Lithic Core Reduction

8/12/2019 Lithic Core Reduction

1/6

South African Archaeological Society

A Unified Lithic Taxonomy Based on Patterns of Core ReductionAuthor(s): Nicholas J. Conard, Marie Soressi, John E. Parkington, Sarah Wurz and RoydenYatesReviewed work(s):Source: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 59, No. 179 (Jun., 2004), pp. 12-16Published by: South African Archaeological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3889318 .Accessed: 11/03/2013 18:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

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

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

.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=saashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3889318?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3889318?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=saas


2/6

12 South African Archaeological Bulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004

A UNIFIED LITHIC TAXONOMYBASED ON PATTERNS OF CORE REDUCTION

NICHOLAS J. CONARD1, MARIE SORESSI2, JOHN E. PARKINGTON3,SARAH WURZ4 & ROYDEN YATES'

'Institut Ar Ur- und Frihgeschichte und Archdologie des Mittelalters, Abteilung Aitere Urgeschichte und Quartdrdkologie,Tabingen, Germany. Email: [email protected]. Institut de Prehistoire et de Geologie du Quaternaire,UniversitW de Bordeaux 1, Talence, France. 3 Dept of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.

'Dept of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa.5 Division of Social History, Iziko Museums of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

(Received October 2003. Accepted November 2003.)

ABSTRACT

The authors and three students met or workshops on severaloccasions in Cape Town and Stellenbosch with the goal ofdefining a taxonomic system or chipped stone artefacts that

can be applied to materials rom the Early, Middle and LaterStone Age. The motivation or defining a 'unified axonomy'stems rom the need to develop a system or classifying multi-component surface assemblages. The proposed taxonomyrevises southern African systems by applying ideas andmethods from European approaches to lithic technology.Given that much confusion exists on the classification ofcores and core reduction, the lithic workshops ocused onthis class of artefact. Most of the variation encounteredwhen examining material rom Anyskop, Blombos, Geelbek,Hollow Rock Shelter and Klasies River Mouth could beplaced within the taxa of Inclined, Parallel and Platformcores. These categories form the basis of the proposedtaxonomy with the additional axa of Initial, Multidirectional,Indeterminate Broken, Bipolar and Other being necessaryfor a small proportion of the cores that all outside the rangeof the three main taxa. Blind tests using assemblages of coresfrom Blombos, Geelbek and Anyskop yielded a satisfactorydegree of reproducibility nd lend credibility o the proposedtaxonomy. This paper also considers other key variables ofcores including: the morphology of end products, degree ofreduction, numbers of striking and removal surfaces, anddegree ofplatform preparation.

Keywords: Lithic artefacts, ithic technology, classification.

Introduction

In recent decades there has been a divergence of researchtraditions in lithic analysis between Europe and southernAfrica. In continental Europe, building on the work of Leroi-Gourhan (1943), Tixier (1978) and others, many advanceshave been made to improve our understanding of theprinciples of lithic technology. Meanwhile n southern Africa,and perhaps sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, studies of lithictechnology have not kept pace. In the context of joint SouthAfrican, French and German research programs, his trendhad become increasingly evident so that we have reached apoint where European researchers can scarcely understandthe work of southern African colleagues and vice versa. Wurz(2002) has discussed this issue in her work at Klasies RiverMouth but many colleagues familiar with these questions

have begun to realize that the language and interpretativeconcepts used by southern African and continental Europeanresearchers are nearly mutually unintelligible. To addressthese problems, the authors and three students participatedin a series of workshops on lithic technology held at IzikoMuseums of Cape Town, Stellenbosch University and theUniversity of Cape Town.

Taxonomy is only one of the methodological tools thatallow researchers o achieve a refined understanding f lithictechnology. Classifying lithic artefacts does not constitutean end in itself, it should be seen as one step in the overallanalysis of lithic artefacts n relation to patterns of humanbehaviour. A complete analysis should establish where andin what archaeological context the entire lithic reductionsequence from the procurement f raw material o the discardof all classes of artefacts ook place. Lithic analysis shouldaddress he production of and discrimination between blanksas well as the manufacture, use, maintenance and discardof retouched forms. A taxonomy for cores and methods ofknapping, as presented here, reflects only a small part of thepotential universe of lithic analyses.

