coalescence and fragmentation in the late pleistocene...

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2014) 1e26

Contents lists avai

Journal of Human Evolution

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jhevol

Coalescence and fragmentation in the late Pleistocene archaeology ofsouthernmost Africa

Alex Mackay a,*, Brian A. Stewart b, Brian M. Chase c,d

aCentre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, AustraliabMuseum of Anthropological Archaeology, University of Michigan, Ruthven Museums Building, 1109 Geddes Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USAcCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution de Montpellier, UMR 5554, Université Montpellier 2, Bat. 22,CC061, Place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier cedex 5, FrancedDepartment of Archaeology, History, Culture and Religion, University of Bergen, Postbox 7805, 5020 Bergen, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 October 2013Accepted 5 March 2014Available online xxx

Keywords:Lithic technologyMiddle and Later Stone AgeStill BayHowiesons PoortOrnamentsCultural transmission

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Mackay

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.03.0030047-2484/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Mackay, AJournal of Human Evolution (2014), http://d

a b s t r a c t

The later Pleistocene archaeological record of southernmost Africa encompasses several Middle StoneAge industries and the transition to the Later Stone Age. Through this period various signs of complexhuman behaviour appear episodically, including elaborate lithic technologies, osseous technologies, or-naments, motifs and abstract designs. Here we explore the regional archaeological record using differentcomponents of lithic technological systems to track the transmission of cultural information and theextent of population interaction within and between different climatic regions. The data suggest acomplex set of coalescent and fragmented relationships between populations in different climate regionsthrough the late Pleistocene, with maximum interaction (coalescence) during MIS 4 and MIS 2, andfragmentation during MIS 5 and MIS 3. Coalescent phases correlate with increases in the frequency ofornaments and other forms of symbolic expression, leading us to suggest that population interaction wasa significant driver in their appearance.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The archaeological record of southernmost Africa during the latePleistocene exhibits a number of atypically early signs of culturalcomplexity, giving rise to claims that it is one potential point oforigin for the emergence of modern human behaviour (Parkington,2003, 2010; Marean, 2010; though note; Bouzouggar et al., 2007;Bar-Yosef Mayer et al., 2009). Elements of this complexity includethe early production of ornaments, motifs and abstract designs, theuse of osseous technology, and the manufacture of lithic technol-ogies that later become common in many other parts of the world(Henshilwood and Sealy, 1997; Henshilwood et al., 2001a, 2002,2004; d’Errico et al., 2005; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007;Backwell et al., 2008; d’Errico et al., 2008; Jacobs et al., 2008a;Mackay and Welz, 2008; Henshilwood et al., 2009; Lombardet al., 2010; Mourre et al., 2010; Texier et al., 2010; Henshilwoodet al., 2011; d’Errico et al., 2012a; Texier et al., 2013; Vanhaerenet al., 2013). The temporal distribution of many of these markersis variable and apparently non-directional, leading to speculation

).

., et al., Coalescence and fragmx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.201

about the causes of their appearance and disappearance (Jacobsand Roberts, 2009; Powell et al., 2009; Villa et al., 2010; d’Erricoand Stringer, 2011; Henshilwood and Dubreuil, 2011; Lombardand Parsons, 2011).

Much of the discussion of late Pleistocene lithic technologies hasfocused on methods of tool manufacture and the definition ofculture-historic units (Volman, 1980; Thackeray, 1989; Wadley andHarper, 1989;Wadley,1995, 2005;Wurz, 2002; Soriano et al., 2007;Wadley, 2007; Brown et al., 2009; Villa et al., 2009; Mourre et al.,2010; Villa et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2012; Wurz, 2012; Porrazet al., 2013a). Less explicit consideration has been given to themechanisms underlying lithic technological change across the sub-continent, and more specifically to the causes of patterns of simi-larity and difference between spatially dispersed sites (Deacon,1984a; Mitchell, 1988; Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990; Deacon andWurz, 1996; Ambrose, 2002; McCall, 2007; Jacobs et al., 2008a;Mackay, 2008a; McCall and Thomas, 2012; Faith, 2013; Porrazet al., 2013b). Causes of technological change that have beeninferred (either implicitly or in brief discussion) include adapta-tions to changes in the subsistence environment (Mackay, 2009;Villa et al., 2010; Hiscock et al., 2011; Lombard and Parsons, 2011;Mackay, 2011; Mackay and Marwick, 2011; McCall and Thomas,2012; Ziegler et al., 2013) and responses to changing social

entation in the late Pleistocene archaeology of southernmost Africa,4.03.003

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00472484

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.03.003



A. Mackay et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2014) 1e262

stimuli that are adaptively neutral with respect to environmentalvariation (sometimes called ‘fashions’) (Volman, 1980; Thackeray,1989, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2008a). Viewed in extremis these twopositions are equally unlikely. The frequent occurrence of similartechnologies over large areas with diverse local environments isdifficult to reconcile with optimally-adapted systems (Jacobs et al.,2008a); on the other hand, given that lithic technology was acomponent of human subsistence behaviour for more than twomillion years, it is unlikely that technological systems were alwaysselectively neutral or maladaptive (though note Boyd andRicherson, 1985). We thus suggest that there were always somesocially-mediated dimensions to environmental-mediated tech-nologies and vice versa.

In this paper, we pursue a more nuanced understanding oftechnological change in late Pleistocene southernmost Africa. Theobjective is to understand the degree of fit between lithic techno-logical systems and environmental variation through the periodfrom 130 to 12 ka (thousands of years ago), and the extent to whichtransfer of information between interacting populations influencedthe form of technological systems at different times. Changes in theextent of interaction between populations have implications notjust for the forms of lithic systems, but also for the appearance oftechnological complexity, ornaments and other forms of socialdisplay. Large, interconnected populations may retain more com-plex variation in information, and are more likely to pursue signs ofsocial identity through social symbolling than isolated or frag-mented populations (Henrich, 2001, 2004; Shennan, 2001; Stinerand Kuhn, 2006; Kuhn and Stiner, 2007; Powell et al., 2009;Henrich, 2010; Sterelny, 2011; Kuhn, 2012; Collard et al., 2013;Derex et al., 2013; Stiner, 2014). Consequently, variation in popu-lation interconnectedness through time may help to explain thetemporally patchy distribution of behavioural markers (Jacobs andRoberts, 2009).

In this paper we pose the following questions:

1. To what extent are late Pleistocene technological changes insouthernmost Africa consistent with the spatio-temporalstructure of environmental variation?

2. Is there evidence for the transmission of technological systemsbetween populations?

3. Is the extent of population interconnection variable through thelate Pleistocene?

In order to answer these questions, we synthesise data from thearchaeological record of southernmost Africa through the periodfrom 130 ka to 12 ka, focussing on patterns of occupation andtechnological systems in the region’s different climatic zones. Beforethis, however, we introduce the elements of technological variationrelevant to the studyandpresentmethods for their analysis in termsof technological organisation and information transmission.

Components of technological variability and informationtransfer

Numerous schemes exist that divide the late Pleistocenearchaeological record of southernmost Africa into a series ofsequential units, variously termed cultures, industries or tech-nocomplexes (Goodwin and van Riet Lowe, 1929; Sampson, 1974;Volman, 1980; Deacon, 1984b; Thackeray, 1989; Wadley, 1993;Wurz, 2002; Minichillo, 2005; Lombard et al., 2012). Currentlyprevalent schemes differentiate nine units in the study period:MSA1 2a (Klasies River unit), MSA 2b (Mossel Bay unit), Still Bay,

1 MSA ¼ Middle Stone Age.

Please cite this article in press as: Mackay, A., et al., Coalescence and fragmJournal of Human Evolution (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.201

Howiesons Poort, post-Howiesons Poort, late MSA, final MSA, earlyLSA2 and Robberg. A range of characteristics are used to distinguishthese units, the most common being material selection (the typesof rocks chosen for tools), flaking systems (the ways in which thoserocks are flaked) and implement types (also referred to as ‘tools’where these are defined as morphologically-regular retouchedflakes). We examine each of these factors separately, with theaddition of a fourth factor, provisioning systems, and suggest thatthey have different potential for information transfer relative toresource structure, allowing us to differentiate the processes un-derlying technological change. We also give consideration to theprocesses underlying the transfer of information between in-dividuals and how these may reflect variability in populationinterconnectedness.

Components of technological variability

Provisioning systems Rock types do not necessarily occurwhen andwhere they are needed to perform tasks. For that reason, stone toolusers deployed systems to ensure that adequate toolswere always onhandwhenneeded (Kelly,1988). These are referred to asprovisioningsystems,and followingKuhn(1995)wedifferentiate two forms:placeprovisioning and individual provisioning. Placeprovisioning involvesthe transportation of stone to a selected point in space for themanufacture of artefacts (Parry and Kelly, 1987). Place provisioningis a viable system only where extended occupancy of a location canbe anticipated, and is thus necessarily tied to resourcepredictability (Kuhn, 1995). This approach to technologicalorganisation can be identified archaeologically by the accumulationof large assemblages of artefacts through the on-site reduction oftransported stone blocks (commonly as cores) and the on-siteproduction of implements (Riel-Salvatore and Barton, 2004).

Individual provisioning, on the other hand, involves the on-going transport and maintenance of tools that are used to under-take many of the tasks foragers encounter. Heavy reliance ontransported tools heightens the risk of tool failure, a risk that can beoffset by expedient manufacture and use of implements often fromlocally-available rocks (Binford, 1979; Kuhn, 1995; Mackay, 2005).Individual provisioning is expected to be emphasised where thespatial and temporal distribution of resources is difficult to predict(Clarkson, 2004). Design constraints on transported tools empha-sise portability and maintainability, constraints that are less rele-vant when place provisioning (Kelly, 1988; Nelson, 1991; Kuhn,1994). Archaeologically, diminished assemblage size may resultfrom individual provisioning, given a principal focus on implementmaintenance and repair (Riel-Salvatore and Barton, 2004). Becausethe efficacy of different provisioning systems is strongly tied to thespatial and temporal configuration of subsistence resources, thesesystems cannot readily be transferred between populations in areaswithout underlying environmental similarities. That is, provision-ing systems are always expected to be adaptive responses to localenvironmental conditions.

Material selection Material selection involves making choicesabout what rocks to use when making stone artefacts. Differentrocks have different flaking characteristics, and thus not all rocksare equivalent with respect either to the kinds of artefacts that caneasily be made (Eren et al., 2011a), or the extent to which (andeconomy with which) they can be used and reduced (Goodyear,1989; Mackay, 2008a; Braun et al., 2009). Furthermore, differentrocks have different distributions, with implications foracquisition costs. In many regions, fine-grained rocks are

2 LSA ¼ Later Stone Age.


Table 1List of sites by climate regions.

Zone Site Reference

WRZ Byneskranskop (BNK) (Schweitzer and Wilson, 1983)Die Kelders (DK) (Avery et al., 1997; Feathers and Bush,

2000; Schwarcz and Rink, 2000; Thackeray,2000)

Diepkloof (DRS) (Rigaud et al., 2006; Jacobs et al., 2008a;Tribolo et al., 2009; Tribolo et al., 2012;Porraz et al., 2013a)

Elands Bay Cave (EBC) (Orton, 2006)Faraoskop (FRK) (Manhire, 1993)Hollow Rock Shelter(HRS)

(Evans, 1994; Högberg and Larsson, 2011)

Hoedjiespunt (HDP) (Will et al., 2013)Klipfonteinrand (KFR) (Volman, 1980; Mackay, 2009)Klein Kliphuis (KKH) (Mackay, 2006; Jacobs et al., 2008a; Mackay,

2010)Montagu Cave (MC) (Volman, 1980)Peers Cave (PC) (Volman, 1980)Reception Cave (RC) (Orton et al., 2011)Spitzkloof (SPTZ) (Dewar and Stewart, 2012)Varsche River 3 (VR3) (Steele et al., 2012)Ysterfontein (YFT) (Halkett et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2004;

Avery et al., 2008; Wurz, 2012)YRZ Apollo 11 (AXI) (Wendt, 1976; Jacobs et al., 2008a;

Vogelsang et al., 2010)Blombos (BBC) (Henshilwood et al., 2001b; Jacobs et al.,

2008a; Jacobs et al., 2013)Boomplaas (BMP) (Deacon et al., 1976; Deacon, 1979; Faith,

2013)Buffelskloof (BFK) (Opperman, 1978)Cape St Blaize Cave(CSB)

(Thompson and Marean, 2008)

Howiesons PoortShelter (HPS)

(Stapleton and Hewitt, 1927; Deacon, 1995)

Klasies River Main Site(KRM)

(Volman, 1980; Singer and Wymer, 1982;Jacobs et al., 2008a)

Melkhoutboom (MLK) (Deacon, 1976; Deacon et al., 1976)Nelson Bay Cave (NBC) (Deacon, 1978, 1982; Volman, 1980)Pinnacle Point 13b & 5/6 (PP)

(Marean, 2010; Jacobs, 2010; Marean et al.,2010; Thompson et al., 2010; Brown et al.,2012)

SRZ Border Cave (BC) (Beaumont, 1978; Grün and Beaumont,2001; d’Errico et al., 2012b)

Bushman Rock Shelter(BRS)

(Eloff, 1969; Louw, 1969; Underhill, 2012)

Cave James (CJ) (Wadley, 1993)Cave of Hearths (COH) (Volman, 1980; Mason and Brain, 1988)Florisbad (FRB) (Kuman et al., 1999)Ha Soloja (HAS) (Carter and Vogel, 1974)Heuningneskrans(HNK)

(Wadley, 1993)

Holley Shelter (HS) (Cramb, 1952, 1961)Kathu Pan (KP) (Wadley, 1993)Melikane (MEL) (Carter and Vogel, 1974; Stewart et al.,

2012)Mwulu’s Cave (MWC) (Tobias, 1949)Ntloana Tsoana (NTL) (Mitchell and Steinberg, 1992; Jacobs et al.,

2008a; Mitchell and Arthur, 2010)Olieboompoort (OLI) (Volman, 1980)Rose Cottage Cave(RCC)

(Wadley, 1991; Wadley, 1995; Wadley andHarper, 1989; Clark, 1999; Soriano et al.,2007; Pienaar et al., 2008

Sehonghong (SHH) (Carter and Vogel, 1974; Carter et al., 1988;Mitchell, 1994; Mitchell, 1995)

Shongweni (SHO) (Davies, 1975)Sibebe (SBB) (Price-Williams, 1981)Sibudu Cave (SC) (Cochrane, 2006; Conard et al., 2012;

Goldberg et al., 2009; Jacobs et al., 2008b;Villa et al., 2005; Wadley, 2005, 2007, 2012;Wadley and Jacobs, 2004, 2006)

Siphiso (SIP) (Barham, 1989)Strathalan B (STB) (Opperman and Heydenrych, 1990;

Opperman, 1996)Umhlatuzana (UMH) (Lombard et al., 2010)

A. Mackay et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2014) 1e26 3

uncommon and their regular acquisition necessitates either agreater magnitude of movement or deliberate procurement effort(Ambrose and Lorenz, 1990; Minichillo, 2006; Mackay, 2008a;Mackay and Marwick, 2011; Porraz et al., 2013a). Mostimportantly, however, due to geological differences at regionalscales, similar rocks are not always available in all areas. Somerock types are nearly ubiquitous but many others often haverestricted distributions. A preference for the use of specific typesof rocks in artefact manufacture thus has a geologically-restrictedcapacity to be transferred between groups.

Flaking systems The term ‘flaking systems’ as used here refersprincipally to the means by which cores were reduced. Flakingsystems are a complex process coupling general strategies withcontingent responses to the outcome of specific actions within thereduction chain (Bleed, 2001). Because of this complexity, andbecause of the large number and diverse means of reducingstone, flaking was probably in most cases a taught skill involvingextended periods of information transfer from skilled workers tonovices (Stout, 2002; Eren et al., 2011b; Tostevin, 2012; Hiscock,2014). We follow Derex et al. (2012) in referring to suchinformation transfer through detailed instruction as processcopying, and note its benefits in terms of transmission fidelitywhen compared with learning from sighted examples of theoutcome of a manufacturing process (see also Tehrani and Riede,2008; Tehrani and Collard, 2009; Tennie et al., 2009; Sterelny,2011). Assuming conditions akin to apprenticeship, informationtransfer through process copying implies a strong degree ofinterconnectedness between individuals (Tehrani and Collard,2009; Mace and Jordan, 2011), and for this reason, similarities inflaking systems between different assemblages have been arguedto reflect shared traditions between spatially separated groups(e.g., Petraglia et al., 2007; Clarkson, 2010; Rose et al., 2011).

Implement type Implements are morphologically regularretouched artefacts, commonly but not alwaysmade fromflakes andblades. As with flaking systems, implement manufacture can be acomplex process but is not necessarily so. Some implements such asbackedartefacts areusually small and canbeproduced inbatches forrelatively little cost in time and material (Hiscock, 2006). Similarly,unifacial points, scrapers and denticulates all rely on unifacialretouch of a blank margin whereby most of the steps in productioncan be discerned from the implements themselves (Högberg andLarsson, 2011; Hiscock, 2014). In these cases, and unlike flakingsystems, transfer of the artefacts alone could provide sufficientinformation for the method of their manufacture to spread.Following Derex et al. (2012), we refer to this means of learning asproduct copying (note also Tehrani and Collard, 2009; Mace andJordan, 2011). There are obvious exceptions to this simplification.For example, bifacial points may have multiple stages inmanufacture, which, coupled with the complexity of reductionand attendant high failure rates, would make them less easilytransferred without extended instruction (Villa et al., 2009;Högberg and Larsson, 2011; Porraz et al., 2013a). Overall, however,the transfer of the design of simple, unifacial implements wouldtheoretically have been achievable through product copying alone,without requiring extended periods of learning or a strong degreeof interconnectedness between individuals or populations(Högberg and Larsson, 2011; Hiscock, 2014).

Characteristics of information transfer

We have highlighted ways in which information transfer mayoccur as a learning process and its relationship to populationconnectedness; here we briefly discuss information transfer as a

Please cite this article in press as: Mackay, A., et al., Coalescence and fragmentation in the late Pleistocene archaeology of southernmost Africa,Journal of Human Evolution (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.03.003

Figure 1. Climate regions and late Pleistocene archaeological sites in southernmostAfrica. Seasonality of rainfall defined by percentage of winter (MayeSeptember) rain,shown as 10% isolines. (a) Distribution of late Pleistocene sites relative to rainfallzones; (b) Winter- and Year-Round Rainfall sites; (c) Summer Rainfall Zone sites. Ab-breviations: Apollo 11 (AXI), Blombos (BBC), Boomplaas (BMP), Border Cave (BC),Buffelskloof (BFK), Bushman Rock Shelter (BRS), Byneskranskop (BNK), Cape St Blaize(CSB), Cave of Hearths (COH), Cave James (CJ), Die Kelders (DK), Diepkloof (DRS),Elands Bay Cave (EBC), Faraoskop (FRK), Florisbad (FRB), Ha Soloja (HAS),



spatio-temporalprocessusing insights fromliteratureon thediffusionof innovations and cultural transmission (Hagerstrand, 1967; Morrill,1970; Rogers,1983; Boyd andRicherson,1985; Bettinger and Eerkens,1999; Eerkens and Lipo, 2007). The objective is to facilitate the iden-tification of different processes in the archaeological record.Wemakefour points of relevance to the issues at hand.

