Quartz bifacial points in the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu

South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (198): 119–136, 2013 119

Research Article

QUARTZ BIFACIAL POINTS IN THE HOWIESONS POORT OFSIBUDU

PALOMA DE LA PEÑA1, LYN WADLEY1 & MARLIZE LOMBARD2

1School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies and Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand,P.O. WITS, 2050, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected]

2Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Johannesburg,P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, South Africa

(Received May 2013. Revised July 2013)

ABSTRACTThe Howiesons Poort Industry is known for its precocious produc-tion of backed stone tools, engraved ostrich eggshell containers anddiverse bone tools. We discovered another novelty at Sibudu: smallquartz bifacial points that were made on site. In this paper we presenta detailed technological study (supported by an experimentalprogramme) and use-wear and residue analyses. Technological analy-sis has demonstrated a short reduction sequence, in four hypotheticalstages, from flakes mainly obtained by a discoidal knapping method.This reconstruction was based on a chaîne opératoire approach ofcompleted points, incomplete points or broken ones that were discardedat various stages of the knapping process, together with manufactur-ing by-products and two refittings. The experimental programmeallowed us to recognise the knapping techniques involved in the manu-facture of these points. Functional analyses suggest that these werehafted hunting weapons of a type not previously recognised. They addto the Industry’s known repertoire of hunting weaponry andmeat-getting strategies, which seemingly included spears, arrows,and possibly snares. Either a short-lived, regional tradition occurredat Sibudu or small quartz bifacial points remain undiscoveredelsewhere.

Key words: quartz bifacial points, Sibudu, Howiesons Poort,Middle Stone Age.

INTRODUCTIONThe Howiesons Poort Industry is found stratified above the

Still Bay Industry in several southern African Middle Stone Agesites. At Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, ages betweenabout 65 000 and 62 000 years ago (ka) have been obtained forthe Howiesons Poort from optically stimulated luminescence(OSL) dating of single quartz grains derived from sediments(Jacobs & Roberts 2008). This southern African industry hasoften been described as precocious because its blade-rich stonetools predate similar forms in Europe. Furthermore, someartefacts seem imbued with symbolism, for example, the repeateddesign elements on engraved ostrich eggshell from Diepkloof,South Africa (Texier et al. 2010). Other Howiesons Poort novel-ties include an array of bone tools, including a putative arrow-head at Sibudu (Backwell et al. 2008; Bradfield & Lombard 2011;d’Errico et al. 2012). The Industry is well-known for its thinstone blades blunted along one edge, designed to be part ofcomposite tools. Amongst these ‘backed tools’ are ‘segments’with straight cutting edges opposite curved, backed ones.

Segments are ingenious because, when used with adhesive,they can be flexibly rotated to create various tool end-products(Wadley & Mohapi 2008). The cutting edges of many ofSibudu’s segments and other backed tools retain microscopictraces of animal residues while adhesive traces on backededges demonstrate that these were the hafted tool portions,sometimes of hunting weapons (Wadley et al. 2009; Lombard

2011). Arrowheads and spear insets have indeed been distin-guished at Sibudu through the direction of impact indicated bymacro-fractures and micro-wear on backed tools, as well as byresidues (Pargeter 2007; Lombard 2008, 2011; Lombard &Pargeter 2008; Lombard & Phillipson 2010). In addition to thisweaponry, it is possible that snares were used in theHowiesons Poort at Sibudu. Circumstantial evidence is in theform of high frequencies of blue duiker bones, together withremains of monkeys and small carnivores whose habits makethem susceptible to being caught in snares (Wadley 2010).Thus, prior to the present study, it was already recognised thatthe Howiesons Poort was an industry incorporating wide-ranging hunting strategies.

Although large segments have been one of the mostemblematic morphotypes of the Howiesons Poort, bifacialelements associated with this industry have been sporadicallycited (Stapleton & Hewitt 1927; Singer & Wymer 1982; Volman1984; Thackeray 1992; Wurz 2000, Porraz et al. 2013, amongothers). Here we describe the presence in the Howiesons Poortat Sibudu, predominantly in its most recent phase at 62 ka, of asubstantial number of small bifacial points, mainly made onquartz (Fig. 1). We ask: how were the points made and used, arethey genuinely part of the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu, and ifso, how does their presence add to our current knowledge ofhuman behaviour at ~62 ka?

