Citation preview
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