Pressure flaking to serrate bifacial points for the hunt during the MIS5 at Sibudu Cave (South Africa)

Abstract

Projectile technology is considered to appear early in the southern African Middle Stone Age (MSA) and the rich and high resolution MSA sequence of Sibudu Cave in KwaZulu-Natal has provided many new insights about the use and hafting of various projectile forms. We present the results of a functional and technological analysis on a series of unpublished serrated bifacial points recently recovered from the basal deposits of Sibudu Cave. These serrated tools, which only find equivalents in the neighbouring site of Umhlatuzana, precede the Still Bay techno-complex and are older than 77 ka BP. Independent residue and use-wear analyses were performed in a phased procedure involving two separate analysts, which allowed the engagement between two separate lines of functional evidence. Thanks to the excellent preservation at Sibudu Cave, a wide range of animal, plant and mineral residues were observed in direct relation with diagnostic wear patterns. The combination of technological, wear and residue evidence allowed us to confirm that the serration was manufactured with bone compressors and that the serrated points were mounted with a composite adhesive as the tips of projectiles used in hunting activities. The suite of technological and functional data pushes back the evidence for the use of pressure flaking during the MSA and highlights the diversity of the technical innovations adopted by southern African MSA populations. We suggest the serrated points from the stratigraphic units Adam to Darya of Sibudu illustrate one important technological adaptation of the southern African MSA and provide another example of the variability of MSA bifacial technologies.

Retouched, rejuvenated, recycled and occasionally hafted as projectiles: stone points of Holocene Australia

“…Andrefsky ; Lombard & Pargeter ; Rots ; Rots et al . ;Schoville ; Young & Bamforth ). Discussion of technological organisation within Australian archaeology has had a significant focus on risk minimisation and stone points from Holocene northern Australia (e.g.…”

Fingerprinting Glues Using HS‐SPME GC×GC–HRTOFMS: a New Powerful Method Allows Tracking Glues Back in Time

“…; Lombard ; Rots et al . ) (for a complete overview, see Table S1). Aside from indicating the existence of hafting technology, remains of glues are also used as proxies for a certain degree of technological or cognitive complexity.…”

“…Archaeological evidence shows that plant-based adhesives were already being used in the Palaeolithic from at least MIS 5 (Mazza et al 2006;Rots et al 2011), perhaps not always to attach the stone tool to an organic handle when no imprints or other indications are observed, but at least to form a protective wrapping around it. While evidence for the use of glues is sparse for the earlier Middle Palaeolithic (MP) and Middle Stone Age (MSA), it is more frequent from about 80 ka onwards, with evidence from various sites in Eurasia (Koller et al 2001;Boëda et al 2008;Hauck et al 2013) and Africa (Gibson et al 2004;Lombard 2005;Rots et al 2017) (for a complete overview, see Table S1). Aside from indicating the existence of hafting technology, remains of glues are also used as proxies for a certain degree of technological or cognitive complexity.…”

“…A scanning electron microscope with an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) module can be used (Rots et al 2017) to confirm the organic nature of a potential glue residue. While this is an accurate way to identify the organic nature of a residue, it has also been argued that the method would allow reliable identification of birch pitch (Pawlik and Thissen 2011;Bradtmoller et al 2016) based on the combined occurrence of the elements sulphur, potassium and calcium.…”

Characterization of hafting adhesives using comprehensive two‐dimensional gas chromatography coupled to time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry

“…resins, gums or tars) [7,17]. Archaeological information indicates that these adhesives were in use at least 120,000 years ago [21][22][23], but evidence for this period is sparse and only becomes more frequent after 70 000 years ago [14,[24][25][26][27][28]. The long exposure to biochemical alteration processes typically limits the preservation of Paleolithic adhesives; if it occurs, quantities are often so minimal that extraction and GC-MS characterization is challenging.…”