First, the diffusion of innovations through populations is likelyto result in sigmoid-shaped uptake curves, with slow initial uptakefollowed by rapid increase through to saturation (Henrich, 2001). Inthe case of adoption of adaptively neutral characteristics, frequencymay subsequently decline, resulting in a ‘battleship’ curve thatoften (but not always) identifies a characteristic under drift(Nieman, 1995; though see Shennan andWilkinson, 2001). Second,people in some areas will not be receptive to the uptake of newtechnologies, evenwhen they are adaptively beneficial, resulting inzones of non-uptake (Rogers, 1983). Third, assuming a regular rateof information mutation through copying errors and mis-remembering (Eerkens and Lipo, 2005), and given that the numberof individual information transfers increases with distance, weexpect that the degree of information fidelity will decay with dis-tance. Thus, at the furthest point from the origin of an innovation itshould look most unlike its form at source. Finally, we expectgreater variability of tool form and/or production processes in lo-cations where innovations are either initially generated or adaptedto local conditions rather than simply adopted (Boyd andRicherson, 1985; Bettinger and Eerkens, 1999).

Expectations

These various propositions allow us to generate some expecta-tions relative to the questions posed in the Introduction.

1. Where technological changes are chiefly guided by environ-mental conditions we expect technologies to be more similarwhere environments are more similar, and to be more differentwhere environments are more different.

2. Where technological systems are transferred between pop-ulations, maximum diversity of forms will occur at or near thesource of an innovation. Where diffusing technologies aremostly neutral with respect to environments, similarities intechnology will be a product of spatial proximity rather thanenvironmental context (Jordan and Shennan, 2003). Conse-quently, technologies will become increasingly unlike theirsource form with distance from source. Where transferredtechnologies are environmentally-adaptive, their formwill trackenvironmental variation as per the previous point. Uptake ofdiffusing innovations will exhibit sigmoid-shaped curves, andwhere selectively neutral, their disappearance may result inbattleship curves.

3. Where populations are strongly interconnected they will sharesimilarities in flaking systems, implement form, and materialselection within the constraints of the underlying geology. Ifunderlying provisioning systems are similar, similarities in thepredictability of subsistence resources are also implied. Weakly-connectedpopulationsmay share similarities in implement formwhere implements are simple to copy, but other elements of thetechnological systems will differ. Disconnected populations will

Heuningneskrans (HNK), Hoedjiespunt (HDP), Holley Shelter (HS), Hollow Rock Shelter(HRS), Howiesons Poort Shelter (HPS), Kathu Pan (KP), Klasies River (KRM), Klipfon-teinrand (KFR), Klein Kliphuis (KKH), Melikane (MEL), Melkhoutboom (MLK), MontaguCave (MC), Mwulu’s Cave (MWU), Nelson Bay Cave (NBC), Ntloana Tsoana (NTL),Olieboompoort (OLI), Peers Cave (PC), Pinnacle Point (PP), Rose Cottage Cave (RCC),Sehonghong (SHH), Shongweni (SHO), Sibebe (SBB), Sibudu Cave (SC), Siphiso (SIP),Spitzkloof (SPTZ), Strathalan B (STB), Ysterfontein (YFT), Umhlatuzana (UMH).



not share characteristics, exceptwhere these can be explained byunderlying environmental similarities (convergence).

Spatial and chronological structure of data

Spatial structure

In the analysis presented here, we discuss sites across south-ernmost Africa in terms of modern climate regions (Table 1, Fig. 1).Southern African climates are dominated by two primary atmo-spheric circulation systems: 1) frontal systems embedded in thewesterly storm track to the south of the continent that bring rainfallto south-western Africa during the winter, and 2) tropical easterlyflow, which brings moist air from the warm Indian Ocean to thesubcontinent during the summer months (Tyson, 1986). These sys-tems do not operate entirely independently of one another, and in-teractions between them bring significant moisture to southernAfrica both throughout theannual cycle (Tyson,1986) andperhaps asa result of large-scale reorganisations of circulation systems overmulti-millennial timescales (Tyson, 1986; Chase, 2010). The relativeannual influence of these systems can be considered in terms of theaverage annual precipitation during a given season. Chase andMeadows (2007) distinguish three broad units based on the per-centage of precipitation received between the winter months ofAprileSeptember. These are 1) thewinter rainfall zone (WRZ;>66%),2) the year-round rainfall zone (YRZ; 66e33%), and 3) the summerrainfall zone (SRZ; <33%). These rainfall zones presently supportdifferent biomes with grasslands and savanna communities morecommon in the SRZ, and shrubland, succulent and thicket commu-nities common in theWRZ and YRZ (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

The extent of these rainfall zones and the climatic conditionswithin them have not remained constant over the time periodsconsidered here (Chase and Meadows, 2007). With expansions ofAntarctic sea-ice during periods of globally cooler conditions, thezone of westerly influence is believed to have expanded furthernorth, resulting in an increase in the geographical extent of winterrains, and the duration and impact of its rainy season (Nicholsonand Flohn, 1980; Chase and Meadows, 2007; Toggweiler andRussell, 2008; Chase, 2010; Mills et al., 2012; Stager et al., 2012;Chase et al., 2013; Truc et al., 2013). Summer rains in contrast are

Table 2Summary of results from MIS 5.

Zone Site Dated? Unit Dominant material

Quartzite Silcrete Other

WRZ DK Y None U

DRS Y MSA 2b? U

HRS Y None U

HDP N None QuartzKFR N MSA 2b U

YFT Y None U

YRZ AXI N MSA 2b? U

BBC Y None U

CSB N MSA 2b? U

KRM Y MSA 2a U

KRM Y MSA 2b U

NBC N MSA 2a U

NBC N MSA 2b U

PP Y None U

SRZ BC Y None RhyoliteMEL Y MSA 2a/b DoleriteRCC Y None OpalineSC Y None ?

Included are sites dated toMIS 5, assigned toMSA 2a orMSA 2b, and coastal sites, whichwdate w124 ka. Note that the data for provisioning systems in this period are sufficientlydoes not denote the absence of that material, flaking system or tool type, only that theseanalysts. The abbreviations (u) and (b) after the checks denote unifacial and bifacial poin


dependent on the formation of robust convection cells in the IndianOcean. These cells result from high sea surface temperatures, andtheir formation is likely to have been impaired under generallycooler conditions (Nicholson and Flohn, 1980; Tyson and Preston-Whyte, 2000; Chase, 2010; Stager et al., 2012; Truc et al., 2013).Under many (but not all; Chase, 2010) circumstances it is predictedthat a coeval inverse relationship existed between the winter andsummer rainfall zones, with more humid conditions in one occur-ring when drier conditions existed in the other (Tyson, 1986;Cockcroft et al., 1987). As a transition zone, the modern YRZwould have probably fallen under the dominance of the intensi-fying climate region, and its rainfall regime would have evolvedaccordingly (Cockcroft et al., 1987).

While recognising that the spatial extent of the region’s rainfallzones almost certainly shifted over the course of the time periodsconsidered, insufficient evidence currently exists to reliablyreconstruct the extent or nature of these variations, with someauthors having proposed substantial shifts in tropical andtemperate systems over the last glacialeinterglacial cycle (vanZinderen Bakker, 1967; van Zinderen Bakker, 1976; Butzer et al.,1978; Cockcroft et al., 1987; Stuut et al., 2002), while others havesuggested that only minor changes occurred (van Zinderen Bakker,1983; Lee-Thorp and Beaumont, 1995; Sealy, 1996). In lieu ofadequate evidence to reliably determine the past extent and timingof shifts in these rainfall zones, we employ the modern rainfallzones as a climatic framework for our study, but highlight that it isgenerally accepted (though see Bar-Matthews et al., 2010) thatduring relatively warm periods the SRZ is likely to have becomewetter and more extensive (Cockcroft et al., 1987; Peeters et al.,2004; Chase and Meadows, 2007 and references therein; Caleyet al., 2011; Dupont et al., 2011; Truc et al., 2013), while coolerperiods are likely to have favoured the intensification and arealinfluence of winter rain systems (Cockcroft et al., 1987; Stuut et al.,2002; Peeters et al., 2004; Chase and Meadows, 2007 and refer-ences therein; Stager et al., 2012; Chase et al., 2013). Due to thesedifferences in their underlying controls and in the vegetationcommunities they commonly support, the climate regions providea framework against which to assess mechanisms of change. Iftechnological changes are responsive to environmental variationthenwewould expect, considering the anti-phase relationship that

Dominant flaking products Dominant implements

Flakes Blades Convergents Denticulates Points Other

U NoneU U U

U U

U U

U U U

U U

U U

U U

U NoneU U U

U NoneU U U

U

U U

U U U (b)U U

U (u)U (b)

ould have been inundated during theMIS 5e high stand andwhich thus cannot ante-scarce that it is not included in the summary. Note also that the absence of a ‘check’are not considered among the dominant materials/systems/types by the assemblagets, respectively.


Figure 2. MIS 5 sites. MSA sites with chronometric ages (circles) or inferred occupa-tion (squares) in MIS 5.


exists between the SRZ andWRZ, within-region systems to bemoresimilar than between-region systems. When changes are mostlyadaptively neutral with respect to environments, we should expectto see no such pattern.

Chronological structure

Recent years have seen dramatic improvements in datingsouthernmost Africa’s late Pleistocene archaeological record, buta robust chronological framework remains elusive. While theterminal Pleistocene falls within the range of radiocarbon,3

luminescence chronologies for the age range beyond 50 kahave been contested (Jacobs et al., 2008a; Tribolo et al., 2009,2012; Guérin et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2013). Of particular noteare two discordant chronologies for the important Winter Rain-fall Zone site of Diepkloof (Jacobs et al., 2008a; Tribolo et al.,2012). While these chronologies overlap in layers younger thanw65 ka, the discrepancy reaches w50% in the deeper part ofthe sequence, before becoming concordant again in the earlierMSA towards the sequence base. Necessarily, at least one of thesechronologies is wrong. While Porraz et al. (2013b) provide anexcellent interpretation of southernmost African technologicalchange predicated on the Tribolo chronology, this paper assumesthe greater accuracy of the Jacobs chronology (Jacobs et al.,2008a), which has the advantage of being replicated at multiplesites, including those proximate to Diepkloof (e.g., Högberg andLarsson, 2011).

In addition to site-specific problems, the large errors associatedwith luminescence age estimations make exploration of leads andlags in technological patterning problematic, if not impossible inmany cases. Finally, while there have been concerted efforts tounderstand the timing of certain technological changes (mostnotably the appearance and disappearance of the Still Bay andHowiesons Poort units), the bulk of the later Pleistocene hasreceived considerably less attention. The through-time distribu-tion of ages is consequently uneven in ways that do not neces-sarily reflect occupational patterning. The basic temporal structurehere follows the Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) system. While localenvironmental responses to global climatic variations remaindifficult to model (Chase and Meadows, 2007; Chase, 2010), weexpect some broad correspondence between global changes andlocal responses as outlined in the preceding section (pace Blomeet al., 2012).

Results

MIS 5 (130e74 ka)

We start by presenting the archaeological evidence from MIS 5in terms of flaking systems, material selection and implementtypes. Data are currently insufficient at most sites to discuss pro-visioning systems in this period in any detail. Our results aresummarised in Table 2. The prevailing scheme, which differentiatestwo units in this period, MSA 2a (Klasies River unit) and MSA 2b(Mossel Bay unit), is used as a baseline as the dating is weak inmany cases. The older unit (MSA 2a) is distinguished by the pro-duction of long, standardised blades; the younger unit (MSA 2b) isdistinguished by the production of large convergent flakes withblades being more irregular. Denticulates are common in MSA 2aand rare in MSA 2b, while infrequent unifacial and bifacial pointsoccur in the latter (Volman, 1980). In both cases, quartzite is the

3 All radiocarbon ages are presented as calibrated ages using the SHCal13 curvefollowing Hogg et al. (2013).


dominant material and radial (here subsuming disc and discoidal)or Levallois reduction accounts for most core forms. Dates place theMSA 2a at between w115 and 90 ka and the MSA 2b betweenw100 and 80 ka (Wurz, 2002; Lombard et al., 2012).

The MSA 2a/2b scheme was originally designed to describetechnological variation in the sequences at two Year-round RainfallZone (YRZ) sites: Klasies River and Nelson Bay Cave. Detailedconsideration suggests that the scheme applies fairly weakly bothwithin the YRZ and beyond, in the Winter- and Summer RainfallZones (WRZ, SRZ) (Fig. 2).

In the YRZ, the site of Blombos has flaking systems orientedtowards the production of flakes rather than blades or convergentsin its M3 unit, and as such matches neither MSA 2a nor 2b despitean age overlap with MSA 2b (Henshilwood et al., 2001b; Jacobset al., 2013). Cape St Blaize has unstandardised blades typical ofMSA 2b but lacks the production of convergents (Thompson andMarean, 2008), while there is no clear separation of blade andconvergent flake production in the extensive MIS 5 sequencedocumented by Thompson et al. (2010) at Pinnacle Point 13b. Of DieKelders (DK), another south-coast YRZ site, Thackeray (2000: 164)states: “DKMSA artefacts are not comparable with the Klasies RiverMouthMSA I [equivalent toMSA 2a]. as the DK collections are notcharacterized by the long flake-blades typically associated with thisstage. Also, quantities of short triangular convergent flake-bladeslike those found in the upper part of the MSA II at Klasies RiverMouth [MSA 2b] were not found”.

In theWRZ, flaking systems at Ysterfontein (Halkett et al., 2003;Wurz, 2012) and Hoedjiespunt (Will et al., 2013) are directed to-wards the production of flakes, with few blades or convergents. AtHoedjiespunt, bipolar cores outnumber radial or Levallois cores.Klipfonteinrand matches the typical characteristics of MSA 2b withrespect to flaking systems (Volman, 1980), however, recent re-excavation by one of us (AM) suggests some mixing in the deeperdeposits. The site also has numerous denticulates (Fig. 3), whichwere not reported during Volman’s (1980) analysis. Only at Die-pkloof has a (currently tentative) case been made for a WRZexpression of flaking systems consistent with MSA 2b (Porraz et al.,2013a). At Apollo 11, situated on the northern margins of the cur-rent WRZ-YRZ the production of large blades occurs in pre-MIS 4levels though convergents are not noted to be a significantassemblage component (Vogelsang et al., 2010).


Figure 3. Selected artefacts from MIS 5-aged archaeological deposits arranged by rainfall zone. 1e3: denticulates from Apollo II Cave (Vogelsang et al., 2010: Fig. 11); 4e6: den-ticulates from Varsche River 3 (Mackay’s images); 7e9: denticulates from Klipfonteinrand (Mackay's images); 10e12: points from Diepkloof, ‘MSA-Mike’; 13e14: points fromDiepkloof, ‘Pre-Still Bay type Lynn’ (Porraz et al., 2013b: Figs. 4 and 5); 15: denticulate from Hoedjiespunt, level AH I; 16: point from Hoedjiespunt, level AH II; 17: denticulate fromHoedjiespunt, level AH III (Will et al., 2013: Figs. 4, 7 and 8); 18e20: denticulates from Ysterfontein (Halkett et al., 2003; courtesy R. Klein); 22e23: cores from Dieplkloof, ‘MSA-Mike’ (Porraz et al., 2013b: Fig. 4); 25e26: cores from Hoedjiespunt levels AH II (25) and AH III (26) (Will et al., 2013: Figs. 5 and 8); 27e29: blades (27e28) and a point (29) fromPinnacle Point 13b (Thompson et al., 2010: Fig. 4); 30e33: points (30e31) and scrapers (32e33) from Nelson Bay Cave (Mitchell, 2002: Fig 4.5; after Volman, 1980: Figs. 16, 17, 22,23); 34e36: blades (34e35) and a point (36) from Klasies River, MSA I; 37: a point from Klasies River, MSA II (Wurz, 2002: Fig. 4); 38e39: cores from Pinnacle Point 13b (Thompsonet al., 2010: Fig. 4); 40e41: cores from Klasies River, MSA I; 42: a core from Klasies River, MSA II (Wurz, 2002: Fig. 3); 43e50: points from Rose Cottage Cave, Malan excavation, pre-Howiesons Poort levels (Wadley and Harper, 1989: Fig. 5); 51e53: notched blades from Melikane (Stewart’s images); 54: a point from Sibudu (Wadley, 2012: Fig. 2); 55e61: points(55e57, 60e61), a blade (58) and a scraper (60) from Border Cave (Beaumont, 1978: Fig 88).



Table 3Summary of results from MIS 4, using only dated sites with detailed assemblage descriptions.

Zone Site Age range (unit) Provisioning Dominant material Dominant flaking products Dominant implements

Quartzite Silcrete Other Flakes Blades Convergents Backed Points Other

WRZ DRS 75e70 ka(Still Bay)

Individual U U U (b)HRS Individual U U U (b)

YRZ AXI n/d U U U (u)BBC Individual U U U (b)

SRZ BC n/d Rhyolite U (b)RCC n/d Opaline U (b)SC Individual Dolerite U (b)UMH n/d U U (b)

WRZ DRS 71e65 ka n/d U Quartz U U U (b)YRZ PP n/d ? U

WRZ DK 65e60 ka(Howiesons Poort)

n/d U Silcrete U NoneDRS Place U U U NotchesKKH Place U Quartzite U U Notches

YRZ AXI Place Mudstone U U NotchesKRM Place U Silcrete U U NotchesPP n/d ? U Notches

SRZ BC n/d Rhyolite U U

RCC n/d Opaline U U U (b)?SC Place ? U U U (b)UMH n/d U U U U (b)?

The abbreviations (u) and (b) after the checks denote unifacial and bifacial points, respectively. There is likely some inconsistency in typological assessment which affects thesummary. For example, unifacial points and convergent scrapers may be conflated or differentiated by different analysts.