Inclined A/B Platform

A/B

Parallel

R Angle of removals relative to the plane of intersection defined by the surfaces

- ' Main removals on a platform core A: platform surface B:debitagesurface

Figure 1. Generalized representations of the three maincore types, a) Inclined, b) Parallel, c) Platform. (a and bmodified after Boeda 1993a and Soressi 2002).

Existing systems of classification used in South Africa (Singer& Wymer 1982, Volman 1981, Deacon 1982, Thackeray &Kelly 1988) are often typologically oriented and rarely aim

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:15: 20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

South African Archaeological Bulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004 13

at addressing reduction sequences. Thus there is a need fora new taxonomic system based on fundamental rinciples oflithic reduction. Ideally, such a system could be applied tochipped stone artefacts of all ages. Here t is worth reiteratingBrew's (1946) observations hat there are no perfect or idealtaxonomies in archaeological systems, and that the field

has more often suffered from having too few rather thantoo many taxonomies. As new knowledge accumulates andnew problems are defined, new taxonomies will be needed.While all new systems should be viewed with a healthydose of scepticism, one should not resist attempts o developnew approaches. Taxonomic systems that do not prove to beuseful can and should be discarded. Conversely, o a certainextent, the existence of multiple mutually ntelligible systemspresents no significant problems to researchers and canenrich archaeological discourse.

A central ssue addressed by the participants n the workshopsis the possibility of establishing a unified taxonomy for theentire Stone Age. Attempts to achieve this goal have been

largely unsuccessful n other parts of the Old World becauselong traditions of lithic analysis have created entrenched

systems for different regions and periods. Viewed from aninternational point of reference, the situation in southernAfrica presents a number of challenges and opportunities. nview of the fact that there are relatively few lithic analysts nsouthern Africa and that a broad consensus exists about theneed to improve the existing systems, the southern African

record provides the opportunity o test whether or not aunified taxonomy for the Early, Middle and Later Stone Age(ESA, MSA and LSA respectively) can be achieved. This isan ambitious goal but, given the current ituation, one worthyof our efforts.

In some cases pragmatic concerns necessitate the use of aunified taxonomy. This is the case in the Tiibingen researchprojects in the deflation hollows of the Geelbek Dunesand the Anyskop Blowout near Langebaanweg. In thesesettings it is not possible to determine a priori whetherartefacts date to the ESA, MSA or LSA. (Conard et al.1999; Conard 2002). In the former case, finds from roughlythe last 250 ka and, in the latter case, finds from the last

roughly 500 ka have been concentrated on surfaces as aresult of deflation.

Table 1. Main characteristics f core reduction n the Inclined, Parallel and Platform ystems.

Characteristic Inclined Parallel PlatformPosition of main removal Broad surface Broad surface Usually not on a

surface(s) broad surfaceGeometry & number of faces Volume defined by Volume defined by Volume defined by

two surfaces two surfaces more than two surfacesAngle of removals relative o the plane of Roughly 450 Less than 300 Not applicable

intersection defined by the surfaces

Removal angle relative o Not applicable Not applicable Greater han 45?the striking platform

Orientation fremovals on the Converge oward he centre Multiple possibilities Parallelmain removal surface(s) of the removal surface(s)

Origin of removals All removals originate rom All removals originate rom Main removals from wellthe circumference efined by the circumference defined by defined strikingthe intersection of the two surfaces the intersection f the two surfaces platform(s)

