Lithic miniaturization in Late Pleistocene southern Africa

Abstract

versus accidental small tool production. This can be achieved by showing purposeful raw material selection for small core production, systematic technological intent to miniaturize production, and by conduction use-trace analyses on the resulting flakes. A fourth factor involves the use of middle range theoretical models derived from experimental and/or ethnographic research to demonstrate the use of small tools and cores. These middle range models guide discussions about why humans choose to miniaturize lithic production.Lithic miniaturization is a truly global phenomenon increasing during the Late Pleistocene in many regions of the Old World from Africa to East Asia (Elston and Kuhn 2002). By the Holocene, small stone tools were regular components of hunter-gatherer toolkits in Australia, Northern Asia and North America. Because lithic miniaturization (also sometimes called "microlithization") proliferated during the Late Pleistocene and the Later Stone Age (LSA), archaeologists associate it with "modern human behavior" (e.g. McBrearty and Brooks, 2000).However, lithic miniaturization is no more consistent a feature of Late Pleistocene assemblages than pointed bone production, rock art or engraved ochre. Lithic miniaturization was one of our Pleistocene ancestor"s many strategic options for making stone tools. Lithic miniaturization remains one of the most economically consequential developments inPleistocene lithic technology (Hiscock 2015b). Small tool technologies enabled humans to extract usable cutting edges from raw materials more effectively and efficiently and to do so on a wide range of rock types (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). Humans used multiple technological strategies for lithic miniaturization in various parts of the world, ranging from specialized pressure-based techniques to simpler bipolar techniques (Elston and Brantingham 2002; Desrosiers 2012; de la Peña 2015a). These strategies provided a range of flexible technological solutions to the problems posed by migration and diffusion into new territories (e.g. North America) and to the maintenance of these territories once established (e.g. East Africa) (Madsen

The Role of Different Raw Materials in Lithic Technology and Settlement Patterns During the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa

“…These analytical challenges have been known for a long time and have been specifically assessed for some raw materials (quartz in particular; Callahan et al, 1992;de la Peña & Wadley, 2014;Driscoll, 2010;Hawkins & Mosig Way, 2020;Knight, 1991;Knutsson, 1988;Manninen, 2016;Pargeter, 2016;Tallavaara et al, 2010). Yet, there is still a widespread tendency to either downplay methodical problems, or put less analytical emphasis on, or even ignore, artifacts and assemblages from such raw materials with presumed lower knapping suitability and different fracture mechanics.…”

“…Recently, there have been an increased number of experimental and archaeological studies of quartz in the MSA and LSA of southern Africa, particularly in relation to bipolar, microlithic, and bifacial technology (e.g., de la Peña & Wadley, 2014;de la Peña et al, 2013;Pargeter, 2016;Rots et al, 2017). Yet, only a few quartz-dominated assemblages in the southern African MSA exist and have been studied with modern analytical methods.…”

Late Pleistocene human occupation in the Maloti-Drakensberg region of southern Africa: New radiocarbon dates from Rose Cottage Cave and inter-site comparisons

“…Such analyses will, we hope, allow southern African hunter-gatherer archaeology to contribute ever more strongly to building a more behaviourally focused hunter-gatherer archaeology in the region in line with emerging trends (e.g. Dusseldorp, 2012;Mackay, 2016;Pargeter, 2017;Stewart and Mitchell, 2018b).…”

“…chert, agate, and chalcedony). Ntloana Tšoana's crystal quartz sub-assemblage has been removed from this analysis to ensure comparability with the remaining sites (Pargeter, 2016), and, while there is archaeological material in the pre-LGM levels of Ha Makotoko, the lithic assemblage is yet to be studied. At Ha Makotoko, Ntloana Tšoana, Rose Cottage Cave, and Sehonghong raw materials derive from river-borne nodules or exposures in the lavas of the Lesotho Formation.…”

Moshebi's shelter at fifty: Reinvestigating the Later Stone Age of the Sehlabathebe Basin, Lesotho

“…Our priority was to describe them in terms of broad patterns of raw material usage, core reduction, blank production, utilization, and the presence/absence of formally retouched tools in order to facilitate comparisons with other Maloti-Drakensberg LSA assemblages, rather than to engage in detailed morphometric studies or analysis of chaînes opératoires (cf. Pargeter, 2016). These patterns are presented here according to the Phases defined above.…”