The data covering MIS 5 flaking systems in the SRZ are presentlyquite weak, though Melikane presents an interesting example. Theearliest layers at this site contain numerous regular, large blades,which are the defining feature of MSA 2a. However, the relevantlayers date within the range of MSA 2b. Different researchers haveassigned these layers to both MSA 2a and MSA 2b depending onwhether the technologies or the ages are accorded preference,highlighting the problems inherent in these units (Lombard et al.,2012; Stewart et al., 2012).

Consistent with expectations, quartzite accounts for most arte-facts at most YRZ-WRZ sites, including Klasies River, Nelson BayCave, Cape St Blaize, Pinnacle Point, Peers Cave, Diepkloof andKlipfonteinrand. However, most of these sites are situated ingeological contexts dominated by Table Mountain Sandstoneswhere quartzite is usually the most abundant locally-available,flakeable rock. In coastal sites where quartzite is not availableclose to hand, knappers show no obvious preference for its acqui-sition, instead preferring quartz (Hoedjiespunt) or silcrete (Yster-fontein). As Thompson and Marean (2008) suggest, materialselection in the region was probably more strongly influenced bylocal availability than by preference.

Material selection patterns are more difficult to gauge in theSRZ,4 where there appears to be little dramatic sequential change,possibly because fine-grained rocks are more often locally avail-able than in the WRZ-YRZ (Wadley and Harper, 1989; Wadley,2005, 2007; Soriano et al., 2009; Conard et al., 2012). BorderCave provides an exception, with fine-grained chalcedony sourcedfrom >15 km, thus providing insights into the relative frequencyof non-local rock use. Border Cave conforms to the pattern ofhighly local procurement in the earlier MSA, with the MIS 5 layershaving lower frequencies of non-local rocks than those abovethem.

4 In many parts of southernmost Africa, sources of stone used in artefactmanufacture are difficult to isolate, particularly where these occur as outcrops ofvariable quality at variable distances from sites (e.g., quartzites around Apollo 11) oras gravels in fluvial systems (e.g., opalines in the Maloti-Drakensberg). Identifyingbehavioural patterns through material selection works best where isolated point-sources of stone (e.g., silcrete outcrops) show variable prevalence through spaceand time.


While variability in flaking systems and highly localised pat-terns of rock procurement seem characteristic of most sites acrosssouthernmost Africa in MIS 5, there are also spatial patterns inimplement type that appear to track climate regions (Table 2,Fig. 3). Notably, most WRZ-YRZ sites are linked in at least someperiod of their MIS 5 occupation by the occurrence of denticulates.This does not seem to hold for the SRZ. While many SRZ sitesremain undated beyondMIS 4 (if at all), in dated instances at BorderCave, Rose Cottage Cave and Sibudu, denticulates are outnumberedby bifacial and/or unifacial points in late MIS 5 (Pienaar et al., 2008;Wadley, 2012). At Border Cave bifacial point manufacture plausiblybegins in MIS 6 and extends through MIS 5 to MIS 4 (Beaumont,1978; Grün and Beaumont, 2001). Bifacial and unifacial points arealso characteristic of the undated, earlier MSA layers at BushmanRock Shelter, Cave of Hearths, Mwulu’s Cave and Olieboompoort(Tobias, 1949; Eloff, 1969; Louw, 1969; Beaumont, 1978; Volman,1980; Mason and Brain, 1988). Points are not characteristic of allMIS 5 SRZ assemblages, however; such implements appear to bepersistently absent in the higher elevation sites of Lesotho (Jacobset al., 2008a; Stewart et al., 2012).

MIS 4 (74e58 ka)

Like MIS 5, two sequential units are generally identified in MIS4: the Still Bay and the Howiesons Poort (Table 3). The former isidentified by the presence of bifacial points, and the latter by theproduction of backed artefacts and small blades from unipolarprepared cores. Available dates generally place the Still Bay fromw75 to 70 ka and the Howiesons Poort from w65 to 58 ka (Jacobset al., 2008a; though see; Tribolo et al., 2012).

While dated, stratified Still Bay sites remain few, the startingages are similar in the Winter (WRZ), the Year-round (YRZ) and theSummer Rainfall Zones (SRZ) with some SRZ examples extendinginto MIS 5 as noted above. Still Bay technologies do not appear athigh elevations in theMaloti-Drakensberg areas of the SRZ (Stewartet al., 2012), and dated occurrences currently available thus form arough arc around the southern perimeter of South Africa, broadlytracking the plains coastward of the Cape Fold Belt (Fig. 4).

The production of flakes from radial cores provides the mostcommon flaking system in most dated Still Bay assemblages, with


Figure 4. Early MIS 4 sites. Bifacial point-bearing ‘Still Bay’ sites with chronometricages for occupation layers w74e70 ka (circles); undated bifacial point-bearing MSAsites (squares).


Apollo 11 in the YRZ perhaps the exception (Vogelsang et al., 2010).Apollo 11 is also characterised by large blades in this period, whichother Still Bay assemblages generally lack. More typical of Still Bayassemblages across southernmost Africa is the small number ofcores (Henshilwood et al., 2001b; Wadley, 2007; Mackay, 2009;Porraz et al., 2013a). This contrasts with both earlier and later as-semblages at the same sites and implies a difference in techno-logical organisation, perhaps one more closely focussed onindividual provisioning given the maintainable design of thedominant implements (Kelly, 1988; Mackay, 2009; McCall andThomas, 2012).

Material acquisition in the Still Bay differs from that in preced-ing occupations at mostWRZ sites but perhaps not as clearly at sitesin the YRZ and SRZ. At Hollow Rock Shelter and Diepkloof in theWRZ, the proportion of non-local rocks increases dramatically intothe Still Bay (Evans, 1994; Mackay, 2009; Porraz et al., 2013a), whilethe proportion of fine-grained but locally-available quartzite in-creases at Apollo 11 at theWRZ-YRZmargin (Vogelsang et al., 2010).In the first bifacial point-bearing layers at Blombos (YRZ), quartzhas an unusually high percentage, but thereafter silcrete is domi-nant, as it was in the earlier MSA. Further east in the SRZ at Sibudu,locally available dolerite constitutes more than 75% of artefacts inthe Still Bay, though whether the prevalence of hornfels (which isavailable both near site and at >10 km) changes relative to theearlier layers is presently unclear (Wadley, 2005, 2007, 2012).

The bifacial points from Sibudu were initially classified as StillBay because of strong morphotypic agreement between thosespecimens and points from Blombos and Hollow Rock Shelter(Wadley, 2007) (Fig. 5). This in itself suggests either high fidelitytransmission or extraordinary convergence given the >1000 kmthat separates Sibudu from these WRZ and YRZ sites. The currentabsence of documented Still Bay sites across the intervening dis-tance makes transmission across this space appear remarkable,though new research may eventually fill the gap (Fisher et al.,2013).

Despite similarities, there is still considerable morphologicalvariation both within and between assemblages at different sites(Villa et al., 2009). Lombard et al. (2012), for example, report bifacialserrated points from Kaplan’s (1990) Umhlatuzana assemblage inthe SRZ in addition tomore typical Still Bay points. Examples of thisform have not been noted elsewhere despite the recovery of large


numbers of bifacial points from dated and undated contexts(Minichillo, 2005; Villa et al., 2009; Mackay et al., 2010; Högbergand Larsson, 2011). At the maximum distance from Umhlatuzana,Vogelsang et al. (2010) have questioned on morphological groundswhether the points from Apollo 11 should be considered ‘Still Bay’,though the assemblage dates are coherent with those elsewhere.Unifacial points are more common than bifacial points in the Apollo11 sample, something which is also atypical for a Still Bay assem-blage. Vogelsang et al. (2010) also note basal end scrapers at Apollo11 in this period, something which they suggest to be typical of theNamibian Still Bay (cf. Vogelsang, 1998), but which seem to beabsent elsewhere.

Assessing the diachronic distribution of bifacial pieces withinsites is complicated by a tendency to present sequence data asculture historic units, which obscures within-unit trends (Mitchell,1994; Mackay, 2008a, in press). These data are available for somesites, however. At Diepkloof, bifacial pieces exhibit a sigmoid-shaped increase in frequency followed by a comparable decline,resulting in a battleship curve (Mackay, 2009; Porraz et al., 2013a).A sigmoid uptake curve also describes the pattern at Hollow RockShelter, but occupation there appears to cease at the peak of bifacialpoint frequency (Evans, 1994). Though the requisite data are as yetunavailable for Sibudu, it can be inferred that a more complexpattern pertains than at the WRZ examples cited here (Wadley,2012).

The termination of bifacial point production appears broadlysynchronous at most sites atw70 ka (Jacobs et al., 2008a). In manycases, this heralds the start of a period of non-occupation(Minichillo, 2005; Jacobs et al., 2008a; Vogelsang et al., 2010)(Fig. 6). Recently, however, Brown et al. (2012) have presentedevidence for backed artefact production at the YRZ site of PinnaclePoint 5/6 extending back to 71 ka. Though they are reluctant toclassify these assemblages as Howiesons Poort, they argue forcontinuity in implement type and form through to 61 ka.

Of further interest here is Diepkloof in the WRZ, which includesboth Still Bay and Howiesons Poort layers (Rigaud et al., 2006;Porraz et al., 2013a). Jacobs et al. (2008a) suggest a gap betweenthe Still Bay and Howiesons Poort at Diepkloof ofw6 kyr (thousandyears) based on upper ages for the former atw71 ka and lower agesfor the latter of w65 ka. However, the upper Still Bay-assigned ageof 70.9� 2.3 ka derives from layer Kerry, which although it containsbifacial points is better characterised by the production of smallblades, pièces esquillées, and backed artefacts (Mackay, 2009). Thebacked artefacts here include at least two classic crescentic forms(Mackay, 2009), generally considered typical of the HowiesonsPoort (Thackeray, 1992; Wurz, 2002). Porraz et al. (2013a), andclassify Kerry and the layers above it as ‘early Howiesons Poort’.

Given that backed artefacts are present from Kerry at w71 kathrough to layers dated <61.8 ka (Mackay, 2009; Porraz et al.,2013a), the duration of the backed artefact sequence at Diepkloofwould seem strongly similar to that at Pinnacle Point 5/6. Therepeated occurrence of backed artefacts in the latest bifacial point-bearing layers further implies that the Howiesons Poort at Die-pkloof was foreshadowed by, if not rooted in, the Still Bay at thatsite. This is consistent with the fact that the 71e65 ka layers atDiepkloof also witness the first sustained appearance of blade andbladelet production in the sequence. In general, core reduction isunidirectional with exploitation of a single surface in a mannersimilar to that documented in the Howiesons Poort at Klasies River(YRZ) (Villa et al., 2010; Porraz et al., 2013a). Porraz et al. (2013b)suggest that, aside from some changes in blade size, the basicrules guiding flaking systems after 71 ka persist through to the endof the Howiesons Poort around 60 ka. Similar systems also appearat the site of Rose Cottage Cave in the SRZ, though these appear tohave been adapted to the form and small size of local opaline


Figure 5. Selected artefacts from early to mid MIS 4-aged archaeological deposits arranged by rainfall zone. 1e8: points from Apollo 11, Still Bay levels (Vogelsang et al., 2010:Fig. 10); 9e11: points from Hollow Rock Shelter, Still Bay levels (Mackay’s images); 12e15: points from Diepkloof, ‘Still Bay type Larry’; 16e20: backed artifacts from Diepkloof, ‘EarlyHowiesons Poort’, including two crescentic pieces (19 and 20); 21e23: points from Diepkloof, ‘Early Howiesons Poort’ (Porraz et al., 2013b: Figs. 6 and 7; Mackay, 2009: Plate 8.3);24e33: points from Blombos, Still Bay levels (Villa et al., 2009; Fig. 1; Henshilwood, 2012: Fig. 3); 34e40: backed artefacts from Pinnacle Point 5/6 (Brown et al., 2012, Fig. 3); 41e43:points from Sibudu, Still Bay levels (Wadley, 2007: Figs. 4 and 5); 44e49: serrated points from Umhlatuzana, Still Bay levels (Lombard et al., 2010: Fig. 3).



Figure 6. Mid MIS 4 sites. Backed artefact-bearing ‘early Howiesons Poort’ sites withchronometric ages for occupation layers w70 ka.


nodules used (Soriano et al., 2007). Material selection in the post-71 ka layers at Diepkloof is highly variable, but for the most partcontains higher proportions of locally-available rocks such asquartz and quartzite than the subsequent backed artefact-bearinglayers.

From approximately 65 ka, backed artefact-bearing, classically‘Howiesons Poort’ assemblages are in evidence across southern-most Africa (Jacobs et al., 2008a) (Fig. 7, Fig. 8). Some variationmight exist in the timing of coalescence, but this is difficult to assesswithin the error ranges and dose-rate complexities of the variousage estimates (Tribolo et al., 2005; Pienaar et al., 2008; Jacobs et al.,2008a; Guérin et al., 2013). There is also some subtle variabilitybetween climate regions. For example, Howiesons Poort assem-blages in the WRZ and YRZ are associated with a greater than usualprevalence of fine-grained rocks often from non-local sources(Volman, 1980; Singer and Wymer, 1982; Deacon, 1995; Mackay,2010; Brown et al., 2012; Porraz et al., 2013a; though note;

Figure 7. Late MIS 4 sites. Backed artefact-bearing ‘Howiesons Poort’ sites withchronometric ages for occupation layers w65e60 ka (circles); undated ‘HowiesonsPoort’ sites (squares).


Minichillo, 2006). This cannot be solely because such fine-grainedrocks are essential for the production of blades and backed arte-facts, as demonstrated by the prevalence of quartz in subsequentperiods of blade and backed artefact manufacture in the region(Orton, 2006, 2008). This pattern of varying material selection doesnot seem to hold as strongly for the SRZ, though fine-grainedopaline rocks increase in frequency at the western Lesotho low-lands site of Ntloana Tsoana (Mitchell and Steinberg, 1992; Villaet al., 2005; Cochrane, 2006; Soriano et al., 2007; Stewart et al.,2012).

The backed pieces at Klasies River (YRZ) are suggested to havebeen made almost exclusively on blades, while those at Diepkloofand Klein Kliphuis (WRZ) appear to make more use of flake blanks(Wurz,1997;Mackay, 2008b; Porraz et al., 2013a). This patterning ismatched by Clarkson’s (2010) analysis of core forms, which groupsDiepkloof and Klein Kliphuis but differentiates them from KlasiesRiver. Backed artefacts are generally produced on blades at RoseCottage Cave in the SRZ (Soriano et al., 2007), but at Melikane theabundant blades and bladelets are rarely backed (Stewart et al.,2012). Further spatial patterning has been noted in the preva-lence of notched or strangulated blades, which are components ofthe Howiesons Poort at WRZ-YRZ sites including Diepkloof, KlasiesRiver, Klein Kliphuis, Nelson Bay Cave and Pinnacle Point, but not ofSRZ Howiesons Poort assemblages at Rose Cottage Cave, Sibudu orUmhlatuzana (Porraz et al., 2013a). In contrast, bifacial points arenoted in the later Howiesons Poort at Sibudu (de la Pena et al.,2013) and possibly also at Umhlatuzana and Rose Cottage Cave(Wadley and Harper, 1989; Kaplan, 1990), but not at Diepkloof,Klasies River, Klein Kliphuis or Nelson Bay Cave (de la Pena et al.,2013).

Despite these differences, there are broad inter-regional con-sistencies in:

1. The basic form of implements (backed pieces including cres-centic morphologies);

2. The production of small blades using similar flaking systems(Soriano et al., 2007; Villa et al., 2010; Porraz et al., 2013a);

3. Assemblage sizes either proportionally very large (totalnumbers of artefacts) or very dense (numbers of artefacts perunit volume) relative to other industries (cf. Mackay, 2010);

4. The on-site reduction of cores and production of implements.

Data on the diachronic distribution of backed pieces within theHowiesons Poort are available for some sites. Battleship curves canbe observed in backed artefact frequencies in the SRZ sites of BorderCave and Rose Cottage Cave (Beaumont, 1978; Wadley and Harper,1989). Patterns appear more complex in theWRZ-YRZ at Diepkloof,Klein Kliphuis and possibly Klasies River, with periods of increase,decrease, increase and rapid disappearance (Singer and Wymer,1982; Mackay, 2010; Porraz et al., 2013a).

The increase in assemblage sizes, coupled with widespreadevidence for on-site core reduction and implement production, isconsistent with an increased emphasis on place provisioning(Mackay, 2009; McCall and Thomas, 2012; Porraz et al., 2013a).While faunal assemblages differ between sites (Faith, 2013), con-sistency in provisioning only implies consistency in the predict-ability of subsistence conditions rather than in the specifics of theresources harvested. There may be attendant implications forgreater logistical organisation in movements at this time, andconcomitant extended durations of site occupation (Mackay, 2009;McCall and Thomas, 2012). This matches micromorphological ev-idence at sites where such studies have been undertaken(Goldberg et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2013). Similar systems ofprovisioning thus appear to pertain across different climate re-gions in late MIS 4.


Figure 8. Selected artefacts from late MIS 4-aged archaeological deposits arranged by rainfall zone. 1e10: backed artefacts (1e7) and blades (8e10) from Apollo 11, Howiesons Poortlevels (Vogelsang et al., 2010: Fig. 9); 11e15: backed artefacts from Varsche River 3, Howiesons Poort levels; 16: backed artifact from Putslaagte 8, Howiesons Poort levels (Mackay’simages); 17e19: backed artefacts from Klein Kliphuis, Howiesons Poort levels (Mackay’s images); 20e25: backed artefacts (20e22) and blades (23e25) from Diepkloof, ‘Inter-mediate Howiesons Poort’; (Porraz et al., 2013b: Fig. 9); 26e29: backed artefacts from Diepkloof, ‘Late Howiesons Poort’ (Porraz et al., 2013b: Fig. 10); 30e35 cores from KleinKliphuis, Howiesons Poort levels (Mackay’s images); 36e38: cores from Diepkloof, ‘Intermediate Howiesons Poort’; (Porraz et al., 2013b: Fig. 9); 39e41: cores from Diepkloof, ‘LateHowiesons Poort’ (Porraz et al., 2013b: Fig. 10); 42e48: backed artefacts from Nelson Bay Cave, Howiesons Poort levels (Mitchell, 2002: Fig. 4.6; after Volman, 1980: Figs. 27, 28, 30,32); 49e56: backed artefacts (49e53) and blades (54e56) from Klasies River, Howiesons Poort levels (Villa et al., 2010: Fig. 7; Wurz, 2002: Fig. 5); 57e60: cores from Klasies River,Howiesons Poort levels (Villa et al., 2010: Fig. 15; Wurz, 2002: Fig. 5); 61e69: backed artefacts from Rose Cottage Cave, Howiesons Poort levels (Soriano et al., 2007: Fig. 15); 70e76:backed artefacts from Sibudu, Howiesons Poort levels (Lombard and Pargeter, 2008: Fig. 6; Lombard and Phillipson, 2010: Fig. 4; Wadley, 2008: Fig. 4); 77e81: backed artefacts fromUmhlatuzana, Howiesons Poort spits (Kaplan, 1990: Fig. 14); 82e89: backed artefacts (82e86) and blades (87e89) from Border Cave, Howiesons Poort levels (Beaumont, 1978:Fig. 88); 90e95: cores from Sibudu, Howiesons Poort levels (Soriano et al., 2007: Fig. 8).