THE SITE AND THE POINT SAMPLESibudu is located approximately 40 km north of Durban,

about 15 km inland of the Indian Ocean, on a steep cliff over-looking the uThongathi River. The shelter is 55 m long andabout 18 m in breadth and has a long occupation sequence withseveral layers and features corresponding to the pre-Still Bay,Still Bay, Howiesons Poort, post-Howiesons Poort, late MiddleStone Age, final Middle Stone Age and Iron Age (Wadley &Jacobs 2006; Wadley 2008). Howiesons Poort occupationsreported here come from six square metres (squares B4, B5, B6,C4, C5 and C6) of Wadley’s excavations. The layers associatedwith the Howiesons Poort are (from the base to the top):Pinkish Grey Sand (PGS), Grey Sand (GS, GS2 and GS3), DarkReddish Grey (DRG) and Grey Rocky (GR and GR2) (Fig. 2).The stratigraphy is clear, combustion features are discernible(Wadley 2012), and micromorphology implies that mostSibudu layers have stratigraphic integrity (Goldberg et al. 2009;Wadley et al. 2011), although rock fall between the oldestHowiesons Poort layer, PGS, and the underlying Still Bay layer,Reddish Grey Sand (RGS), has caused some disturbance.Earlier rock fall also disrupted pre-Still Bay layers. Still Baybifacial points made on dolerite, hornfels and quartzite occur inlayer RGS (Wadley 2007), which has an OSL age of 70.5 ± 2.0 ka(Jacobs & Roberts 2008). Some fragments of these bifaces occurwithin layer PGS because of the rock fall disturbance. However,

quartz bifacial points such as those discussed here do not occurin the Still Bay layers. Nor are they present in the youngerindustries that occur in post-Howiesons Poort layers above GRand GR2 (Reddish Brown, Yellow Ash 2 or Hearth in YellowAsh 2) (Cochrane 2006), so there is no possibility that quartzbifacial points travelled downwards through the strata into theHowiesons Poort layers. Quartz bifacial elements have beenfound in all of the Howiesons Poort layers with the exception ofDRG (Fig. 2 and Table 1). However, most of the quartz bifacialpoints, incomplete points or broken ones that were discardedat various stages of the knapping process, together with manu-facturing by-products, have been found in layer GR with anestimated age of ~62 ka (Table 1). As will shortly be described,the quartz bifacial points in the Howiesons Poort layers differtechnologically and typometrically from other bifacial points inthe Sibudu sequence.

In the Howiesons Poort layers the majority of rocksknapped are dolerite, hornfels and quartz. Hornfels anddolerite generally have a similar percentage representation(here we refer to lithics greater than 2 cm in length because weare not counting chips), around 40 to 50%, while quartzcomprises only 2 to 3%. Dolerite is a coarse-grained igneousrock available in the vicinity of the site; it occurs as roundedalluvial cobbles on the banks of the uThongathi River and astabular slabs in sills and dykes (Wadley & Kempson 2011).

Hornfels is much finer grained than dolerite and it is availabletoday some 20 km south of Sibudu, but it may also have beencollected closer to the site from outcrops that are now coveredwith dune sand (Cochrane 2006; Wadley & Kempson 2011). Inthe Sibudu area there are conglomerates containing quartzclasts and vein quartz, and some quartz and quartzite pebblesalso occur in the river and on the river terraces (Wadley &Kempson 2011). Quartz, which is 100% silica, is so hard (7 onMoh’s scale) that it produces long-lasting, sharp edges on stonetools. Its disadvantage is that it contains faults and habituallyshatters, often causing tools to break during manufacture(Callahan 1987; Knutsson 1988; Mourre 1996; Driscoll 2010).

In general, simple terms the Howiesons Poort Industry atSibudu has a strong laminar component, and hornfels anddolerite represent the majority of blanks for the backed tools(Wadley 2008). Nonetheless, the particular knapping methodsinvolved have yet to be defined. For quartz, flaking, bladeletand bipolar knapping methods have been detected. We havenoticed that each of the Howiesons Poort layers deserves anindividual technological study because the characteristics mostlikely change diachronically from one layer to another, as othersite sequences have already shown (Porraz et al. 2013).