The lithic workshops summarized here evolved out oftheoretical and practical considerations. At the French-South African meeting 'From Tools to Symbols' in March,2003 in Johannesburg, NJC, MS and SW discussed thedifficulties European and South African lithic analysts havecommunicating with each other and the need to incorporatesome of the advances in European esearch within southernAfrican research programs. Thus, in principal, agreement

could quickly be reached on the need to develop andformalize a new taxonomic ystem. Following he preliminarydiscussions n Johannesburg, onversations with JEP and RYreinforced he need to address hese problems directly. n thiscontext, meetings were arranged n March and April 2003to examine lithic artefacts from Anyskop (Conard 2002),Blombos (Henshilwood et al. 2001), Geelbek (Conard etal. 1999), Hollow Rock Shelter (Evans 1993) and KlasiesRiver Mouth (Singer & Wymer 1982; Wurz 2002). Thesediscussions led NJC and MS to draft an outline of ataxonomic system based on principles used in French andGerman technological studies (e.g. Bodda et al. 1990;Bodda 1993a, 1995a, 1995b; Pelegrin 1995; Pigeot 1991;Hahn 1991). The authors subsequently

modified this draft

to clarify the definitions and criteria for classification. Thelithic workshops can be seen as an attempt o revitalize hoseof the 1970s and 1980s that were used to improve an earliergeneration of taxonomic systems in South Africa.

The taxonomic system presented here is in an experimentalstage and can be modified as needed. Given that existingsystems orclassifying debitage ndtools are ess controversial,

the workshops focused on the problems associated withclassifying methods of lithic reduction and cores. Based onobservations to date, it seems that most variation in corereduction can be classified within the general categories ofInclined, Parallel and Platform, as presented n Figure 1 andTable l.

Taxonomy of cores based on methods ofreductionIn the context of the current study, cores are defined asdeliberately knapped ithic artefacts rom which potentiallyuseful flakes have been removed. Following southern Africanconventions cores preserve negatives from three or more

removals (Deacon 1982).



4/6


In many cases the cores studied allowed an unambiguousplacement within one of the categories of Inclined, Paralleland Platform. In fact, we were surprised to observe thatregardless of the age of the cores in question, the systemof classification worked well. Of course, not every corecould be classified within one of the three main taxa soadditional categories were defined to reflect the variationobserved outside the main categories. These taxa includeInitial, Multidirectional, Bipolar, Indeterminate Broken andOther. Interestingly, with the exception of a single corefrom Anyskop, the taxon Other was never employed. Thisindicates hat the unified taxonomy s appropriate or a broadrange of assemblages. It should, however, be stressed thatcores change as they are reduced so that it is possible forcores to reflect different patterns of reduction at differentstages of knapping. Usually only the later stages of reductionare recognizable when one is examining a core. Equallyimportant s the observation hat there s continuous variationbetween the three main patterns of reduction. Thus it is not

surprising hat some cores are difficult to classify becausethey fall within the 'grey zone' between the main types. Forthese reasons t is unrealistic o expect different ithic expertsto provide exactly the same results when classifying a groupof cores. Despite the many potential problems associatedwith developing a new system of classification, our testsshow comparably good results on cores from the LSA, MSAand ESA. More work is needed to test whether this unifiedtaxonomy is applicable to all lithic assemblages in southernAfrica and perhaps n other regions.

While the three main taxa include a wide range of variationit is helpful to emphasize that the proposed taxonomy isconsistent with some existing terminology. For example,

Inclined cores include the general class of discoid coresas presented by Boeda (1 993b, 1995a) and discussed byPeresani and colleagues (Peresani 2003). Levallois coreswith all their variants (Bordes 1961, 1981; Boeda 1993a;Van Peer 1992; Hahn 1991) fall within the taxon Parallel,and a variety of cores of Upper Paleolithic and LSA typesfall within the category of Platform cores (Hahn 1988, 1991;Pelegrin 1995). Finally it should be emphasized hat the taxadescribed below represent a high-level classification and thatwithin the main groups of Inclined, Parallel and Platformmany subclasses exist and can be recognized using the keyvariables discussed at the end of the paper.

The principal eatures of the categories defined in the unified

taxonomy are summarized n Fig. 1 and Table 1.Initial cores have a small number of removals, usuallyfive or fewer, that are not organized within a system ofreduction. This category includes tested pieces and oftenreflects the initial stages of knapping n which much of theoriginal volume of the piece is still intact. Slightly modifiedmanuports ould fall into this category.