Table 4Summary of results from MIS 3, using only dated sites with detailed assemblage descriptions.

Zone Site Age range Provisioning Dominant material Dominant flaking products Dominant implements

Quartzite Silcrete Other Flakes Blade(let)s Bipolar LSA Backed Points Other

WRZ DRS 60e50 ka(Post-Howiesons Poort)

Individual? U U U U (u) ScrapersKKH Individual? U U U U U (u) Scrapers

YRZ KRM Individual? U U U U (u) ScrapersSRZ BC n/d Rhyolite U (u)

RCC n/d Opaline U U (u) ScrapersSC Place? n/d U (u)UMH n/d Hornfels U (u)

YRZ AXI w39 ka(Late MSA, early LSA)

n/d U U NoneSRZ BC n/d Quartz U U None

HAS n/d Opaline U NoneMEL n/d Opaline U NoneSC Individual? Hornfels U U (u, b) Hollow-basedUMH Place? Hornfels U (u, b) Hollow-based

YRZ AXI w31 ka(Final MSA, early LSA)

n/d U U NoneSRZ CJ n/d Quartz? U U None

HNK n/d Quartz? U U NoneJS n/d Quartz? U U NoneMEL n/d Opaline U U NoneRCC n/d Opaline U U U U ‘Knives’SHH n/d Opaline U U U ScrapersSTB n/d Hornfels ‘Knives’

The abbreviations (u) and (b) after the checks denote unifacial and bifacial points, respectively.

Figure 9. Early MIS 3 sites. Unifacial point-bearing ‘post-Howiesons Poort’ sites withchronometric ages for occupation layersw60e50 ka (circles); dated and undated post-Howiesons Poort assemblages with few or no unifacial points (triangles); undatedunifacial point-bearing post-Howiesons Poort occurrences (squares).


Before concluding this section, the site of Die Kelders requiresspecific discussion. The site has a deep Middle Stone Age (MSA)sequence with ages suggesting that some or much of it accumu-lated in MIS 4 (Feathers and Bush, 2000; Schwarcz and Rink, 2000).The site also has a spike in silcrete towards the top of the depositsuggestive of a YRZ Howiesons Poort component. Yet, in contrast tosites ascribed to the Howiesons Poort in this period, the layers withhigh silcrete percentages in all samples tend to have lower fre-quencies of artefacts (Thackeray, 2000). Furthermore, while twobacked artefacts were found, Thackeray (2000: 164) describes themas “idiosyncratic” and not representative of a Howiesons Poortcomponent at the site. As with MIS 5, Die Kelders appears not tomatch the typical characteristics of other regional sites in MIS 4.

MIS 3 (58e24 ka)

Lithic assemblages in MIS 3 are notably more heterogeneousthan those in MIS 4 (Volman, 1980; Mitchell, 2008; Conard et al.,2012), with post-Howiesons Poort, late MSA, final MSA and earlyLSA units noted at various sites (Table 4). The post-Howiesons Poortindustry immediately follows the Howiesons Poort industry bothtemporally and stratigraphically at numerous sites. The change ismarked by the disappearance or frequency decline in backed ar-tefacts and their replacement by unifacial points and scrapers. Theemphasis on blade production decreases and flakes tend to bewider and thicker. These changes have been described as gradual atsites in the Winter (WRZ), Year-round (YRZ) and Summer RainfallZones (SRZ) (Soriano et al., 2007; Villa et al., 2010; Mackay, 2011;Porraz et al., 2013a). In WRZ and YRZ sites the prevalence of fine-grained rock also declines, something not noted in SRZ sites forreasons discussed above. As with the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort,the defining characteristics of the post-Howiesons Poort can berecognised in sites across all climate regions (Figs. 9 and 10).

While consistencies in early MIS 3 assemblages are numerousand widespread, there is spatial patterning to the occurrence ofcounter-examples. For example, typical unifacial points are absentfrom the post-Howiesons Poort MSA levels at sites towards thenorthern limits of the modern WRZ (Vogelsang et al., 2010; Dewarand Stewart, 2012; Steele et al., 2012). At other WRZ-YRZ sites,including Boomplaas, Klipfonteinrand, Montagu Cave and NelsonBay Cave, occupation directly after the Howiesons Poort ceases


altogether (Volman, 1980). Where occupation does persist in theWRZ-YRZ, assemblage size generally decreases dramatically (Singerand Wymer, 1982; Mackay, 2009, 2010; Porraz et al., 2013a).

In the SRZ, by contrast, few sites seem to be abandoned at theend of the Howiesons Poort and several appear to have beenoccupied for the first time, including Driekoppen, Holley Shelter,Sehonghong, Sibebe and Siphiso (Cramb, 1952, 1961; Davies, 1975;Price-Williams, 1981; Wallsmith, 1990; Jacobs et al., 2008a). Thedecrease in artefact numbers also appears more muted in the SRZthan in the WRZ. Indeed, the post-Howiesons Poort at Sibudu isnotably rich, comprising 28 layers that span some 0.85 m (Jacobset al., 2008b) and prompting Conard et al. (2012: 181) to describethe site as having been occupied “intensely” in this period (notealso Goldberg et al., 2009; Wadley et al., 2011). This contrasts withsites such as Diepkloof, Klasies River and Klein Kliphuis in theWRZ,where Howiesons Poort deposits are far more extensive than those


Figure 10. Selected artefacts from early MIS 3-aged archaeological deposits arranged by rainfall zone. 1e9: points from Klein Kliphuis, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Mackay’simages); 10e15: points (10e13), a retouched backed artifact (14) and a blade (15) from Dieplkloof, ‘post-Howiesons Poort type Claude’ (Porraz et al., 2013b: Fig. 11); 16e19: coresfrom Klein Kliphuis, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Mackay’s images); a core from Dieplkloof, ‘post-Howiesons Poort type Claude’ (Porraz et al., 2013b: Fig. 11); 21e29: convergentflakes/points (21e23), scrapers (24e27), and cores (28e29) from Klasies River, MSA III levels (Villa et al., 2010: Figs. 21 and 22); 30e32: points from Rose Cottage Cave, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Soriano et al., 2007: Fig. 6); 33e40: points from Ntloana Tsoana, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Mitchell and Steinberg, 1992: Fig. 7); 41e46: pointsfrom Sibudu, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Conard et al., 2012: Figs. 7 and 11); 47e53 points from Sibudu, Late MSA levels (Villa et al., 2005: Fig 10; Villa and Lenoir, 2006: Fig. 7);54e64: points from Holley Shelter, ‘Lower Strata’ (Cramb, 1961:46); 65e68: cores from Rose Cottage Cave, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Soriano et al., 2007: Fig. 13); 69e73: coresfrom Ntloana Tsoana, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Mitchell and Steinberg, 1992: Fig. 4); 74e77: cores from Sibudu, post-Howiesons Poort levels (Conard et al., 2012: Fig. 4); 78e86:cores from Sibudu, Late MSA levels (Villa et al., 2005: Figs. 6 and 8).



Figure 11. Late MIS 3 sites. MSA sites with chronometric ages for occupation layersw39 ka (diamonds); MSA sites with chronometric ages for occupation layers w31 ka(squares); LSA sites with chronometric ages for occupation layers >30 ka (circles).


in the post-Howiesons Poort, the latter presumably reflecting anattenuated occupational signal (Singer and Wymer, 1982; Mackay,2010; Miller et al., 2013; Porraz et al., 2013b). While Mackay(2009) has argued for an eventual return to individual provision-ing in the post-Howiesons Poort at Klein Kliphuis, the intensiveoccupation at Sibudu suggests this may not be a widespreadcomponent of technological/settlement organisation.

After 50 ka, the cessation of occupation encompasses rockshelter sites across the WRZ-YRZ (Fig. 11). Few if any sites in theseregions have robust ages in the range from 50 to 25 ka, and wherethese do occur assemblage sizes are small and difficult to charac-terise (Mackay, 2009, 2010; Jacobs, 2010; Thompson et al., 2010;Högberg and Larsson, 2011). Klein et al. (2004) have suggestedpotential abandonment of the region at this time (though noteMitchell, 2008). Apollo 11 and Boomplaas on the fringes of themodern WRZ-YRZ are presently the only two sites in the region tohave produced convincing, finite radiocarbon ages for sizable as-semblages between 50 and 25 ka (Wendt, 1976; Deacon, 1979;Vogelsang et al., 2010). This stands in marked contrast to the SRZ,where robust occupation is documented at numerous sites be-tween 50 and 25 ka (Carter and Vogel, 1974; Opperman, 1987;Kaplan, 1990; Wallsmith, 1990; Wadley, 1993; Opperman, 1996;Wadley and Jacobs, 2004; Tribolo et al., 2005; Pienaar et al.,2008; Jacobs et al., 2008a,b; Mitchell and Arthur, 2010; Stewartet al., 2012). Unfortunately, in many cases the relevant assem-blages remain poorly described, making it difficult to assess inter-site patterning in technological systems.

Defining characteristics are provided for a distinct final MSAindustry dating around 39 ka at Sibudu (Wadley, 2005; Jacobs et al.,2008b) (Fig. 11). Points (both bifacial and unifacial) are commonand a distinctive morphology (hollow based points) appears(Fig. 12). Such implements are also present in comparably-ageddeposits at nearby Umhlatuzana (Kaplan, 1990; Mohapi, 2013).Presently this morphology is specific to these two sites, though adecontextualized example has been reported from Kleinmonde atthe southern edge of the SRZ (Clark, 1959).Wadley (2005) notes thepaucity of cores in the w39 ka assemblages at Sibudu, with thosethat are present typically bipolar. In this respect, Sibudu contrastswith Umhlatuzana, where cores are well represented and platformcores are more common than bipolar cores (though these are also


prevalent). The highland SRZ sites of Melikane and Ha Soloja havebroadly similar aged-deposits to Sibudu and Umhlatuzana, thoughas seems typical of Lesotho sites, points are absent and insteadblade-based reduction with little retouch defines these assem-blages (Carter and Vogel, 1974; Stewart et al., 2012).

A subsequent pulse of occupation associated with final MSAtechnology centres on w31 ka. This is represented at Rose CottageCave, Sehonghong and Strathalan B (Opperman, 1996; Clark, 1999;Jacobs et al., 2008a), all situated quite close together in the SRZ, aswell as Apollo 11 on the northern YRZ margin (Wendt, 1976;Deacon, 1979) (Fig. 11). While little detail is available for theApollo 11 assemblage, there is evidence for similarities in techno-logical systems between SRZ sites. Retouched points occur at RoseCottage Cave, but these are not typical of the retouched component,which is dominated by straight sided scrapers or ‘knives’ (Clark,1999) (Fig. 12). Cores are common and feature a mix of rotatedand bipolar techniques, while bladelets and flakes are both present.Sehonghong exhibits very similar technological characteristics inthis period, though cores are mostly irregular and flat, andretouched flakes uncommon (Carter, 1978; Carter et al., 1988). AtStrathalan B, the hornfels-dominated assemblage contains scraperswith similar morphologies to those at Rose Cottage Cave andSehonghong (Opperman, 1996). There may also be a late MSAw32e35 ka component at Umhlatuzana but the extent to whichthis can be understood as a coherent assemblage or the product ofmixing is unclear, given stratigraphic problems with the site andthe fact that artefacts similar to those in the subsequent MIS 2Robberg unit are found in this latest MSA at the site.

Umhlatuzana notwithstanding, MSA artefacts occur in this pulseat several sites, with MSA flake forms suggested to persist atStrathalan B through to w24 ka. In contrast, LSA technologies arefound in SRZ sites north of 27�S from >30 ka (Fig. 11). At BorderCave, dates of w40 ka have been presented for the appearance ofthe LSA, based on the presence of organic artefacts taken to betypical of modern San material culture, including poisons, bonepoints and ostrich eggshell beads (d’Errico et al., 2012b). Organicpreservation at Border Cave is exceptional, however, and conse-quently using these organic finds to define the technology of theperiod presents problems. The 40 ka lithic technology at BorderCave seems best characterised in terms of the bipolar reduction ofquartz pebbles with the production of few implements; somethingshared with Cave James, Heuningneskrans, Jubilee Shelter andKathu Pan, which have all been claimed as examples of LSA as-semblages antedating 30 ka, though the dating remains weak(Wadley, 1993). Melikane is presently the only SRZ site beyond thiscluster with potentially LSA-aligned technologies from w40 ka(Stewart et al., in Press).

MIS 2 (24e12 ka)

MIS 2 includes two sequential units, a poorly-defined early LSAand the subsequent Robberg industry, and is marked by the re-emergence of occupation across the Winter (WRZ) and Year-round (YRZ) Rainfall Zones. Like-aged deposits also occur acrossthe SRZ (Davies, 1975; Deacon, 1979, 1982; Kaplan, 1990; Manhire,1993; Wadley, 1993; Mitchell, 1995; Orton, 2006; Mackay, 2010;Vogelsang et al., 2010; Orton et al., 2011; Dewar and Stewart,2012) (Fig. 13). All assemblages in all climate regions are classi-fied as LSA from the start of MIS 2, reflecting the disappearance ofradial and Levallois techniques throughout southernmost Africa(Table 5). Beyond this similarity, the earliest technologies in thisperiod do exhibit some spatial patterning. Flaking systemsemphasise bladelet production with some additional use of bi-polar technique in early LSA assemblages >22 ka at the SRZ sitesof Sehonghong (Mitchell, 1995) and Rose Cottage Cave (Clark,


Figure 12. Selected artifacts from late MIS 3-aged archaeological deposits in the Summer Rainfall Zone (SRZ). 1e5: hollow-based (1e2), bifacial (3) and unifacial (4e5) points fromSibudu, final MSA levels (Villa and Lenoir, 2006: Fig. 6); 6e12: unifacial points from Umhlatuzana, final MSA spits 23e19 (Mohapi, 2013: Figs. 5a and 5b); 13e19: hollow-based (13e17) and unifacial (18e19) points from Umhlatuzana, final MSA spits 18e16 (Mohapi, 2013: Figs. 4a and 4b); 20: a hollow-based point from Kleinmonde (Clark, 1959: Fig. 32); 21e30:bladelets from Melikane, final MSA levels (Stewart’s images); 31e34: bipolar cores from Melikane, final MSA levels (Stewart’s images); 35e40: bipolar cores (35e37), a backedartifact (38) and bladelets (39e40) from Border Cave, Early Later Stone Age levels (Beaumont, 1978: Fig. 88); 41e44: scrapers including two ‘knives’ (41e42) from Sehonghong, MSA/LSA transitional levels (Mitchell, 2002: Fig. 5.3); 45e48: ‘knives’ (45e47) and a point (48) from Strathalan B, terminal MSA level (Floor VBP) (Opperman, 1996: Fig. 8); 49e60:‘knives’ from Rose Cottage Cave, MSA/LSA transitional levels (Clark, 1999: Fig. 6); 61e65: cores from Sehonghong, MSA/LSA transitional levels (Carter et al., 1988 Fig. 4.30).


1999). At Melikane, located only 24 km from Sehonghong (40 kmfollowing the Senqu River Valley), early MIS 2 sees bladelet pro-duction phased out in favour of extremely heavy bipolar reduction.At Kathu Pan and Shongweni, early LSA assemblages are small and


appear difficult otherwise to characterise (Wadley, 1993). In theWRZ-YRZ at Elands Bay Cave and Boomplaas, assemblages datingto the early LSA tend to be bladelet-poor, with a more markedemphasis on bipolar reduction (Deacon, 1982; Orton, 2006).


Figure 13. MIS 2 sites. LSA sites with chronometric ages 24e12 ka.


After 22 ka there is another period of broad coalescence acrosssouthernmost Africa, in the industry known as the Robberg. Flakingsystems involve a strong emphasis on bladelet production fromsmall platform cores (Fig. 14). Cores are usually numerous and as-semblages large, while retouched implements are infrequent.Within the limits of these defining attributes there are noted pat-terns in material prevalence and the relative contribution of bipolarreduction to assemblages; quartz and bipolar reduction are morecommon in the WRZ and northern SRZ, and crypto-crystalline sil-icates (with less bipolar) more typical in the southern and highlandSRZ sites (Mitchell, 1988). There may also be instances of coeval butdistinct assemblages dating to this period, such as the non-microlithic MIS 2 assemblages at Apollo 11 (Wendt, 1976).

The rubric of ‘Robberg’ also masks interesting and potentiallyinformative complexities in timing and assemblage composition.With respect to assemblage composition there are marked within-Robberg material changes at sites in the WRZ-YRZ, notably atNelson Bay Cave, Byneskranskop and Boomplaas, all of which seepotentially asynchronous, short-lived but quite dramatic spikes insilcrete frequency (Deacon, 1978, 1982; Schweitzer and Wilson,1983). Similarly dramatic changes in the frequencies of fine-grained rocks have not been documented at Robberg occurrencesin the SRZ.

Table 5Summary of results from MIS 2, using only dated sites with detailed assemblage descrip

Zone Site Age range Dominant material

Quartz Opaline Other Flak

WRZ EBC 22e24 ka(Early LSA)

U

YRZ BMP U SilcreteSRZ MEL U

SHH U

WRZ EBC w22e14 ka(Robberg)

U

FRK U

KKH U

YRZ AXI n/d U

BMP U

BNK U

NBC U QuartziteMLK U

SRZ RCC U

SHH U

UMH U


With respect to timing, while terminal dates for the Robberg areas late as 12e13 ka at Ravenscraig, Rose Cottage Cave, Sehonghong,Siphiso and Umhlatuzana in the SRZ (Kaplan, 1990; Wadley, 1993;Mitchell, 1995), alternative non-microlithic industries seem to bein place in someWRZ and YRZ sites by 14 ka (Manhire, 1993; Orton,2006). Mitchell et al. (1998) have previously noted that asynchro-nous technological and occupational responses characterised pat-terns between vegetation biomes at the Pleistocene/Holoceneboundary, a pattern accounted for by the different controls onrainfall regimes.