Most of the Sibudu Howiesons Poort bifacial points, pointfragments and manufacturing by-products were made onquartz (92.8% of the 111 pieces), but there are also a few bifacial

120 South African Archaeological Bulletin 68 (198): 119–136, 2013

FIG. 1. (A–F) A selection of Howiesons Poort bifacial points from Sibudu showing retouched dorsal and ventral faces. Profiles of all pieces are also shown. All theexamples are made on quartz, except C which is made on hornfels. (G) Sibudu refitting of quartz bifacial point tip and base from layer Grey Rocky. Unfinished pieceslike this have allowed reconstruction of the reduction sequence of these points. The scale is 1 cm.

TABLE 1. Frequencies of Sibudu’s Howiesons Poort bifacial points (completed), fragments (bases, mesial portion, tips and indeterminate portions) and bifacialmanufacturing by-products.

Points with bifacial Base Mesial Tip Indeterminated Completed points š % šBifacial by-products % Bifacialreduction fragment (only quartz) by-products

GR 6 2 3 6 10 27 24.32 13 17.80

GR2 9 3 5 16 7 40 36.04 43 58.9

GS 3 0 1 16 4 24 21.62 9 12.33

GS2 3 0 7 4 0 14 12.61 4 5.48

GS3 1 0 1 0 0 2 1.802 0 0

PGS 2 0 0 0 0 2 1.802 4 5.48

PGS2 1 0 0 1 0 2 1.802 0 0

š 25 5 17 43 21 111 100 73 100


pieces on quartzite (1.8%), dolerite (0.9%) and hornfels (4.5%).Petrologically, automorphic and xenomorphic quartz are

the two main quartz types. Automorphic quartz, which displaysits crystal structure so that crystal faces can be seen, is conven-tionally called hyaline or translucent quartz. Different types ofhyaline quartz are formed geologically over long periods as theresult of internal gas and liquid inclusions, constant environ-mental conditions, and the presence of crystallisation cores.Xenomorphic quartz has a solid structure macroscopically, butit was produced through the aggregation of several microcrystals.The different crystal sizes are the result of varying conditions,for example temperature, during its formation (Luedtke 1992;Mourre 1996; Lombera-Hermida 2009). Most quartz bifacialpoints at Sibudu are made on automorphic quartz and most aremacrocrystalline.

It must be noted that the percentage of bifacial pieces is nota negligible component of the retouched pieces in each of theHowiesons Poort layers. For example, in the GS layer, thecombined category of bifacial points, bifacial preforms andpoint fragments represents 17.5% of retouched pieces(n = 211). In contrast, backed pieces (combining segments,backed blades, and other abruptly retouched morphotypes)have a 53.1% representation. Other types of tools, such asretouched flakes, scrapers and borers, comprise 29.4% ofretouched elements.

THE TECHNOLOGYFor the general industrial study we followed the châine

opératoire approach. In order to describe the specific stagesdeveloped for bifacial reduction we used Callahan’s (1979)

model for the North American Eastern Fluted tradition.Callahan’s 1979 model has been widely used to understandbifacial point strategies in many parts of the world. Initially, themodel described nine stages for these Paleoindian points; laterit was modified to six stages (Callahan 1991; Nami 1991). Nami(1991) proposed that the six stages could be applied to any formof bifacial point and that the reduction sequences for smallbifacial points are different from those of large ones, becausesmall bifacial point manufacture does not need the thinningstages (Nami 2010).

The Sibudu bifacial points are made on flakes from unpre-pared or discoidal cores, and are generally unstandardised inshape and size. This has been deduced from the attributes ofsome bifacial preforms that allowed us to deduce themorphologies and characteristics of the flake-blanks. Detailedtechnological analysis of Sibudu’s Howiesons Poort pointsreveals a short reduction sequence without successive thinningstages. The brevity and simplicity of the point reductionsequence may partly reflect the high risk of knapping accidentswith quartz (Callahan 1987; Knutsson 1988; Mourre 1996;Driscoll 2010). Such a ‘minimum effort strategy’ involves select-ing a uniformly thick flake, of maximum thickness required forthe completed biface, then shaping and thinning its edges withfew flake removals (Patterson 1979).

