Abstract
The study of raw materials is an essential step in lithic analysis, regardless of the age, provenance, and technology of the assemblages. As in many other contexts of the Paleolithic, researchers of the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in southern Africa have often focused their attention on fine-grained, non-local rock types, such as silcrete. Here, I spotlight raw materials considered to be of lower suitability for knapping and frequently acquired from local sources. Due to their coarse-grained nature, artifacts from rock types such as calcrete, sandstone, and quartzite might show attributes that are different from finer-grained materials. Some of these knapped stones even constitute the substrate of the sites they are from, at times resulting in their neglect or not being recognized as anthropogenic artifacts. Knapped vein quartz features sharp and durable edges, but its complicated fracture mechanics hamper comparative analysis and provide methodological challenges. In this study, raw materials from different transport distances and with different presumed qualities are compared in terms of their roles in MSA lithic technology and settlement patterns. In the first step, the article focuses on the open-air special-purpose camp of Hoedjiespunt 1 (HDP1, Western Cape) and the rockshelter residential site of Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal), especially on assemblages dated between ~ 130–100 and ~ 58 ka. Subsequently, I review relevant materials for the southern African MSA. At HDP1 and Sibudu, local raw materials of lower knapping suitability assume several roles, from the “staple” material for all manufacturing stages to special-purpose and “add-on” functions. In the broader southern African region, MSA knappers also used these rock types in a flexible manner with gradual differences but also similarities to their use of finer-grained raw material. These differences depend on a complex interaction of raw material availability, differential site use, and the position of the localities in the settlement system.
Highlights
Lithic raw material constitutes the physical source for stone tool technology
In order to test the role of different raw materials at HDP1 and Sibudu, I compare assemblages from coarser-grained and finer-grained rock types, adding locally procured quartz and its specific fracture mechanics as an additional test case
The raw material distribution at HDP1 shows the dominance of local quartz (80.2%) and almost equal occurrence of ultra-local calcrete (7.2%) and nonlocal silcrete (6.4%) for pieces > 20 mm (Table 1)
Summary
Lithic raw material constitutes the physical source for stone tool technology. The study of raw materials is an essential step in lithic analyses, regardless of the provenance, age, and technology of specific assemblages. In the European Paleolithic, this phenomenon is called “flint thinking” (Knutsson, 1998, 2014). This term refers to an underappreciation of nonflint materials, both in archaeological assemblages and from a methodological point of view. Scholars in Paleolithic Europe based their technological and typological classifications predominantly on flint assemblages and imposed them on raw materials with different flaking properties. Researchers in the Middle Stone Age (MSA) of southern Africa, a period dating between ~ 300 and 30 ka and associated with the early evolution of Homo sapiens, have not been exempt from this bias for fine-grained rocks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