Discussion

Despite the uneven data, there are clear patterns in the latePleistocene archaeological sequence of southernmost Africa(Table 6). In MIS 5, heterogeneity in flaking systems seems tocharacterise assemblages, while material selection is generallyhighly responsive to local availability. To that extent, broadly-applied schemes such as MSA 2a/2b appear to have limited value.However, there are climate region consistencies that distinguishtheWRZ-YRZ from the SRZ; denticulates are common to sites in theformer while points of various types are typical of those in thelatter, particularly in dated assemblages. Assuming that unifacially-retouched implement types transfer more easily than flakingtechniques, and given the prevalence of local-scale stone procure-ment and within-climate region heterogeneity in core reductionand flake production in MIS 5, these patterns most plausibly reflectinformation transfer between loosely interacting groups whosetechnological systems were strongly locally-adapted. The evidencefor this is currently clearest for sites in the WRZ-YRZ. This inter-pretation assumes some degree of contemporaneity of assemblageformation in these climate regions. If, alternatively, we assume thatthe observed differences arise from different periods of assemblageformation, this in turn implies asynchronous occupation of the SRZand WRZ-YRZ regions in MIS 5. Where dating allows considerationof this possibility it is non-supportive; sites with similar ages in theSRZ and YRZ have different technologies.

In either case, the weakness of denticulates as a spatio-temporalmarker (e.g., Steele et al., 2012; Wurz, 2012) is probably overstated.While they may not be discrete markers to the same extent ashollow-based points or backed crescents, denticulates in concertwith a paucity of other retouch types appears to characterise WRZ-YRZ sites antedating MIS 4. With perhaps minor exceptions they donot recur in large numbers in later periods, and the extent that they

tions.

Dominant flaking products Dominant implements

es Blade(let)s Bipolar LSA Backed Points Other

U U NoneU U NoneU U None

U U U NoneU U U NoneU U U NoneU U U None

U n/dU U NoneU U NoneU U U NoneU U NoneU U NoneU U NoneU U None


Figure 14. Selected artefacts from MIS 2-aged archaeological deposits arranged by rainfall zone. 1e18: blades and bladelets (1e8, 12e18) and backed artefacts (9e11) from siteAK2006/001G (Orton, 2008: Figs. 3 and 4); 19e30: blades and bladelets from Putslaagte 8, Robberg levels (Mackay’s images); 31e37: blades and bladelets from Byneskranskop 1,Robberg levels (courtesy J. Pargeter); 38e40: cores from site AK2006/001G (Orton, 2008: Fig 2); 41e45: cores from Putslaagte 8, Robberg levels (Mackay’s images); 46e52: bladeletsfrom Nelson Bay Cave, Robberg levels (courtesy J. Pargeter); 53e68: backed artefacts (53e57), scrapers (58e61) and cores (62e68) from Nelson Bay Cave, Robberg levels (Deacon,1978: Figs. 8 and 9); 69e99: blades and bladelets (69e90), backed artefacts (91e93) and scrapers (94e99) from Rose Cottage Cave, Robberg levels (Wadley, 1993: Fig. 5); 100e110:blades and bladelets (100e104), backed bladelets (105e106), a retouched blade (107), and scrapers (108e110) from Sehonghong, Robberg levels (Mitchell, 1995: Fig. 8); 111e121:cores from Rose Cottage Cave, Robberg levels (Wadley, 1993, Fig. 6); 122e130: cores (122e127) and pièces esquillées (128e130) from Sehonghong, Robberg levels (Mitchell, 1995:Fig. 5).



Table 6Summary of changes and scales of interaction for all time periods.

Period Provisioning Material selection Flaking system Implements

Form Scale Form Scale Form Scale Form Scale

MIS 5 Limited data Limited data Local Local Limited data Limited data Denticulates, points RegionalMIS 4 early Individual Inter-regional Local, non-local Regional Radial Inter-regional Bifacial points Inter-regionalMIS 4 mid Limited data Limited data Non-local Regional Blade Regional Backed artefacts RegionalMIS 4 late Place Inter-regional Local, non-local Regional Blade Inter-regional Backed artefacts Inter-regionalMIS 3 early Variable Regional Local, non-local Regional Limited data Limited data Unifacial points, scrapers Inter-regionalMIS 3 mid & late Limited data Limited data Local, non-local Local Radial, bladelet, bipolar Local Hollow based points,

‘knives’, noneLocal

MIS 3/2 Limited data Limited data Local Local Bladelet, bipolar Local None Inter-regionalMIS 2 Limited data Inter-regional Local, non-local Regional Bladelet, bipolar Inter-regional None Inter-regional

‘Scale’ denotes the broadest spatial scale at which similarities are manifest across southernmost Africa at any given time. Italic text is used where data sets are too limited foruseful inference.


do is probably less than bifacial points, unifacial points or backedartefacts.

Bifacial and unifacial points appear in parts of the WRZ-YRZaround the start of MIS 4. The morphology of these pieces isstrongly similar to like-aged points in the SRZ. Given this and thecomplexity of point production as outlined by Villa et al. (2009), itseems unlikely that the appearance of these implements is entirely aconsequence of convergence (independent invention in differentlocations). The more plausible alternative is that the advent of theStill Bay reflects the interaction of populations across southernmostAfrica. While product copying may account for the spread of thistechnology, the similarity in form across >1000 km implies highfidelity transmission that is more likely to reflect process copying,and thus learning from individuals through extended periods oftransmission. The sequence noted by Porraz et al. (2013a) at Die-pkloof in which bifacial points appear immediately before a dra-matic change in flaking systems around the start of MIS 4 mayreflect initial population interaction followed by greater integration.

The most likely source for this technology was in the SRZ. Whiledating is often poor, several sites in the SRZ have bifacial pointsantedating MIS 4 and other, undated sites in the region havebifacial points extending down to their deepest levels. This is incontrast to the WRZ and YRZ where bifacial points have only beenencountered either as isolated instances or in discrete bands, whichare invariably not the oldest sequence component. Sites in theWRZalso tend to exhibit sigmoid-shaped uptake curves where that canbe discerned. Sibudu, Border Cave and possibly Rose Cottage Caveare presently the only sites in southernmost Africa that preservedistinct phases of bifacial point production antedating 76 ka. MIS 5-aged bifacial points may occur at Blombos, but Jacobs et al. (2013)preclude a start for the Still Bay earlier than 75.5 ka. Further sup-porting an eastern origin is the diversity of forms in that region,including serrated examples, and the non-Still Bay-like form of StillBay-aged points at Apollo 11, which is the maximum distance, andthus the maximum number of transfers, from the eastern SRZassuming movement along the southern coastal arc.

These observations should not be taken to mean that the StillBay was strictly a socially-mediated phenomenon, but rather thatits spread probably had a socially-mediated component. At thesame time, there aremarked consistencies between climate regionsin other elements of technological organisation at this time, mostclearly in the paucity of cores. This observation in combinationwiththe maintainable design of bifacial points (Bleed, 1986; Kelly, 1988),suggests widespread use of individual provisioning, attendant onsome consistency in subsistence conditions, most likely in theirpredictability rather than the specifics of the fauna and floraharvested.

One other notable issue here is the apparent non-uptake ofbifacial point technology in Lesotho. While bifacial points occur


throughout many late Pleistocene sequences in the SRZ, there iscurrently no evidence of periods of concerted bifacial pointmanufacture in the highlands of Lesotho either in MIS 4 or earlier(Carter et al., 1988; Stewart et al., 2012). This may reflect non-occupation of the region in early MIS 4 (Stewart et al., in press)though it does not explain the distinction in MIS 5 or the laterabsence of points in MIS 3. Local zones of non-uptake are consistentwith expectations for the diffusion of innovations.

From w71 to 65 ka, and broadly coincident with the coolestperiod of MIS 4 in Antarctic records (Jouzel et al., 2007), the clearestoccupational signal is in the WRZ-YRZ. The technological charac-teristics of assemblages from the two sites occupied at this time(Diepkloof and Pinnacle Point) are similar to those which followacross southernmost Africa dating w65e60 ka. At Diepkloof, ele-ments of this system have their roots in the preceding period.Provisioning systems at this time are difficult to assess with theavailable data, but given the apparently distinct regional patterningit seems plausible that the production of blades and backed arte-facts at this time was a local innovation.

After 65 ka, comparable technological systems are found acrosssouthernmost Africa. Similarities in assemblage structure consis-tent with place provisioning suggest underlying similarities in thepredictability of subsistence conditions, though these do notreadily account for noted consistencies in core reduction and bladeproduction systems across different climate regions. These consis-tencies in flaking systems seem more likely to arise from processcopying, again implying strong interaction between populationsacross southernmost Africa. Besides these similarities arecontinued climate-region differences in the blank form used for theproduction of backed artefacts (flakes and blades in the WRZ;blades only in the YRZ and SRZ) and in the forms of secondaryimplements. The WRZ and YRZ sites often seem to have numerousnotched pieces along with backed artefacts at times within theHowiesons Poort, while several SRZ sites have bifacial points, whichare uncommon or absent in this period outside the region. Mostplausibly these differences reflect continuing regional traditionsover-printed by similarities arising from interaction. The traditionof bifacial pointmanufacture in the SRZ appears to begin beforeMIS4 and extend well into MIS 3; the presence of such implements inthe WRZ-YRZ appears much more temporally constrained.

Significant occupational changes occur at the transition fromMIS 4 to MIS 3. These are most apparent in the WRZ-YRZ, wherenumerous sites are abandoned. No comparable changes are notedin the SRZ, where instead there are some indicators of increases insite use. Occupation of sites on the north-eastern edge of the WRZe Klipfonteinrand, Boomplaas and Montagu Cave e show cessationof occupation immediately after the Howiesons Poort (thoughBoomplaas shows brief later reoccupation in mid-MIS 3). Wheredocumented, flaking systems appear to document greater



heterogeneity in this period. The dominant implementmorphology, unifacial points, is common to SRZ and southernWRZ-YRZ sites, but does not appear in the northern WRZ or YRZ atVR3, Spitzkloof A or Apollo 11. In general, this patterning matchesexpectations of a contraction of the WRZ along axes A and C ofChase and Meadows (2007). The implication is that processesfacilitating inter-regional similarities in late MIS 4 and potentiallyunder-written by expansion of the zone of westerly influence hadbegun to fragment by early MIS 3.

This fragmentation accelerated into mid- and late MIS 3, whenweak occupational and technological signals in the WRZ-YRZ arecontrastedwith strong if pulsed occupation in the SRZ. Increasingly,localised technological patterning may also be reflected in the SRZin this period. The production of hollow-based points datingw39 ka at Sibudu and Umhlatuzana is not matched in nearbyLesotho, while south-eastern SRZ sites do not seem to sharedominant core reduction systems with one another. Interaction atthis time appears to have been highly localised. This aside, tech-nologies in southern SRZ sites (with the possible exception ofMelikane) are still characteristically MSA. The northern SRZ sites, incontrast, are characterised by LSA technology, including theabsence of radial and Levallois reduction, the manufacture of os-trich eggshell beads and other organic technologies, and the pro-duction of bored stones. These last items may have an MSAantiquity further north in Zimbabwe (Cooke, 1955, 1971), poten-tially providing a reservoir for their appearance.

Middle Stone Age-assigned technologies persist in the southernSRZ and northernmostWRZ through tow25 ka, but soon thereafterLSA technologies in the form of bladelet production appear acrosssouthernmost Africa (with the possible exception of Apollo 11).There are gross similarities in core form, a persistent lack ofretouched pieces other than infrequent backed artefacts, and theproduction of large numbers of small blades. There is a prima faciecase for broad regional interaction and strong population inter-connectedness at this time, however, the level of detail in analysisof artefact production/reduction to which MIS 4 technologies havebeen subjected have yet to be applied to MIS 2 assemblages. Whilethere is some genetic evidence to suggest an important period ofpopulation flux in southernmost Africa around 30 ka (Pickrell et al.,2012), further discussion of the mechanisms underlying the spreadof small blade technologies in MIS 2 awaits better dating coupledwith more detailed technological analysis of assemblages fromacross the subcontinent. This is likely to be particularly revealinggiven the degree of both occupational and technological variabilityeven within sites from 22 to 12 ka.

Coalescence and fragmentation in the late Pleistocenearchaeology of southernmost Africa

The data presented here suggest a complex set of coalescent andfragmented technological relationships across southernmost Africathrough the period 130e12 ka. In this depiction, coalescence islargely restricted to but not entirely coeval with cooler conditionsin MIS 4 and MIS 2, with non-conforming patterns in MIS 5, MIS 3and potentially the onset of MIS 1. Coalescence through much ofMIS 4 is also consistent with Chase’s (2010) hypothesis of anexpansion of westerly influence across southernmost Africa duringglacial peaks, though as noted the archaeological pattern is morecomplex than singular. As an aside, we can note that the suggestionof coalescence and fragmentation post-70 ka is not affected by ourchoice of chronologies for Diepkloof. Both the Jacobs et al. (2008a)and Tribolo et al. (2012) chronologies allow for an early HowiesonsPoort in the WRZ-YRZ antedating 65 ka and are broadly in-phasethereafter.


The suggestion of variable coalescence/fragmentation has im-plications for the way we understand the occurrence of culturalcomplexity in southernmost Africa through the late Pleistocene(Jacobs and Roberts, 2009; Powell et al., 2009; Richerson et al.,2009; d’Errico and Stringer, 2011; Ziegler et al., 2013). Prior todiscussing this, the point needs to be made that characterising MIS4 industries like the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort as complexbased on flaked stone artefacts is inappropriate (Mackay, in press).Bifacial points and backed artefacts have deep antiquity in Africaand do not first appear in MIS 4 (Beaumont, 1978; McBrearty, 1988;Barham, 2002; Yellen et al., 2005; Barton et al., 2009). Nor, as hasbeen discussed, do they disappear in MIS 3. Pressure flaking mayfirst be in evidence in MIS 4 but heat treatment extends into MIS 6(Brown et al., 2009; Mourre et al., 2010). Ornaments, abstract en-gravings and evidence for paint kits also all antedate MIS 4 in Africa(Bouzouggar et al., 2007; Henshilwood et al., 2009, 2011). What isunusual about MIS 4 in southernmost Africa, and the Still Bay andHowiesons Poort in particular, is less the presence than the fre-quency of symbolic items, bone tools and ornaments (Henshilwoodand Sealy, 1997; Henshilwood et al., 2001a, 2002; d’Errico et al.,2005; Backwell et al., 2008; d’Errico et al., 2008; Texier et al.,2010, 2013; Vanhaeren et al., 2013).

Numerous researchers have observed that larger populationshave a greater capacity to generate and maintain complex behav-ioural variants than smaller populations (Shennan, 2001; Henrich,2004; Collard et al., 2013; Derex et al., 2013), and that this mayexplain some changes in the late Pleistocene record of southern-most Africa (Powell et al., 2009). Archaeologically, however, pop-ulation increase and decrease are often difficult to demonstrate dueto a large number of potentially confounding factors (Surovell andBrantingham, 2007; Dogandzic and McPherron, 2013; Sealy, inpress). An alternative possibility is that early and late MIS 4 mayhave been periods of greater interaction between populationsrather than increases in the total number of individuals (Jacobs andRoberts, 2009). As Henrich (2010) has discussed, interconnectedpopulations are likely to have diffused novel fitness-enhancinginformation more rapidly than weakly connected populations,providing adaptive advantages (Kuhn, 2012). Inter-connectedpopulations may also have been more resilient, diminishing thefrequency of local population extinctions (Stiner and Kuhn, 2006;Premo and Kuhn, 2010). Furthermore, it has been argued thatpopulation interaction was a particularly relevant variable in theproduction of personal ornaments and identity markers (Kuhn andStiner, 2007; Sterelny, 2011, 2014; Kuhn, 2014; Stiner, 2014),something common to both the Still Bay and the Howiesons Poort.

There is support for the idea of a relationship between coales-cence and cultural complexity in the sequence from Diepkloof.Howiesons Poort or Howiesons Poort-like technology extends fromw71 to 60 ka and occurs in levels that include recurrent motifsengraved on ostrich eggshells, some of which may have served aswater flasks. These presently constitute the only clear evidence ofconventionally maintained abstract designs in the MSA (if imple-ment types are excluded). The practice of ostrich eggshellengraving is not wholly coeval with Howiesons Poort-like tech-nologies, however. Other than a few early outlying instances, thebulk of the examples recovered so far relate to layers dated w65e60 ka in both the Jacobs and Tribolo chronologies (Jacobs et al.,2008a; Texier et al., 2013), when Howiesons Poort-like assem-blages are in evidence across southernmost Africa. Notably it is alsoat this time that the practice of engraving ostrich eggshell extendsover 800 km to the northern and south-western margins of theWRZ (Texier et al., 2013; Henshilwood et al., 2014). In this hy-pothesis, the disappearance of complexity, including decoratedostrich eggshell, reflects the fragmentation of population interac-tion around the termination of MIS 4, which accelerated into later



MIS 3. This does not necessitate population decline, though such issuggested in the WRZ-YRZ by the weak occupational evidencethere. Any local population extinctions associated with fragmen-tation might further have accelerated the process of informationloss (Premo and Kuhn, 2010).

Encouragingly, there is evidence for the recurrence of orna-mentation in the later coalescent phase of early MIS 2. This evi-dence includes: engraved ostrich eggshell at Boomplaas,Byneskrankop and Melkhoutboom (Deacon et al., 1976; Deacon,1979; Schweitzer and Wilson, 1983), bone and ostrich eggshellbeads at Boomplaas, Buffelskloof, Faraoskop, Kathu Pan, Nelson BayCave, Rose Cottage Cave, Sehonghong and possibly also Elands BayCave (Opperman, 1978; Deacon, 1982; Manhire, 1993; Wadley,1993; Mitchell, 1995; John Parkington, Personal communication),bone ornaments from Buffelskloof (Opperman, 1978), and a marineshell pendant and Nassarius kraussianus shell bead at Sehonghong(Mitchell, 1995). The earlyMIS 2 layers at Rose Cottage Cave containfragments of marine shell, implying contacts with the coast 330 kmsouth-east across the Maloti-Drakensberg Mountains (Wadley,1995), as does the marine shell pendant at Sehonghong, derivedfrom a minimum distance of 200 km. The ostrich eggshell beadsfrom Sehonghong were also probably imported (from furtherinland) given the local absence of ostriches (Mitchell, 1995). Thesedata suggest an emphasis on ornamentation and the existence ofinter-group interaction across broad and environmentally-variableareas in MIS 2.