Inclined cores have two surfaces with removals inclinedrelative o the plane defined by the intersection f the surfaces.Either or both surfaces may be used for the main removals.The removals have an angle of roughly 450 relative to theplane of intersection. All significant removals originate romthe intersection of the two surfaces. These cores are often

knapped along much of the circumference, and removalsusually converge toward the middle of the removal surface.These cores may be conical or biconical but do not need to bebifacial or worked along the entire perimeter. Discoid cores(sensu Boeda, 1995a) fall within this group (Fig. 2).

Figue 2.0

5 cm

Figure 2. Examples of Inclined cores from Geelbek.1) EQ 688, 2) HO 313. Drawings by Susanne Feine.

0 5 cm

Figure 3. Examples of Parallel cores from Geelbek.1) HO 1159, 2) ST 693, 3) HO 1806, 4) HO 1782.Drawings by Susanne Feine.

F, 7~~7/

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6d0 5 cm

Figure 4. Examples of Platform cores from Geelbek.1) SN 1363, 2) LO 2123, 3) SH 3411, 4) LO 101, 5) ST373, 6) HO 1578. Drawings by Susanne Feine.

Parallel cores have two surfaces whose main removal surfacemust nclude one or more major removals parallel o the planethat intersects the two surfaces. The main removal surfaceis on a broad surface of the core and usually includes threeor more removals. These cores are usually asymmetrical ncross-section with a slightly convex main removal surface and



5/6

South African Archaeological Bulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004 15

a more nclined underside.'All ignificant emovals originatefrom the intersection of the two surfaces. While preparationof the 'underside' f the core is common, it is not necessary.The 'underside' may even be fully cortical. The core does notneed to be worked along its entire perimeter. Levallois coresfall within this taxonomic group. Levallois cores that havebeen fully prepared, ut from which the main

removal(s) havenot been struck Vollkerne), re included Fig. 3).

Platform cores have more than wo faces and are not definedby the plane of intersection of two surfaces as in the abovetwo approaches. Removals do not need to be on the broadsurface of the core and are often on narrow urfaces. One or,more well-organized and well-developed striking platformswith three or more contiguous, successful removals fromthe corresponding knapping surfaces must be recognizable.Reduction often proceeds around the edge of the strikingplatform but this must not be circulating. Double and multipleplatforms are possible and end products may be flakes orblades. The removal angles are steeper than 450 and often

close to 900. The striking platforms ypically show persistentuse and may be cortical, plain or prepared Fig. 4).

Multidirectional cores have removals from three or moresurfaces without well-developed striking platforms orremoval surfaces. They are often polyhedral in form. Thedegree of reduction s highly variable.

Bipolar cores document reduction using a hammer and ananvil. This method is particularly common for knappingquartz.

Indeterminate Broken cores cannot be classified becausethey are broken and lack adequate morphological traits.They maintain enough evidence of removals to be classified

as cores rather than angular debris, Initial cores or othercategories.

Other cores of diverse forms that cannot be placed in one ofthe categories above.

Cores with an organized system of reduction hat have beensubsequently knapped n a non-systematic manner hould beclassified on the basis of the original more systematic methodof reduction. The overall morphology of a core can be usedas a criterion if the more explicitly defined characteristicsare not sufficient to classify the piece. The nature of theassemblage under study may also influence how cores in the'grey zone' are classified.

Blind testsAfter establishing the main elements of the taxonomypresented bove, and discussing hem n connection with coresfrom Anyskop, Blombos, Geelbek, Hollow Rock Shelter, andKlasies River Mouth, he authors and three advanced tudentsconducted a series of blind tests to determine how practicaland reproducible he proposed system is. Each of the threeassemblages used in the tests was classified independently yall eight participants n the study. These included a series of36 cores from Blombos unit CIY 5 cores from five localitiesat Geelbek and 34 cores from the Anyskop Blowout. Thecores from Blombos are from a stratigraphically ell-definedMSA assemblage (Henshilwood et al. 2001). The cores from

Geelbek reflect multiple periods within the MSA and LSA,and the cores from Anyskop include finds belonging to theAcheulean, MSA and LSA (Conard t al. 1999; Conard 002).The samples of cores used in the tests were not selected tofacilitate reproducibility and contain many pieces that aredifficult to classify. Researchers who wish to examine these

assemblages,which to a certain extent

now form a referencecollection, may contact RY at Iziko Museums n Cape Townwhere the assemblages are housed.

