombard, M., 2007b. Evidence for change in Middle Stone Age hunting behaviour at Blombos Cave: results of a macrofracture analysis. South African Archaeological Bulletin 62, 62–67.
Lombard, M., 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.
Lombard, M., Parsons, I., in press. Blade and bladelet function and variability in risk management during the last 2000 years in the Northern Cape. South African Archaeological Bulletin 63.
Lombard, M., Parsons, I., Van der Ryst, M.M., 2004. Middle Stone Age lithic point experimentation for macro-fracture and residue analysis: the process and preliminary results with reference to Sibudu Cave, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100, 159–166.
Marean, C.W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E., Golberg, P., Herries, A.I.R., Jacobs, Z., Jerardino, A., Karkanas, P., Minichillo, T., Nilssen, P.J., Thompson, E., Watts, I., Williams, H.M., 2007. Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449, 905–908.
Mathieu, J.R., 2002. Introductiondexperimental archaeology: replicating past objects, behaviours, and processes. In: Mathieu, J.R. (Ed.), Experimental Archaeology: Replicating Past Objects, Behaviours, and Processes. BAR International Series 1035, Oxford, pp. 1–11.
McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453–563.
McDonald, J.J., Donlon, D., Field, J.H., Fullagar, R.L.K., Brenner Coltrain, J., Mitchell, P., Rawson, M., 2007. The first archaeological evidence for death by spearing in Australia. Antiquity 81, 877–885.
Miller, G.H., Beaumont, P.B., Brooks, A.S., Deacon, H.J., Hare, P.E., Jull, A.J.T., 1999. Earliest modern humans in South Africa dated by isoleucine epimerization in ostrich eggshell. Quaternary Science Review 18, 1537–1548.
Minichillo, T., 2006. Raw material use and behavioural modernity: Howiesons Poort lithic foraging strategies. Journal of Human Evolution 50, 359–364.
Mitchell, P., 1988. Human adaptation in southern Africa during the last Glacial maximum. In: Bower, J., Lubell, D. (Eds.), Prehistoric Cultures and Environments in the Late Quaternary of Africa. BAR International Series 405, pp. 163–196.
Mitchell, P., 1995. Revisiting Robberg: new results and revision of old ideas at Sehonghong Rock Shelter, Lesotho. South African Archaeological Bulletin 50, 28–38.
Moss, E.H., Newcomer, M.H., 1982. Reconstruction of tool use at Pincevanent: microwear and experiments. In: Cahen, D. (Ed.), Tailler! Pour Quoi Faire: Prehistoire et Technoloque. Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2, pp. 289–321.
Nuzhnyi, D., 2000. Development of microlithic projectile weapons in the Stone Age. Anthropologie et Prehistoire 111, 95–101.
Odell, G.H., 1981. The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testable hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 13, 195–212.
Odell, H.G., Cowan, F., 1986. Experiments with spears and arrows on animal targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13, 195–211.
Pargeter, J., 2006. To tip or not to tip: a multi-analytical approach to the hafting and use of Howiesons Poort segments. Honours Dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Pargeter, J., 2007. Howiesons Poort segments as hunting weapons: experiments with replicated projectiles. South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (pp to follow).
Parkington, J., 1999. Western Cape landscapes. Proceedings of the British Academy 99, 25–35.
Parkington, J., Poggenpoel, C., Rigaud, J.-P., Texier, P.-J., 2005. From tool to symbol: context of intentionally marked ostrich eggshell from Diepkloof, Western Cape.
In: d’Errico, F., Backwell, L. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans. University of the Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, pp. 475–492.
Phillipson, D.W., 1976. The Prehistory of Eastern Zambia. British Institute in Zambia, Nairobi.
Rudner, J., 1979. The use of stone artefacts and pottery among the Khoisan peoples in historic and protohistoric times. South African Archaeological Bulletin 34, 3–17.