Conclusions

The objective of this paper was to examine causality in tech-nological change across southernmost Africa through the latePleistocene. We posed three questions pertaining to the influenceof environments, the role of information transmission, and theextent of variability in population interaction. By separating outdifferent aspects of technology and technological organisation, wehave been able to explore these questions with a reasonable degreeof success. Both environments and information transmission be-tween groups were clearly important factors in generating previ-ously identified patterns, but the extent of their influence variedthrough time. Technological and occupational systems were notalways in agreement across southernmost Africa and the efficacy ofuniversalising industrial schemes, particularly where attention isnot given to underlying causes, is questionable (Mitchell, 2002).

Our analysis of the lithic and occupational data from 46 sitesacross southernmost Africa reveals apparently widespread popu-lation interaction at various times, and most especially in the StillBay, classic Howiesons Poort and Robberg. During these periods weidentified between-region similarities in flaking systems andimplement types, and also material selectionwithin the constraintsof local/regional geology. At the same time, similarity in modes oftechnological delivery (provisioning systems) suggests similaritiesin the predictability of movement and subsistence conditions, andthus underlying environmental conditions. We suggest that thesesimilarities may result from the expansion of westerly influenceduring cooler conditions as argued by Chase (2010).

These periods of inter-regional population interaction alsocorrelate with periods in which ornaments and symbolic itemsbecome common in the archaeological record. This provides arelatively parsimonious and theoretically grounded explanation fortheir complex temporal distribution, and one which does not relyon forces that are difficult to detect archaeologically.

Outside of MIS 4 and MIS 2 there appears to be strong evidencefor fragmentation of populations. There is little coherence in flakingsystems within climate regions during MIS 5 and material selectionoften appears highly localised, both of which imply localised


spheres of interaction. Simple and readily-transmittable unifacialimplements, denticulates, characterise many WRZ-YRZ sites in thisperiod, something which contrasts with the production of bifacialand unifacial points in the SRZ. The production of bifacial points inthe SRZ is of particular interest, as there appears to be continuity inpursuit of this technology in the region, albeit perhaps in pulses, formore than 35 kyr. In the WRZ-YRZ, by contrast, bifacial technologyinvariably appears to have been temporally restricted and centredon 74e70 ka.

A second period of fragmentation in MIS 3 is most clearlymarked by the cessation of occupation of most WRZ-YRZ sites,including the major archives at Klasies River, Nelson Bay Cave,Pinnacle Point, Blombos and Diepkloof. Evenwithin the SRZ, whereevidence for occupation remains strong, technological systemsbecome increasingly localised in this period, with a spatially-constrained early LSA in the northern SRZ, and somewhat enig-matic implement forms and MSA flaking systems in much of thesouthern SRZ through to the start ofMIS 2.Whilewe do not posit anexplanation for the subsequent expansion of LSA technologiesacross southernmost Africa, we note that this expansion occurs inthe aftermath of what appears to have been significant occupa-tional perturbation particularly in the WRZ-YRZ, but also reflectedin pulsed occupation and localised spheres of interaction in the SRZ.

Beyond these important results, the data we have presentedprovide directions for futurework that will allow our suggestions tobe tested. Improved dating is needed to clarify the timing ofchanges, particularly in MIS 5, MIS 3 and MIS 2. The bulk of thelatter two periods are amenable to radiocarbon dating, and adedicated program (re)dating key sites would be valuable, partic-ularly given that these stages witness the variable onset of the LSA.Improved chronometry in this period might reveal the direction-ality of movement for the appearance of heavy bipolar reductionand small blade manufacture, or indeed lack thereof if they reflectconvergence.

Also critical is more detailed and perhaps more consistenttechnological analysis. Data are insufficient for many periods toaddress questions of provisioning, and the tendency to present sitesequences in bulk culture historic units makes the assessment ofunderlying processes extremely difficult. Resolving the extent towhich apparent technological similarities are artefacts of classifi-cation rather than genuine consistencies in reduction behaviourpresently rests on concerted programs of technological analysisbeing undertaken by a limited number of researchers (Sorianoet al., 2007; Villa et al., 2009; Mourre et al., 2010; Villa et al.,2010; Conard et al., 2012; Wurz, 2012; Porraz et al., 2013a).Similar programs could profitably be applied to MIS 5, late MIS 3and MIS 2.

Additional application of morphometric techniques to cores(Clarkson, 2010) and implement types such as backed artefacts,bifacial points and unifacial points might allow the relative in-fluences of different transmission systems to be better understood(e.g., Bettinger and Eerkens, 1999; Cardillo, 2010). The hypothesispresented here would be supported by greater heterogeneity inbifacial point form in the SRZ in late MIS 5 and early MIS 4 as aconsequence of its proposed origin there, and greater homogeneityin the WRZ as a consequence of its later spread. Inter-regionalsimilarities should diminish with distance from origin, and thusfrom SRZ to YRZ to WRZ. The reverse is expected for backed arte-facts from 65 to 60 ka. Inter-regional heterogeneity in implementform and core reduction should bemostmarked inMIS 5 andMIS 3,with the reappearance of generalised inter-regional similarities inMIS 2.

Finally, beyond the climate region scheme this paper has madelimited reference to palaeoenvironmental changes through the latePleistocene. This reflects the limitations of appropriate data



presently available from the wider region with which to carry outtruly robust comparative analyses (see Deacon and Lancaster, 1988;Chase and Meadows, 2007). Few independent continental recordsexist for the period considered here, and while the archaeologicalsites themselves often contain important palaeoenvironmentalproxies, the aggregate sub-continental dataset has not yet beensufficiently resolved to provide a coherent picture of the nature andmechanisms of past environmental change. Whilst new records areproviding fresh opportunities to study the evolution of the region’sclimate systems (e.g., Peeters et al., 2004; Caley et al., 2011; Dupontet al., 2011; Chase et al., 2012, 2013; Valsecchi et al., 2013; Ziegleret al., 2013), and their impact on the flora and fauna that are thebaseline of subsistence, considerable work remains to be donebefore specific comparisons can be made.

Acknowledgements

David Braun and Justin Pargeter provided helpful comments onearlier drafts of this paper, which was subsequently improved bythorough and insightful comments from four anonymous reviewersand an Associate Editor at the JHE. We are grateful for their timeand effort. Katherine Clahassey provided skillful assistance withmany of the figures.Wewould particularly like to thank Sarah Eltonfor her hard work in helping to restructure the paper into astronger, more readily publishable format.

Alex Mackay’s research is funded by the Australian ResearchCouncil (DP1092445, DE130100068); Brian Stewart is funded bythe British Academy (Small Grant SG-50844), Wenner-Gren (Post-Ph.D. Research Grant 8166) and the McDonald Institute, CambridgeUniversity; Brian Chase is funded by the European Research Council(European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007e2013)/ERC Grant HYRAX, agreement n. 258657). This paper arosefromdiscussions at an INQUAHABComm International Focus Group(#1205) meeting in the Cederberg Mountains in July 2013.

References

Ambrose, S.H., 2002. Small things remembered: origins of early microlithic in-dustries in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Elston, R.G., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Thinking Small:Global Perspectives on Microlithization. American Anthropological Association,Washington D.C., pp. 9e30.

Ambrose, S.H., Lorenz, K.G., 1990. Social and ecological models for the Middle StoneAge in Southern Africa. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans.Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 3e33.

Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Goldberg, P., Grine, F.E., Klein, R.G., Lenardi, F.J.,Marean, C.W., Rink, W.J., Schwarcz, H.P., Thackeray, A.I., Wilson, M.L., 1997. The1992e1993 excavations at Die Kelders Middle and Later Stone Age cave site,South Africa. J. Field Archaeol. 24, 263e291.

Avery, G.D., Halkett, D., Orton, J., Steele, T.E., Klein, R.G., 2008. The Ysterfontein 1Middle Stone Age rockshelter and the evolution of coastal foraging. S. Afr.Archaeol. Soc. Goodwin Ser. 10, 66e89.

Backwell, L., d’Errico, F., Wadley, L., 2008. Middle Stone Age bone tools from theHowiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1566e1580.

Bar-Matthews, M., Marean, C.W., Jacobs, Z., Karkanas, P., Fisher, E.C., Herries, A.I.R.,Brown, K., Williams, H.M., Bernatchez, J., Ayalon, A., Nilssen, P.J., 2010. A highresolution and continuous isotopic speleothem record of paleoclimate andpaleoenvironment from 90 to 53 ka from Pinnacle Point on the south coast ofSouth Africa. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 29, 2131e2145.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Vandermeersch, B., Bar-Yosef, O., 2009. Shells and ochre inMiddle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: indications for modern behavior. J. Hum.Evol. 56, 307e314.

Barham, L.S., 1989. A preliminary report on Later Stone Age artefacts from SiphisoShelter in Swaziland. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 44, 33e43.

Barham, L., 2002. Backed tools in Middle Pleistocene central Africa and theirevolutionary significance. J. Hum. Evol. 43, 585e603.

Barton, R.N.E., Bouzouggar, A., Collcutt, S.N., Schwenninger, J.L., Clark-Balzan, L.,2009. OSL dating of the Aterian levels at Dar es-Soltan I (Rabat, Morocco) andimplications for the dispersal of modern Homo sapiens. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 28,1914e1931.

Beaumont, P.B., 1978. Border Cave. M.A. Thesis, University of Cape Town.


Bettinger, R.L., Eerkens, J.W., 1999. Point typologies, cultural transmission, and thespread of bow-and-arrow technology in the prehistoric Great Basin. Am. Antiq.61, 231e242.

Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and formation processes: Looking at curatedtechnologies. J. Anthropol. Res. 35, 255e273.

Bleed, P., 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reli-ability. Am. Antiq. 51, 737e747.

Bleed, P., 2001. Trees or chains, links or branches: Conceptual alternatives forconsideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities.J. Archaeol. Method Th. 8, 101e127.

Blome, M.W., Cohen, A.S., Tryon, C.A., Brooks, A.S., Russell, J., 2012. The environ-mental context for the origins of modern human diversity: a synthesis ofregional variability in African climate 150,000-30,000 years ago. J. Hum. Evol.62, 563e592.

Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Collcutt, S., Higham, T.,Hodge, E., Parfitt, S., Rhodes, E., Schwenninger, J.L., Stringer, C., Turner, E.,Ward, S., Moutmir, A., Stambouli, A., 2007. 82,000-year-old shell beads fromNorth Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 9964e9969.

Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J., 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

Braun, D.R., Plummer, T., Ferraro, J.V., Ditchfield, P., Bishop, L.C., 2009. Raw materialquality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from KanjeraSouth, Kenya. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1605e1614.

Brown, K.S., Marean, C.W., Herries, A.I., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Braun, D., Roberts, D.L.,Meyer, M.C., Bernatchez, J., 2009. Fire as an engineering tool of early modernhumans. Science 325, 859e862.

Brown, K.S., Marean, C.W., Jacobs, Z., Schoville, B.J., Oestmo, S., Fisher, E.C.,Bernatchez, J., Karkanas, P., Matthews, T., 2012. An early and enduring advancedtechnology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa. Nature 491, 590e593.

Butzer, K.W., Stuckenrath, R., Bruzewicz, A.J., Helgren, D.M., 1978. Late Cenozoicpaleoclimates of the Gaap Escarpment, Kalahari margin, South Africa. Quatern.Res. 10, 310e339.

Caley, T., Kim, J.H., Malaizé, B., Giraudeau, J., Laepple, T., Caillon, N., Charlier, K.,Rebaubier, H., Rossignol, L., Castañeda, I.S., Schouten, S., Sinninghe Damsté, J.S.,2011. High-latitude obliquity as a dominant forcing in the Agulhas currentsystem. Clim. Past 7, 1285e1296.

Cardillo, M., 2010. Some applications of geometric morphometrics to archaeology.In: Elewa, A.M.T. (Ed.), Morphometrics for Non-morphometricians. Springer,New York, pp. 325e341.

Carter, P.L., 1978. The Prehistory of Eastern Lesotho. Unviersity of Cambridge,Cambridge.

Carter, P., Vogel, J.C., 1974. The dating of industrial assemblages from stratified sitesin eastern Lesotho. Man 9, 557e570.

Carter, P.L., Mitchell, P.J., Vinnicombe, P., 1988. Sehonghong: The Middle and LaterStone Age industrial sequence at a Lesotho rockshelter. British ArchaeologicalReports International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Chase, B.M., 2010. South African palaeoenvironments during marine oxygen isotopestage 4: a context for the Howiesons Poort and Still Bay industries. J. Archaeol.Sci. 37, 1359e1366.

Chase, B.M., Meadows, M.E., 2007. Late Quaternary dynamics of southern Africa’swinter rainfall zone. Earth Sci. Rev. 84, 103e138.

Chase, B.M., Scott, L., Meadows, M.E., Gil-Romera, G., Boom, A., Carr, A.S., Reimer, P.J.,Truc, L., Valsecchi, V., Quick, L.J., 2012. Rock hyrax middens: A palae-oenvironmental archive for southern African drylands. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 56,107e125.

Chase, B.M., Boom, A., Carr, A.S., Meadows, M.E., Reimer, P.J., 2013. Holocene climatechange in southernmost South Africa: rock hyrax middens record shifts in thesouthern westerlies. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 82, 199e205.

Clark, A.M.B., 1999. Late Pleistocene technology at Rose Cottage Cave: A search formodern behavior in an MSA context. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 16, 93e119.

Clark, J.D., 1959. The Prehistory of Southern Africa. Penguin, Harmondsworth.Clarkson, C., 2004. Technological provisioning and assemblage variation in the

eastern Victoria River region, Northern Australia: A Darwinian approach. Ph.D.Dissertation, Australian National University.

Clarkson, C., 2010. Regional diversity within the core technology of the HowiesonsPoort techno-complex. In: Lycett, S., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), New Perspectives on OldStones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies. Springer, New York,pp. 43e59.

Cochrane, G.W.G., 2006. An analysis of lithic artefacts from the w60 ka layers ofSibudu Cave. South. Afr. Humanit. 18, 69e88.

Cockcroft, M.J., Wilkinson, M.J., Tyson, P.D., 1987. The application of a present-dayclimatic model to the late Quaternary in southern Africa. Climatic Change 10,161e181.

Collard, M., Ruttle, A., Buchanan, B., O’Brien, M.J., 2013. Population size and culturalevolution in nonindustrial food-producing societies. PLoS One 8, e72628.

Conard, N.J., Porraz, G., Wadley, L., 2012. What’s in a name? Characterising the ‘post-Howiesons Poort’ at Sibudu. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 67, 180e199.

Cooke, C.K., 1955. The occurrence of the bored stone in the Magosian industry, andsome unusual Magosian. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 10, 53e54.

Cooke, C.K., 1971. Excavations in Zombepata Cave, Sipolilo District, Mashonaland,Rhodesia. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 26, 104e126.

Cramb, J.G., 1952. A Middle Stone Age industry from a Natal rock shelter. S. Afr. J. Sci.48, 181e186.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0047-2484(14)00065-7/sref1



























































































































































Cramb, J.G., 1961. A second report on work at the Holley Shelter. S. Afr. J. Sci. 57, 45e48.

d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C.S., 2007. Additional evidence for bone technology in thesouthern African Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 142e163.

d’Errico, F., Stringer, C.B., 2011. Evolution, revolution or saltation scenario for theemergence of modern cultures? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 1060e1069.

d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K., 2005. Nassariuskraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour inthe Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 3e24.

d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Wadley, L., 2008. Possible shell beads from theMiddle Stone Age layers of Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35,2675e2685.

d’Errico, F., García Moreno, R., Rifkin, R.F., 2012a. Technological, elemental andcolorimetric analysis of an engraved ochre fragment from the Middle Stone Agelevels of Klasies River Cave 1, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 942e952.

d’Errico, F., Backwell, L., Villa, P., Deganog, I., Lucejkog, J.J., Bamford, M.K.,Higham, T.F.G., Colombinig, M.P., Beaumont, P.B., 2012b. Early evidence of Sanmaterial culture represented by organic artifacts from Border Cave, South Af-rica. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 13214e13219.

Davies, O., 1975. Excavations at Shongweni South Cave. Annals of the Natal Museum22, 627e662.

de la Pena, P., Wadley, L., Lombard, M., 2013. Quartz bifacial points in the HowiesonsPoort of Sibudu. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 69, 119e136.

Deacon, H.J., 1976. Where hunters gathered: A study of Holocene Stone Agepeople in the eastern Cape. South African Archaeological Society MonographSeries 1.

Deacon, H.J., 1979. Excavations at Boomplaas Cave e A sequence through the UpperPleistocene and Holocene in South Africa. World Archaeol. 10, 241e257.

Deacon, H.J., Wurz, S., 1996. Klaises River main site, cave 2: a Howieson’s Poortoccurrence. In: Pwiti, G., Soper, R. (Eds.), Aspects of African Archaeology, Papersfrom the 10th Congress of the PanAfrican Association for Prehistory and RelatedStudies. University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, pp. 213e218.

Deacon, H.J., Deacon, J., Brooker, M., 1976. Four painted stones from BoomplaasCave, Oudtshoorn District. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 123/124, 141e145.

Deacon, J., 1978. Changing patterns in late Pleistocene / early Holocene prehistory insouthern Africa as seen from the Nelson Bay Cave stone artifact sequence.Quatern. Res. 10, 84e111.

Deacon, J., 1982. The Later Stone Age in the southern Cape, South Africa. Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Cape Town.

Deacon, J., 1984a. The Later Stone Age in southernmost Africa. British ArchaeologicalReports International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Deacon, J., 1984b. Later Stone Age people and their descendants in southern Africa.In: Klein, R.G. (Ed.), Southern African Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments.Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 221e238.

Deacon, J., 1995. An unsolved mystery at the Howieson’s Poort name site. S. Afr.Archaeol. Bull. 50, 110e120.

Deacon, J., Lancaster, N., 1988. Late Quaternary palaeoenvironments of southernAfrica. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Derex, M., Godelle, B., Raymond, M., 2012. Social learners require process infor-mation to outperform individual learners. Evolution 67, 688e697.

Derex, M., Beugin, M.-P., Godelle, B., Raymond, M., 2013. Experimental evidence forthe influence of group size on cultural complexity. Nature 503, 389e391.

Dewar, G., Stewart, B.A., 2012. Preliminary results of excavations at SpitzkloofRockshelter, Richtersveld, South Africa. Quatern. Int. 270, 30e39.

Dogandzic, T., McPherron, S.P., 2013. Demography and the demise of Neandertals: acomment on ‘Tenfold population increase in Western Europe at the Neandertal-to-modern human transition’. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 311e313.

Dupont, L.M., Caley, T., Kim, J.H., Castañeda, I., Malaizé, B., Giraudeau, J., 2011.Glacial-interglacial vegetation dynamics in South Eastern Africa coupled to seasurface temperature variations in the Western Indian Ocean. Clim. Past 7, 1209e1224.