With each test the agreement mproved as the participantsdeveloped a better understanding f the principles guiding heclassification and the specific criteria used in the taxonomy.Following instruction and practice, both experiencedprofessionals and advanced students can use the system withcomparable esults.

Since the methods of reduction and proposed taxa donot represent discrete categories but, instead, continuousvariation around he modes defined by the three main taxa,complete agreement will never be achieved in classifyingcores using this system. This problem s by no means uniqueto the unified taxonomy. Our results suggest that experiencedanalysts can reach agreement in 70-90% of the cases.Interpretive rrors and misreadings will always occur, anda 'grey zone' will always exist on the borders between themethods of knapping eflected n the taxonomy.

Table 2. Other key variables for lithic reduction and theclassification of cores. * for Platform cores onlyVariable Nature of variation CharacterizationMorphology of Continuous Flakes, points,

end products blades, bladeletsDegree of reduction Continuous Initial o exhaustedDegree of knapping Continuous 0-3600

along circumferenceNo. of striking platforms Continuous/discrete Integer

& removal surfaces*Degree of platform Continuous/discrete Cortical, plain,

preparation faceted, etc.

Other key variablesIf the reader accepts that the elements of the unifiedtaxonomy presented above are useful, it is reasonable toconsider what key variables need to be considered n a moredetailed study of cores and reduction sequences (Table 2).The relevant parameters comprise continuous and discretevariables, ncluding he following:

A) Morphology of the end products, ypically flakes, points,blades and bladelets;

B) Degree of reduction along a spectrum between Initial andexhausted cores;

C) Degree to which knapping has occurred along thecircumference f the plane of intersection f Inclined andParallel cores and along the intersection of the strikingplatform and reduction surface of Platform cores, acontinuous variable ranging between 0? and 360?;

D) Number of striking platforms and removal surfaces,which can be described by integer values and applies toPlatform cores;



6/6


E) Degree of platform preparation, which ranges fromcortical to plain to various faceted forms, and can beexamined on cores and debitage.

Conclusion

This proposed unified taxonomy is a first step toward

integrating European and southern African approaches tolithic analysis. In the coming years we hope to extend thedialogue on the questions addressed here and to move towardrefining and expanding he system to include other classes ofknapped artefacts.

Acknowledgements

The authors hank Nikki Berrington, Holger Dietl andAndrewKandel for participating n the blind tests. We thank TomMinichillo and Curtis Marean for helpful discussions andaccess to the lithic artefacts during a visit to the excavationsat Mossel Bay. Nicholas Conard and Marie Soressi thankIziko Museums of Cape Town for providing laboratory

space for the Anyskop, Blombos and Geelbek projects andfacilities for conducting the lithic workshops. We thankAngela Close and Janette Deacon for helpful comments.Marie Soressi is grateful to Christopher Henshilwood forencouraging her to study lithic assemblages from Blombosand o the Fyssen and Wenner-Gren oundations or financialsupport. This work has been funded n part by the DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft.

ReferencesBoeda, E. 1993a. Le concept Levallois: variabilite' des methodes.

Monographies du CRA 9. Paris: CNRS.

Boeda, E. 1993b. Le debitage discoide et le debitage Levallois

recurrent centripete. Bulletin de la Societe PrehistoriqueFrancaise 90: 392-404.

Boeda, E. 1995a. Caracte'ristiques echniques des chanes operatoires

lithiques des niveaux micoquiens de Kulna (Tchecoslovaquie).

In: Les industries 'a pointes foliacees d'Europe centrale, Actes du

colloque : Les premieres decouvertes de Paleolithique a Miskolc

et la question des industries a pieces foliacees de l'Europe

centrale dans leur cadre chronologique, paleo6cologique,

paleontologique, Miskolc (Hongrie), 10-15 septembre 1991,

Paleo, suppl. 1: 57-72.