Schapera, I., 1963. The Khoisan Peoples of South Africa. Routledge, London. Shea, J.J., 1988. Spear points from the Middle Palaeolithic of the Levant. Journal of
Field Archaeology 15, 441–450. Shea, J.J., 2006. The origins of lithic projectile technology: evidence from Africa, the
Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 823–846. Shea, J.J., Brown, K.S., Davis, Z.J., 2002. Controlled experiments with Middle Palae-
olithic spear points: Levallois points. In: Mathieu, J.R. (Ed.), Experimental Archaeology: Replicating Past Objects, Behaviours, and Processes. BAR International Series 1035, pp. 55–72. Oxford.
Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2004. The geometric Kebaran microlithic assemblage of Ain Miri, northern Israel. Paleorient 30, 127–140.
Singer, R., Wymer, J., 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 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., Hewitt, J., 1927. Stone implements from a rock-shelter at Howieson’s Poort near Grahamstown. South African Journal of Science 24, 574–587.
Stapleton, P., Hewitt, J., 1928. Stone implements from Howieson’s Poort, near Grahamstown. South African Journal of Science 101, 169–174.
Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., 2005. Chronology of the Howiesons Poort and Still Bay techno-complexes: assessment and new data from luminescence. In: d’Errico, F., Backwell, L. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans. University of the Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, pp. 493–511.
Valladas, H., Wadley, L., Mercier, N., Tribolo, C., Reyss, J.L., Joron, J.L., 2005. Thermoluminescence dating on burnt lithics from Middle Stone Age layers at Rose Cottage Cave. South African Journal of Science 101, 169–174.
Villa, P., Lenoir, M., 2006. Hunting weapons of the Middle Stone Age and the Middle Palaeolithic: spear points from Sibudu, Rose Cottage and Bouheben. Southern African Humanities 18 (1), 89–122.
Vogel, J., 2001. Radiometric dates for the Middle Stone age in South Africa. In: Tobias, P.V., Raath, M.A., Moggi-Cecchi, J., Doyle, G.A. (Eds.), Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia. University of the Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, pp. 261–268.
Wadley, L., 1987. Later Stone Age Hunters and Gatherers of the Southern Transvaal: Social and Ecological Interpretation. In: BAR International Series 380 Oxford.
Wadley, L., 1996. The Robberg Industry of Rose Cottage Cave, eastern Free State: the technology spatial patterns and environment. South African Archaeological Bulletin 51, 64–74.
Wadley, L., 2005. A typological study of the final Middle Stone Age stone tools from Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal. South African Archaeological Bulletin 60, 51–64.
Wadley, L., 2006. Partners in grime: results of multidisciplinary archaeology at Sibudu cave. Southern African Humanities 18 (1), 315–341.
Wadley, L., in press. The Howiesons Poort Industry of Sibudu Cave. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Volume.
Wadley, L., Binneman, J., 1995. Arrowheads or pen knives? A micro-wear analysis of mid-Holocene stone segments from Jubilee Shelter, Transvaal. South African Journal of Science 91, 153–155.
Wadley, L., Jacobs, Z., 2006. Sibudu Cave: background to the excavations, stratig- raphy and dating. Southern African Humanities 18 (1), 1–26.
Wadley, L., Mohapi, M., 2008. A segment is not a monolith: evidence from the Ho- wiesons Poort of Sibudu, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35 (9), 2594–2605.
Wurz, S., 1999. The Howiesons Poort backed artefacts from Klasies River: an argument for symbolic behaviour. South African archaeological Bulletin 54, 38–50.
Wurz, S., 2000. The Middle Stone Age sequence at Klasies River, South Africa. DPhil Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Wurz, S., 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., Lombard, M., 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.
Hunting with Howiesons Poort segments: pilot experimental study and the functional interpretation of archaeological tools
Introduction
A short background to the Howiesons Poort of South Africa
The experiments
Macrofracture analysis
Variability in Howiesons Poort hunting technology
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References