Eerkens, J.W., Lipo, C.P., 2007. Cultural transmission theory and the archaeologicalrecord: Providing context to understanding variation and temporal changes inmaterial culture. J. Archaeol. Res. 15, 239e274.

Eerkens, J.W., Lipo, C.P., 2005. Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the gen-eration of variation in material culture and the archaeological record.J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 24, 316e334.

Eloff, J.F., 1969. Bushman Rock Shelter, Eastern Transvaal: Excavations, 1967e8.S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 24, 60.

Eren, M.I., Lycett, S.J., Roos, C.I., Sampson, C.G., 2011a. Toolstone constraints onknapping skill: Levallois reductionwith two different raw materials. J. Archaeol.Sci. 38, 2731e2739.

Eren, M.I., Bradley, B., Sampson, C.G., 2011b. Middle Paleolithic skill-level and theindividual knapper: an experiment. Am. Antiq. 76, 229e251.

Evans, U., 1994. Hollow Rock Shelter, a Middle Stone Age site in the Cederberg.South. Afr. Field Archaeol. 3, 63e73.

Faith, J.T., 2013. Taphonomic and paleoecological change in the large mammalsequence from Boomplaas Cave, western Cape, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 65,715e730.

Feathers, J.K., Bush, D.A., 2000. Luminescence dating of Middle Stone Age depositsat Die Kelders. J. Hum. Evol. 38, 91e119.

Fisher, E., Albert, R.-M., Botha, G.A., Cawthra, H., Esteban, I., Harris, J.W., Jacobs, Z.,Jerardino, A., Marean, C.W., Neumann, F.H., Pargeter, J., Poupart, M., Venter, J.,2013. Archaeological reconnaissance for Middle Stone Age sites along thePondoland Coast, South Africa. PaleoAnthropology 2013, 104e137.


Goldberg, P., Miller, C.E., Schiegl, S., Ligouis, B., Berna, F., Conard, N.J., Wadley, L.,2009. Bedding, hearths, and site maintenance in the Middle Stone Age ofSibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 1, 95e122.

Goodwin, A.J.H., van Riet Lowe, C., 1929. The stone age cultures of South Africa.Annals of the South African Museum 27, 1e146.

Goodyear, A.C., 1989. A hypothesis for the use of crypto-crystalline raw materialsamong Paleoindian groups of North America. In: Hothrop, J.C. (Ed.), EasternPaleoindian Lithic Resource Use. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 1e9.

Grün, R., Beaumont, P., 2001. Border Cave revisited: a revised ESR chronology.J. Hum. Evol. 40, 467e482.

Guérin, G., Murray, A.S., Jain, M., Thomsen, K.J., Mercier, N., 2013. How confident arewe in the chronology of the transition between Howieson’s Poort and Still Bay?J. Hum. Evol. 64, 314e317.

Hagerstrand, T., 1967. Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. University of Chi-cago Press, Chicago.

Halkett, D., Hart, T., Yates, R., Volman, T.P., Parkington, J.E., Orton, J., Klein, R.G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Avery, G., 2003. First excavation of intact Middle Stone Age layers atYsterfontein, Western Cape Province, South Africa: implications for MiddleStone Age ecology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30, 955e971.

Henrich, J., 2001. Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations: Adoptiondynamics indicate that biased cultural transmission is the predominate force inbehavioural change. Am. Anthropol. 103, 992e1013.

Henrich, J., 2004. Demography and cultural evolution: how adaptive cultural pro-cesses can produce maladptive losses e the Tasmanian case. Am. Antiq. 69,197e214.

Henrich, J., 2010. The evolution of innovation-enhancing institutions. In:O’Brien, M.J., Shennan, S. (Eds.), Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributionsfrom Evolutionary Anthropology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 99e120.

Henshilwood, C.S., 2012. Late Pleistocene techno-traditions in southern Africa: areview of the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort, c. 75e59 ka. J. World Prehist. 25,205e237.

Henshilwood, C.S., Dubreuil, B., 2011. The Still Bay and Howiesons Poort, 77e59 ka.Curr. Anthropol. 52, 361e400.

Henshilwood, C.S., Sealy, J.C., 1997. Bone artefacts from the Middle Stone Age atBlombos Cave, Southern Cape, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 890e895.

Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Marean, C.W., Milo, R.G., Yates, R., 2001a. An earlybone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa:implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and lan-guage. J. Hum. Evol. 41, 631e678.

Henshilwood, C.S., Sealy, J.C., Yates, R., Cruz-Uribe, K., Goldberg, P., Grine, F.E.,Klein, R.G., Poggenpoel, C., van Niekerk, K., Watts, I., 2001b. Blombos Cave,Southern Cape, South Africa: Preliminary report on the 1992e1999 excavationsof the Middle Stone Age Levels. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28, 421e448.

Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Duller, G.A.T.,Mercier, N., Sealy, J.C., Valladas, H., Watts, I., Wintle, A.G., 2002. Emergence ofmodern human behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa.Science 295, 1278e1280.

Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., van Niekerk, K., Jacobs, Z., 2004.Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 384, 404.

Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Watts, I., 2009. Engraved ochres from the MiddleStone Age levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 57, 27e47.

Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., van Niekerk, K.L., Coquinot, Y., Jacobs, Z.,Lauritzen, S.E., Menu, M., Garcia-Moreno, R., 2011. A 100,000-year-old ochre-processing workshop at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Science 334, 219e222.

Henshilwood, C.S., van Niekerk, K.L., Wurz, S., Delagnes, A., Armitage, S.J.,Rifkin, R.F., Douze, K., Keene, P., Haaland, M.M., Reynard, J., Discamps, E.,Mienies, S.S., 2014. Klipdrift Shelter, southern Cape, South Africa: PreliminaryReport on the Howiesons Poort layers. J. Archaeol. Sci.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.033 (in press).

Hiscock, P., 2006. Blunt and to the point: Changing technological strategies inHolocene Australia. In: Lilley, I. (Ed.), Archaeology of Oceania: Australia and thePacific Islands. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 69e95.

Hiscock, P., 2014. Learning lithic landscapes: a reconsideration of the hominid‘toolmaking’ niche. Biol. Theory 9, 27e41.

Hiscock, P., Clarkson, C., Mackay, A., 2011. Big debates over little tools: ongoingdisputes over microliths on three continents. World Archaeol. 43, 653e664.

Högberg, A., Larsson, L., 2011. Lithic technology and behavioural modernity: newresults from the Still Bay site, Hollow Rock Shelter, Western Cape Province,South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 61, 133e155.

Hogg, A.G., Hua, Q., Blackwell, P.G., Niu, M., Buck, C.E., Guilderson, T.P., Heaton, T.J.,Palmer, J.G., Reimer, P.J., Reimer, R.W., Turney, C.S.M., Zimmerman, S.R.H., 2013.SHCal13 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0e50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon55, 1889e1903.

Jacobs, Z., 2010. An OSL chronology for the sedimentary deposits from PinnaclePoint Cave 13Bea punctuated presence. J. Hum. Evol. 59, 289e305.

Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., 2009. Catalysts for Stone Age innovations. Communicativeand Integrative Biology 2, 191e193.

Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Galbraith, R.F., Deacon, H.J., Grün, R., Mackay, A., Mitchell, P.,Vogelsang, R., Wadley, L., 2008a. Ages for the Middle Stone Age of southernAfrica: implications for human behavior and dispersal. Science 322, 733e735.

Jacobs, Z., Wintle, A.G., Duller, G.A.T., Roberts, R.G., Wadley, L., 2008b. New ages forthe post-Howiesons Poort, late and final Middle Stone Age at Sibudu, SouthAfrica. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1790e1807.

Jacobs, Z., Hayes, E.H., Roberts, R.G., Galbraith, R.F., Henshilwood, C.S., 2013. Animproved OSL chronology for the Still Bay layers at Blombos Cave, South






























































































































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.033

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.033







































Africa: further tests of single-grain dating procedures and a re-evaluation ofthe timing of the Still Bay industry across southern Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40,579e594.

Jordan, P., Shennan, S.J., 2003. Cultural transmission, language, and basketry tra-ditions amongst the California Indians. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 22, 42e74.

Jouzel, J., Masson-Delmotte, V., Cattani, O., Dreyfus, G., Falourd, S., Hoffmann, G.,Minster, B., Nouet, J., Barnola, J.M., Chappellaz, J., Fischer, H., Gallet, J.C.,Johnsen, S., Leuenberger, M., Loulergue, L., Luethi, D., Oerter, H., Parrenin, F.,Raisbeck, G., Raynaud, D., Schilt, A., Schwander, J., Selmo, E., Souchez, R.,Spahni, R., Stauffer, B., Steffensen, J.P., Stenni, B., Stocker, T.F., Tison, J.L.,Werner, M., Wolff, E.W., 2007. Orbital and millennial Antarctic climate vari-ability over the past 800,000 years. Science 317, 793e796.

Kaplan, J., 1990. The Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter sequence: 100 000 years of StoneAge history. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 2, 1e94.

Kelly, R.L., 1988. The three side of a biface. Am. Antiq. 53, 717e734.Klein, R.G., Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Halkett, D., Parkington, J.E., Steele, T.,

Volman, T.P., Yates, R., 2004. The Ysterfontein 1 Middle Stone Age site, SouthAfrica, and early human exploitation of coastal resources. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.101, 5708e5715.

Kuhn, S.L., 1994. A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits.Am. Antiq 59, 426e442.

Kuhn, S.L., 1995. Mousterian Lithic Technology. Princeton University Press,Princeton.

Kuhn, S.L., 2012. Emergent patterns of creativity and innovation in early technol-ogies. Developments in Quaternary Science 16, 69e87.

Kuhn, S.L., 2014. Signaling theory and technologies of communication in thePaleolithic. Biol. Theory 9, 42e50.

Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., 2007. Paleolithic ornaments: Implications for cognition,demography and identity. Diogenes 54, 40e48.

Kuman, K.A., Inbar, M., Clarke, R.J., 1999. Palaeoenvironments and cultural sequenceof the Florisbad Middle Stone Age hominid site, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26,1409e1425.

Lee-Thorp, J.A., Beaumont, P.B., 1995. Vegetation and seasonality shifts during thelate Quaternary deduced from 13C/12C ratios of grazers at Equus Cave, SouthAfrica. Quatern. Res. 43, 426e432.

Lombard, M., Pargeter, J., 2008. Hunting with Howiesons Poort segments: pilotexperimental study and the functional interpretation of archaeological tools.J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 2523e2531.

Lombard, M., Parsons, I., 2011. What happened to the human mind after theHowiesons Poort? Antiquity 85, 1e11.

Lombard, M., Phillipson, L., 2010. Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Antiquity 84, 1e14.

Lombard, M., Wadley, L., Jacobs, Z., Mohapi, M., Roberts, R.G., 2010. Still Bay andserrated points from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa.J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 1773e1784.

Lombard, M., Wadley, L., Deacon, J., Wurz, S., Parsons, I., Mohapi, M., Swart, J.,Mitchell, P., 2012. South African and Lesotho Stone Age sequence updated.S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 67, 120e144.

Louw, A.W., 1969. Bushman Rock Shelter, Ohrigstad, Eastern Transvaal: A pre-liminary investigation, 1965. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 24, 39e51.

Mace, R., Jordan, F.M., 2011. Macro-evolutionary studies of cultural diversity: a re-view of empirical studies of cultural transmission and cultural adaptation. Phil.Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 402e411.

Mackay, A., 2005. Informal movements: Changing mobility patterns at Ngarra-bullgan, Cape York Australia. In: Clarkson, C., Lamb, L. (Eds.), Lithics DownUnder: Recent Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use and Classifica-tion. British Archaeological Reports International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford,pp. 95e108.

Mackay, A., 2006. A characterisation of the MSA stone artefact assemblage from the1984 excavation at Klein Kliphuis, Western Cape. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 61, 181e189.

Mackay, A., 2008a. A method for estimating edge length from flake dimensions: useand implications for technological change in the southern African MSA.J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 614e622.

Mackay, A., 2008b. On the production of blades and its relationship to backed ar-tefacts in the Howiesons Poort at Diepkloof, South Africa. Lithic Technology 33,87e99.

Mackay, A., 2009. History and selection in the Late Pleistocene archaeology of theWestern Cape, South Africa. Ph.D. Dissertation, Australian National University.

Mackay, A., 2010. The Late Pleistocene archaeology of Klein Kliphuis rockshelter,Western Cape, South Africa: 2006 excavations. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 65, 132e147.

Mackay, A., 2011. Nature and significance of the Howiesons Poort to post-Howiesons Poort transition at Klein Kliphuis rockshelter, South Africa.J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1430e1440.

Mackay, A., 2014. Technological change and the importance of variability: theWestern Cape of South Africa from MIS 5 to MIS 2. In: Jones, S., Stewart, B.A.(Eds.), Africa from MIS 6e2: Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments.Springer, Dordrecht (in press).

Mackay, A., Marwick, B., 2011. Costs and benefits of technological decision makingunder variable conditions: Examples from the late Pleistocene in southern Af-rica. In: Marwick, B., Mackay, A. (Eds.), Keeping your Edge: Recent Approachesto the Organisation of Stone Artefact Technology. British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 119e134.


Mackay, A., Welz, A., 2008. Engraved ochre from a Middle Stone Age context at KleinKliphuis in the Western Cape of South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1521e1532.

Mackay, A., Orton, J., Schwortz, S., Steele, T.E., 2010. Soutfontein (SFT)-001: Pre-liminary report on an open-air bifacial point-rich site in southern Namaqua-land, South Africa. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 65, 84e95.

Manhire, A.H., 1993. A report on the excavations at Faraoskop Rock Shelter in theGraafwater District of the south-western Cape. S. Afr. Field Archaeol. 2, 3e23.

Marean, C.W., 2010. Pinnacle Point Cave 13B (Western Cape Province, South Africa)in context: The Cape Floral kingdom, shellfish, and modern human origins.J. Hum. Evol. 59, 425e443.

Marean, C.W., Bar-Matthews, M., Fisher, E., Goldberg, P., Herries, A., Karkanas, P.,Nilssen, P.J., Thompson, E., 2010. The stratigraphy of the Middle Stone Agesediments at Pinnacle Point Cave 13B (Mossel Bay, Western Cape Province,South Africa). J. Hum. Evol. 59, 234e255.

Mason, R.J., Brain, C.K., 1988. Cave of Hearths, Makapansgat, Transvaal. Archaeo-logical Research Unit, University of the Witswatersrand.

McBrearty, S., 1988. The Sangoan-Lupemban and Middle Stone Age sequence at theMuguruk Site, Western Kenya. World Archaeol. 19, 388e420.

McCall, G.S., 2007. Behavioral ecological models of lithic technological changeduring the later Middle Stone Age of South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 1738e1751.

McCall, G.S., Thomas, J.T., 2012. Still Bay and Howiesons Poort foraging strategies:Recent research and models of culture change. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 29, 7e50.

Miller, C.E., Goldberg, P., Berna, F., 2013. Geoarchaeological investigations at Die-pkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 3432e3452.

Mills, S.C., Grab, S.W., Rea, B.R., Carr, S.J., Farrow, A., 2012. Shifting westerlies andprecipitation patterns during the Late Pleistocene in southern Africa deter-mined using glacier reconstruction and mass balance modelling. Quatern. Sci.Rev. 55, 145e159.

Minichillo, T., 2005. Middle Stone Age lithic study, South Africa: An examination ofmodern human Origins. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington.

Minichillo, T., 2006. Raw material use and behavioral modernity: Howiesons Poortlithic foraging strategies. J. Hum. Evol. 50, 359e364.

Mitchell, P.J., 1988. Early microlithic assemblages of southern Africa. WorldArchaeol. 20, 27e39.

Mitchell, P.J., 1994. Understanding the MSA/LSA transition: the pre-20,000 BP as-semblages from new excavations at Sehonghong Rock Shelter, Lesotho. S. Afr.Field Archaeol. 3, 15e25.

Mitchell, P.J., 1995. Revisiting the Robberg: New results and a revision of old ideas atSehonghong Rock Shelter, Lesotho. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 50, 28e38.

Mitchell, P.J., 2002. The Archaeology of Southern Africa. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Mitchell, P.J., 2008. Developing the archaeology of Marine Isotope Stage 3. S. Afr.Archaeol. Soc. Goodwin Ser. 10, 52e65.

Mitchell, P.J., Arthur, C.I., 2010. Archaeological fieldwork in the Metolong DamCatchment, Lesotho, 2008e10. Nyame Akuma 74, 51e62.

Mitchell, P., Steinberg, J.M., 1992. Ntloana Tsoana: A Middle Stone Age sequencefrom Western Lesotho. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 47, 26e33.

Mitchell, P.J., Parkington, J.E., Wadley, L., 1998. A tale from three regions: Thearchaeology of the Pleistocene/Holocene transition in the Western Cape, theCaledon Valley and the Lesotho Highlands, southern Africa. Quatern. Int. 49/50,105e115.

Mohapi, M., 2013. The Middle Stone Age point assemblage from Umhlatuzana: amorphometric study. South. Afr. Humanit. 25, 25e51.

Morrill, R.A., 1970. The shape of diffusion in time and space. Econ. Geogr. 46, 259e268.

Mourre, V., Villa, P., Henshilwood, C.S., 2010. Early use of pressure flaking on lithicartifacts at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Science 330, 659e662.

Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C., 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho andSwaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Nelson, M., 1991. The study of technological organisation. Archaeol. Method Th. 3,57e100.

Nicholson, S.E., Flohn, H., 1980. African environmental and climatic changes and thegeneral atmospheric circulation in the late Pleistocene and Holocene. ClimaticChange 2, 313e348.

Nieman, F.D., 1995. Stylistic variation in evolutionary perspective: Inferences fromdecorative diversity and interassemblage distance in Illinois Woodland ceramicassemblages. Am. Antiq. 60, 7e36.

Opperman, H., 1978. Excavations in the Buffelskloof Rock Shelter near Calitzdorp,Southern Cape. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 33, 18e38.

Opperman, H., 1987. The Later Stone Age of the Drakensberg range and its Foothills,Oxford. British Archaeological Reports International Series. Archaeopress,Oxford.

Opperman, H., 1996. Strathalan Cave B, north-eastern Cape Province, South Africa:evidence for human behaviour 29,000-26,000 years ago. Quatern. Int. 33, 45e53.

Opperman, H., Heydenrych, B., 1990. A 22,000 year old Middle Stone Age camp sitewith plant food remains from the north-eastern Cape. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 45,93e99.