Boeda, E. 1995b. Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a

technique. In: Dibble, H.L. & Bar-Yosef, 0. (eds). The definition

and interpretation of Levallois technology. Monographs in

World Archaeology 23: 41-68.

Boeda, E., Geneste, J.-M., & Meignen, L. 1990. Identification de

chaines operatoires lithiques du Paleolithique ancien et moyen.

Paleo 2: 43-80.Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen.

Publications de l'Institut de Prehistoire de l'Universite de

Bordeaux, Mem. 1.Bordes, F. 1981. Vingt-cinq ans apres: Le complexe moust6rien

* I

revisite. Bulletin de la Societ6 Prehistorique Francaise

78: 77-87.Brew, J. 0. 1946. The use and abuse of taxonomy. In: The

archaeology of Alkali Ridge Utah. Papers of the Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 21: 44-66.Conard, N. J. 2002. Steinzeitforschung in den Geelbek-Dilnen.

Archlologie in Deutschland 6: 10-15

Conard, N. J., Prindiville T. J., & Kandel, A. W. 1999. The 1998fieldwork on the Stone Age archaeology and paleoecology of

the Geelbek Dunes, West Coast National Park, South Africa.

Southern African Field Archaeology 8: 35-45.Deacon, J. 1982. The Later Stone Age in the Southern Cape, South

Africa. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Cape Town.

Evans, U. 1993. Hollow Rock Shelter (or Sevilla 48): Lithic analysis

a small but significant contribution to future MSA studies.

Unpublished B.A. Hons thesis: University of Cape Town.

Hahn, J. 1988. Geilenkldsterle I. Stuttgart: Theiss Verlag.

Hahn, J. 1991. Erkennen und Bestimmen von Stein und

Knochenartefakte: Einffihrung in die Artefaktmorphologie.

Tubingen: Archaeolgia Venatoria.Henshilwood, C. S., Sealy, J., Yates, R., Cruz-Uribe, K., Goldberg,

P., Grine, F., Klein, R. G., Poggenpoel, C., van Niekerk,K., & Watts, I. 2001. Blombos Cave, Southern Cape, SouthAfrica: preliminary report on the 1992-1999 excavations of the

Middle Stone Age levels. Journal of Archaeological Science

28: 421-448.Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943. Evolution et Techniques I. L'homme et la

matiere. Paris: Ed. Albin Michel.Pelegrin, J. 1995. Technologie Lithique: Le Chdtelperronien de

Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de la Cote (Dordogne). Cahiers du

Quatemaire 20.Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid lithic technology. Advances and

implications. Edited volume. BAR International Series 1120.

Pigeot, N. 1991. Rdflexions sur l'histoire technique de l'homme:

de l'evolution cognitive a l'evolution culturelle. Paleo

3: 167-200.

Singer, R. & Wymer, J. 1982. The Middle Stone Age at KlasiesRiver Mouth in Southern Africa. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Soressi, M. 2002. Le Mousterien de tradition acheuleenne du

sud-ouest de la France. Discussion sur la signification du faci&s

a partir de l'6etude comparee de quatre sites: Pech-de-l'Aze I,

Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. Doctoral thesis:

Universite de Bordeaux I.

Thackeray, AlI. & Kelly, A.J. 1988. A technological and typological

analysis of Middle Stone Age assemblages antecedent to the

Howiesons Poort at Klasies River main site. South African

Archaeological Bulletin 43: 15-26.

Tixier, J. 1978. Methode pour l'etude des outillages lithiques.

Doctoral thesis: Universite de Paris X.

Van Peer, P. 1992. The Levallois reduction strategy. Monographs in

World Archaeology 13.Volman, T. 1981. The Middle Stone Age in the Southern Cape.

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Chicago.

Wurz, S. 2002. Variability in the Middle Stone Age lithic sequence,115,000-60,000 years ago at Klasies River Mouth, South

Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 1001-1015.


Documents

Lithic Core Reduction