The Still Bay and Howiesons Poort at Sibudu and Blombos: Understanding Middle Stone Age Technologies

Abstract

The classification of archaeological assemblages in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa in terms of diversity and temporal continuity has significant implications with respect to recent cultural evolutionary models which propose either gradual accumulation or discontinuous, episodic processes for the emergence and diffusion of cultural traits. We present the results of a systematic technological and typological analysis of the Still Bay assemblages from Sibudu and Blombos. A similar approach is used in the analysis of the Howiesons Poort (HP) assemblages from Sibudu seen in comparison with broadly contemporaneous assemblages from Rose Cottage and Klasies River Cave 1A. Using our own and published data from other sites we report on the diversity between stone artifact assemblages and discuss to what extent they can be grouped into homogeneous lithic sets. The gradual evolution of debitage techniques within the Howiesons Poort sequence with a progressive abandonment of the HP technological style argues against the saltational model for its disappearance while the technological differences between the Sibudu and Blombos Still Bay artifacts considerably weaken an interpretation of similarities between the assemblages and their grouping into the same cultural unit. Limited sampling of a fragmented record may explain why simple models of cultural evolution do not seem to apply to a complex reality.

What is Still Bay? Human biogeography and bifacial point variability

“…There is also growing support for the notion that behavioural complexity in the MSA arose as a function of oscillating population interactions, with the caveat that inferences regarding specific causes and effects are difficult to draw (Jacobs et al, 2008;Jacobs and Roberts, 2009;Powell et al, 2009). Moreover it is argued that similarity between technological elements in contemporaneous but spatially distant sites provides evidence for such interaction, which occurred across substantial distances in the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort (Wadley, 2007;Lombard et al, 2010;Henshilwood and Dubreuil, 2011;Henshilwood, 2012;Mackay et al, 2014;Soriano et al, 2015). In short, these phases of the MSA play a central role in our understanding of both human behavioural evolution and of early modern human demography.…”

Identifying early modern human ecological niche expansions and associated cultural dynamics in the South African Middle Stone Age

“…SB bifaces were multifunctional and served as both projectiles and cutting tools. Examinations of SB lithic assemblages (41) show that these bifaces were often repeatedly resharpened and had long use-lives, indicating that they formed a curated component of the SB lithic toolkit. The SB is also the first archaeological culture in which formal bone tools (i.e., artifacts made of animal osseous material shaped with techniques, such as scraping, grinding, and incising, specifically conceived for these materials) are observed at multiple sites rather than as rare elements in single assemblages.…”

“…Because the inexplicably older set of dates from Diepkloof remains a unicum, we will use the currently accepted chronology (45,49,50). Debate also exists as to whether this culture is technologically homogeneous or, instead, characterized by regional and temporal variability (41). This issue, however, remains open due to a lack of chronological resolution and the small number of contextually reliable archaeological assemblages.…”

“…2 F and G) that were predominantly used as components in composite hunting weapons. These tools, although not highly standardized dimensionally or morphologically, were made with a lithic reduction system that was geared toward the production of thin, straight blades, some of which were retouched to make this culture's fossil directeur along with denticulated tools (29,41,51). Raw materials used for the lithic technology were predominantly local or nearlocal in origin, in clear contrast to what is seen for SB bifaces.…”

The role of experimental knapping in empirically testing key themes in the evolution of lithic technology: reduction intensity, efficiency and behavioural complexity

“…While this new method for estimating the amount of stone lost during backed blade production has been tested on the microliths from an Anatolian Neolithic assemblage, it could equally be applied to any backed blade or bladelet based assemblage, such as the other various facies of the Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic (Albrecht 1988;Baird et al 2013;Bar-Yosef 1998 Lewis et al 2014;Soriano et al 2015;Soriano et al 2007;Villa et al 2010;Wurz 1999;Wurz and Lombard 2007), offer an opportunity to apply this method. More broadly, this method could serve any blade based tool-type currently lacking a reliable reduction intensity metric.…”