Orton, J., 2006. The Later Stone Age lithic sequence at Elands Bay, Western Cape,South Africa: raw materials, artefacts and sporadic change. South. Afr. Humanit.18, 1e28.

Orton, J., 2008. A late Pleistocene microlithic Later Stone Age assemblage fromcoastal Namaqualand, South Africa. Before Farming 2008, 1e9.

































































































































































































































Orton, J., Klein, R.G., Mackay, A., Schwortz, S., Steele, T.E., 2011. Two Holocene rockshelter deposits from the Knersvlakte, southern Namaqualand, South Africa.South. Afr. Humanit. 23, 109e150.

Parkington, J.E., 2003. Middens and moderns: Shellfishing and the Middle StoneAge of the Western Cape, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 99, 243e247.

Parkington, J.E., 2010. Coastal diet, encephalization and innovative behaviours inthe late Middle Stone Age of southern Africa. In: Cunnane, S.C., Stewart, K.M.(Eds.), Human Brain Evolution: the Influence of Freshwater and Marine FoodResources. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, pp. 189e202.

Parry, W.J., Kelly, R.L., 1987. Expedient core technology and sedentism. In:Johnson, J.K., Morrow, C.A. (Eds.), The Organisation of Core Technology. West-view Press, Boulder, pp. 285e304.

Peeters, F.J.C., Acheson, R., Brummer, G.-J.A., de Ruijter, W.P.M., Schneider, R.R.,Ganssen, G.M., Ufkes, E., Kroon, D., 2004. Vigorous exchange between the In-dian and Atlantic oceans at the end of the past five glacial periods. Nature 430,661e665.

Petraglia, M., Korisettar, R., Boivin, N., Clarkson, C., Ditchfield, P., Jones, S., Koshy, J.,Lahr, M.M., Oppenheimer, C., Pyle, D., Roberts, R., Schwenninger, J.L., Arnold, L.,White, K., 2007. Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinentbefore and after the Toba super-eruption. Science 317, 114e116.

Pickrell, J.K., Patterson, N., Barbieri, C., Berthold, F., Gerlach, L., Guldemann, T.,Kure, B., Mpoloka, S.W., Nakagawa, H., Naumann, C., Lipson, M., Loh, P.R.,Lachance, J., Mountain, J., Bustamante, C.D., Berger, B., Tishkoff, S.A., Henn, B.M.,Stoneking, M., Reich, D., Pakendorf, B., 2012. The genetic prehistory of southernAfrica. Nat. Commun. 3, 1143.

Pienaar, M., Woodborne, S., Wadley, L., 2008. Optically stimulated luminescencedating at Rose Cottage Cave. S. Afr. J. Sci. 104, 65e70.

Porraz, G., Texier, P.-J., Archer, W., Piboule, M., Rigaud, J.-P., Tribolo, C., 2013a.Technological successions in the Middle Stone Age sequence of Diepkloof RockShelter, Western Cape, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 3376e3400.

Porraz, G., Parkington, J.E., Rigaud, J.-P., Miller, C.E., Poggenpoel, C., Tribolo, C.,Archer, W., Cartwright, C.R., Charrié-Duhaut, A., Dayet, L., Igreja, M., Mercier, N.,Schmidt, P., Verna, C., Texier, P.-J., 2013b. The MSA sequence of Diepkloof andthe history of southern African Late Pleistocene populations. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40,3542e3552.

Powell, A., Shennan, S., Thomas, M.G., 2009. Late Pleistocene demography and theappearance of modern human behavior. Science 324, 1298e1301.

Premo, L.S., Kuhn, S.L., 2010. Modeling effects of local extinctions on culture changeand diversity in the Paleolithic. PLoS One 5, e15582.

Price-Williams, D., 1981. A preliminary report on recent excavations of Middle andLate Stone Age levels at Sibebe. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 36, 22e28.

Richerson, P.J., Boyd, R., Bettinger, R.L., 2009. Cultural innovations and demographicchange. Hum. Biol. 81, 211e235.

Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, M., 2004. Late Pleistocene technology, economic behavior,and land-use dynamics in southern Italy. Am. Antiq. 69, 257e274.

Rigaud, J.-P., Texier, P.-J., Parkington, J., Poggenpoel, C., 2006. Le mobilier Stillbay etHowiesons Poort de l’abri Diepkloof. La chronologie du Middle Stone Age sud-africain et ses implications. C. R. Palevol. 5, 839e849.

Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, third ed. Free Press, New York.Rose, J.I., Usik, V.I., Marks, A.E., Hilbert, Y.H., Galetti, C.S., Parton, A., Geiling, J.M.,

Cerny, V., Morley, M.W., Roberts, R.G., 2011. The Nubian complex of Dhofar,Oman: an African Middle Stone Age industry in southern Arabia. PLoS One 6,e28239.

Sampson, C.G., 1974. The Stone Age Archaeology of Southern Africa. Academic Press,New York.

Schwarcz, H.P., Rink, W.J., 2000. ESR dating of the Die Kelders Cave 1 Site, SouthAfrica. J. Hum. Evol. 38, 121e128.

Schweitzer, F.R., Wilson, M.L., 1983. Byneskranskop 1: A Late Quaternary Living Sitein the Southern Cape Province, South Africa. The Rustica Press, Cape Town.

Sealy, J., 1996. Seasonality of rainfall around the Last Glacial Maximum as recon-structed from carbon isotope analyses of animal bones from Nelson Bay Cave.S. Afr. J. Sci. 92, 441e444.

Sealy, J., 2014. Cultural change, demography, and the archaeology of the last100,000 years in southern Africa. In: Jones, S., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Africa fromMIS 6e2: Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments. Springer, Dordrecht (inpress).

Shennan, S.J., 2001. Demography and cultural innovation: a model and its impli-cations for the emergence of modern human culture. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 11,5e16.

Shennan, S.J., Wilkinson, J.R., 2001. Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: Acase study from Neolithic Europe. Am. Antiq. 66, 577e593.

Singer, R., Wymer, J., 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in SouthAfrica. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the MiddleStone Age of South Africa: the Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort atRose Cottage Cave. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 681e703.

Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 2009. Ochre for the toolmaker: shaping theStill Bay points at Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa). J. Afr. Archaeol. 7,45e54.

Stager, J.C., Mayewski, P.A., White, J., Chase, B.M., Neumann, F.H., Meadows, M.E.,King, C.D., Dixon, D.A., 2012. Precipitation variability in the winter rainfall zoneof South Africa during the last 1400 yr linked to the austral westerlies. Clim.Past 8, 877e887.

Stapleton, P., Hewitt, J., 1927. Stone implements from a Rock-Shelter at Howieson’sPoort near Grahamstown. S. Afr. J. Sci. 24, 574e587.


Steele, T.E., Mackay, A., Orton, J., Schwortz, S., 2012. Varsche Rivier 003, a newMiddle Stone Age site in southern Namaqualand, South Africa. S. Afr. Archaeol.Bull. 67, 108e119.

Sterelny, K., 2011. From hominins to humans: how sapiens became behaviourallymodern. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 809e822.

Sterelny, K., 2014. A Paleolithic reciprocation crisis: Symbols, signals and norms.Biol. Theory 9, 65e77.

Stewart, B.A., Dewar, G.I., Morley, M.W., Inglis, R.H., Wheeler, M., Jacobs, Z.,Roberts, R.G., 2012. Afromontane foragers of the Late Pleistocene: Site forma-tion, chronology and occupational pulsing at Melikane Rockshelter, Lesotho.Quatern. Int. 270, 40e60.

Stewart, B.A., Parker, A.G., Dewar, G., Morley, M.W., Allott, L.F., 2014. Follow theSenqu: Maloti-Drakensberg paleoenvironments and implications for early hu-man dispersals into mountain systems. In: Jones, S., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Africafrom MIS 6e2: Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments. Springer, Dor-drecht (in press).

Stiner, M.C., 2014. Finding a common bandwidth: causes of convergence and di-versity in Paleolithic beads. Biol. Theory 9, 51e64.

Stiner, M.C., Kuhn, S.L., 2006. Changes in the ‘connectedness’ and resilience ofPaleolithic societies in Mediterranean ecosystems. Hum. Ecol. 34, 693e712.

Stout, D., 2002. Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic casestudy from Irian Jaya. Curr. Anthropol. 43, 693e722.

Stuut, J.-B.W., Prins, M.A., Schneider, R.R., Weltje, G.J., Jansen, J.H.F., Postma, G.,2002. A 300 kyr record of aridity and wind strength in southwestern Africa:inferences from grain-size distributions of sediments on Walvis Ridge, SEAtlantic. Mar. Geol. 180, 221e233.

Surovell, T.A., Brantingham, P.J., 2007. A note on the use of temporal frequencydistributions in studies of prehistoric demography. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 1868e1877.

Tehrani, J.J., Collard, M., 2009. On the relationship between interindividual culturaltransmission and population-level cultural diversity: a case study of weaving inIranian tribal populations. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 286e300 e282.

Tehrani, J.J., Riede, F., 2008. Towards an archaeology of pedagogy: learning, teachingand the generation of material culture traditions. World Archaeol. 40, 316e331.

Tennie, C., Call, J., Tomasello, M., 2009. Ratcheting up the ratchet: on the evolutionof cumulative culture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2405e2415.

Texier, P.-J., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.P., Poggenpoel, C., Miller, C.,Tribolo, C., Cartwright, C., Coudenneau, A., Klein, R., Steele, T., Verna, C., 2010.A Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.107, 6180e6185.

Texier, P.-J., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.-P., Poggenpoel, C., Tribolo, C., 2013.The context, form and significance of the MSA engraved ostrich eggshellcollection from Diepkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa. J. Archaeol.Sci. 40, 3412e3431.

Thackeray, A.I., 1989. Changing fashions in the Middle Stone Age: the stone artefactsequence from Klasies River main site, South Africa. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 7, 33e57.

Thackeray, A.I., 1992. The Middle Stone Age south of the Limpopo River. J. WorldPrehist. 6, 385e440.

Thackeray, A.I., 2000. Middle Stone Age artefacts from the 1993 and 1995 excava-tions of Die Kelders Cave 1, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 38, 147e168.

Thompson, E., Marean, C.W., 2008. The Mossel Bay lithic variant: 120 years ofMiddle Stone Age research from Cape St Blaize to Pinnacle Point. GoodwinSeries 10, 90e104.

Thompson, E., Williams, H.M., Minichillo, T., 2010. Middle and late PleistoceneMiddle Stone Age lithic technology from Pinnacle Point 13B (Mossel Bay,Western Cape Province, South Africa). J. Hum. Evol. 59, 358e377.

Tobias, P.V., 1949. The excavation of Mwulu’s Cave, Potgietersrust District. S. Afr.Archaeol. Bull. 4, 2e13.

Toggweiler, J.R., Russell, J., 2008. Ocean circulation in a warming climate. Nature451, 286e288.

Tostevin, G., 2012. Seeing Lithics: A Middle-Range Theory for Testing for CulturalTransmission in the Pleistocene. Harvard University, Peabody Museum.

Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., 2005. Chronology of the Howieson’s Poort andStill Bay technocomplexes: assessment and new data from luminescence. In:d’Errico, F., Backwell, L. (Eds.), From Tools to Symbols. From Early Hominids toModern Humans. Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, pp. 493e512.

Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Joron, J.L., Guibert, P., Lefrais, Y., Selo, M.,Texier, P.J., Rigaud, J.P., Porraz, G., Poggenpoel, C., Parkington, J., Texier, J.P.,Lenoble, A., 2009. Thermoluminescence dating of a StillbayeHowiesons Poortsequence at Diepkloof Rock Shelter (Western Cape, South Africa). J. Archaeol.Sci. 36, 730e739.

Tribolo, C., Mercier, N., Douville, E., Joron, J.L., Reyss, J.L., Rufer, D., Cantin, N.,Lefrais, Y., Miller, C.E., Porraz, G., Parkington, J., Rigaud, J.P., Texier, P.J., 2012. OSLand TL dating of the Middle Stone Age sequence at Diepkloof Rock Shelter(South Africa): a clarification. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 3401e3411.

Truc, L., Chevalier, M., Favier, C., Cheddadi, R., Meadows, M.E., Scott, L., Carr, A.S.,Smith, G.F., Chase, B.M., 2013. Quantification of climate change for the last20,000 years from Wonderkrater, South Africa: implications for the long-termdynamics of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol.Palaeoecol. 386, 575e587.

Tyson, P.D., 1986. Climatic Change and Variability in Southern Africa. Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford.

Tyson, P.D., Preston-Whyte, R.A., 2000. The Weather and Climate of Southern Africa.Oxford University Press, Cape Town.






























































































































































































































Underhill, D., 2012. The Earliest Middle Stone Age of Northern South Africa: TheCave of Hearths and Bushman Rock Shelter. In: Ruebens, K., Romanowska, I.,Bynoe, R. (Eds.), Unravelling the Palaeolithic Ten Years of Research at the Centrefor the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO, University of Southampton).Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 13e26.

Valsecchi, V., Chase, B.M., Slingsby, J.A., Carr, A.S., Quick, L.J., Meadows, M.E.,Cheddadi, R., Reimer, P.J., 2013. A high resolution 15,600-year pollen andmicrocharcoal record from the Cederberg Mountains, South Africa. Palaeogeogr.Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 387, 6e16.

van Zinderen Bakker, E.M., 1967. Upper Pleistocene stratigraphy and Holoceneecology on the basis of vegetation changes in Sub-Saharan Africa. In:Bishop, W.W., Clark, J.D. (Eds.), Background to Evolution in Africa. University ofChicago Press, Chicago, pp. 125e147.

van Zinderen Bakker, E.M., 1976. The evolution of late Quaternary paleoclimates ofSouthern Africa. Palaeoecol. Afr. 9, 160e202.

van Zinderen Bakker, E.M., 1983. A Lateglacial and post-glacial pollen record fromthe Namib Desert. Palaeoecol. Afr. 16, 421e428.

Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., van Niekerk, K.L., Henshilwood, C.S., Erasmus, R.M., 2013.Thinking strings: additional evidence for personal ornament use in the MiddleStone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 500e517.

Villa, P., Lenoir, M., 2006. Hunting weapons of the Middle Stone Age and the MiddlePalaeolithic: spear points from Sibudu, Rose Cottage and Bouheben. South. Afr.Humanit. 18, 89e122.

Villa, P., Delagnes, A., Wadley, L., 2005. A late Middle Stone Age artifact assemblagefrom Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal): comparisons with the European Middle Paleo-lithic. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 399e422.

Villa, P., Soressi, M., Henshilwood, C.S., Mourre, V., 2009. The Still Bay points ofBlombos Cave (South Africa). J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 441e460.

Villa, P., Soriano, S., Teyssandier, N., Wurz, S., 2010. The Howiesons Poort and MSA IIIat Klasies River main site, Cave 1A. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 630e655.

Vogelsang, R., 1998. Middle Stone Age Fundstellen in Südwest-Namibia. Africa.Heinrich-Barth-Institut, Köln.

Vogelsang, R., Richter, J., Jacobs, Z., Eichhorn, B., Linseele, V., Roberts, R.G., 2010.New excavations of Middle Stone Age deposits at Apollo 11 Rockshelter,Namibia: Stratigraphy, archaeology, chronology and past environments. J. Afr.Archaeol. 8, 185e218.

Volman, T.P., 1980. The Middle Stone Age in the Southern Cape. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Chicago.

Wadley, L., 1991. Rose Cottage Cave: background and a preliminary report on theexcavations. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 46, 125e130.

Wadley, L., 1993. The Pleistocene Later Stone Age south of the Limpopo River.J. World Prehist. 7, 243e296.


Wadley, L., 1995. The Robberg Industry of Rose Cottage Cave, Eastern Free State: Thetechnology, spatial patterns and environment. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 51, 64e74.

Wadley, L., 2005. A typological study of the final Middle Stone Age stone tools fromSibudu Cave, Kwazulu-Natal. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 60, 51e63.

Wadley, L., 2007. Announcing a Still Bay industry at Sibudu Cave, South Africa.J. Hum. Evol. 52, 681e689.

Wadley, L., 2008. The Howieson’s Poort Industry of Sibudu Cave. S. Afr. Archaeol.Soc. Goodwin Ser. 10, 122e132.

Wadley, L., 2012. Two ‘moments in time’ during Middle Stone Age occupations ofSibudu, South Africa. South. Afr. Humanit. 24, 79e97.

Wadley, L., Harper, P., 1989. Rose Cottage Cave revisited: Malan’s Middle Stone Agecollection. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 44, 23e32.

Wadley, L., Jacobs, Z., 2004. Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal: Background to theexcavations of Middle Stone Age and Iron Age occupations. S. Afr. J. Sci. 100,145e151.

Wadley, L., Jacobs, Z., 2006. Sibudu Cave: background to the excavations, stratig-raphy and dating. South. Afr. Humanit. 18, 1e26.

Wadley, L., Sievers, C., Bamford, M., Goldberg, P., Berna, F., Miller, C., 2011. MiddleStone Age bedding construction and settlement patterns at Sibudu, South Af-rica. Science 334, 1388e1391.

Wallsmith, D., 1990. Driekoppen: a Middle Stone Age rockshelter. Nyame Akuma 33,13e16.

Wendt, W.E., 1976. ‘Art Mobilier’ from the Apollo 11 Cave, south west Africa: Africa’soldest dated works of art. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 31, 5e11.

Will, M., Parkington, J.E., Kandel, A.W., Conard, N.J., 2013. Coastal adaptations andthe Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages from Hoedjiespunt 1 in the WesternCape, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 518e537.

Wurz, S., 1997. The Howiesons Poort at Klasies River: from artefacts to cognition.M.A. Thesis, University of Stellenbosch.

Wurz, S., 2002. Variability in the Middle Stone Age lithic sequence, 115,000e60,000years ago at Klasies River, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 29, 1001e1015.

Wurz, S., 2012. The significance of MIS 5 shell middens on the Cape coast: A lithicperspective from Klasies River and Ysterfontein 1. Quatern. Int. 270, 61e69.

Yellen, J., Brooks, A., Helgren, D., Tappen, M., Ambrose, S.H., Bonnefille, R.,Feathers, J.K., Goodfriend, G., Ludwig, K., Renne, P.R., Stewart, K., 2005. Thearchaeology of Aduma Middle Stone Age sites in the Awash Valley, Ethiopia.PaleoAnthropology 10, 25e100.

Ziegler, M., Simon, M.H., Hall, I.R., Barker, S., Stringer, C., Zahn, R., 2013. Develop-ment of Middle Stone Age innovation linked to rapid climate change. Nat.Commun. 4, 1905.

















































































































coalescence and fragmentation in the late pleistocene...

Documents