We hypothesise four phases (Fig. 3):1. Selection of optimally-sized blank flakes made from

discoidal or unprepared cores;2. Minimal thinning whereby unfinished blanks display

attributes of either unifacial reduction (knapping oneflake face initially, then the other) or a bifacial strategy with

FIG. 2. Stratigraphy of Sibudu’s North wall (squares B5 and B6). We have highlighted in red the layers where bifacial points have been documented. On the right:Selected retouched tools throughout the sequence at Sibudu. The scale is 3 cm. (A) Bifacial points from the final MSA, the first two are hollow-based. (B) Unifacialpoints made on hornfels and dolerite from layers with ages between 58 and 48 ka. (C) Howiesons Poort quartz bifacial points and one dolerite segment withochre-loaded adhesive. Note the small size of the quartz points compared with the other points in the Sibudu sequence. (D) Bifacial points on dolerite and quartzitefrom the Still Bay. (E) Dorsal and ventral views of a dolerite bifacial point.

alternating blows to the two faces, a step that conflatesCallahan’s (1991) thinning stages 3 and 4;

3. Shaping of the blank to a refined preform, probably madewith a combination of hard mineral hammer and soft organichammer, resulting in regular scars;

4. Final shaping of the preform and finished product, possiblywith a soft organic hammer and pressure flaking. We applyCallahan’s six-stage model to the Sibudu Howiesons Poortbifacial point reduction sequence and compare this withthe Still Bay point reduction sequence model from Blombos(Villa et al. 2009) and Hollow Rock Shelter (Högberg &Larsson 2011) (Table 2).Apart from the bifacial points at Sibudu, some of the typical

manufacturing by-products of bifacial reduction sequencehave been found (Table 1 and Fig. 4D). However, because of thecharacteristics of quartz – such as transparency, excessivefractures, little development of conchoidal fracture – it was, insome instances, very difficult to recognise the typical manufac-turing by-products of bifacial knapping (for example, smalltrimming flakes). Because of this, the majority of bifacialknapping by-products have probably gone undetected thusfar. The main attributes suggesting that these small trimmingflakes were the result of bifacial knapping are that they usuallyhave an acute butt-dorsal angle and that on the dorsal face flatretouch is developed (Callahan 1979; Inizan et al. 1995). In situknapping of points at 62 ka is implied by such bifacial knappingdebris and by two refitted bases and point tips (Fig. 1), both of

them documented in GR. Bases and tips with similar character-istics to the refitted ones have also been found; however, theycannot be joined (Fig. 4B & C). One could counter-argue thatsome of the alleged point bases in Fig. 4C are instead quartzcores. However, each of these pieces displays a fracture, whichprobably corresponds to the position where the missing tipbroke off. Moreover, to support our argument that they reallyare bifacial point-bases, it should be noted that there is noevidence for knapped cores or flakes on quartz in the size rangeof the bases. The corresponding size range of flakes belongs tobipolar knapping from the abundant bipolar cores.

Most of the bifacial specimens seem to be incomplete pointsthat were abandoned in stage 2 of our classification as a result ofaccidental percussion fractures or other difficulties that aroseduring knapping (Fig. 4A). One of the main causes of abandon-ment seems to be an inappropriate choice of the flake-blank,such as a flake that was too thick. The fact that most of thepoints seem abandoned products must be one of the mainreasons for the lack of standardisation in the sample. However,we are not sure whether we are dealing with a single bifacialmorphotype, or whether several bifacial point classes arerepresented, since different shapes and forms (for example,lanceolate, oval, and base with peduncle) have been recorded(Fig. 1). Points abandoned in stage 2 allow us to reconstructbetter the two procedures for bifacial knapping: a unifacial,face-by-face method (Skinner & Ainsworth 1991; Högberg &Larsson 2011) or a bifacial method (informally called ‘zig-zag’)


FIG. 3. Hypothetical reconstruction of the reduction sequence stages of Sibudu’s quartz bifacial points. (1) Obtaining the blank with a discoidal knapping method orfrom an unprepared core. (B) Minimal thinning, with two options, bifacial or unifacial reduction. (2A) Example of a preform from a flake that has been knapped in azig-zag fashion, alternating blows between the dorsal and ventral faces of the flake-blank. (2B) Example of a preform from a flake that has been knapped unifacially.(3) Shaping of the preform. (4) Finished product. All the pieces shown in the figure are archaeological and come from Howiesons Poort Sibudu layers with the excep-tion of number 1 (the quartz core), which comes from the experimental programme, but its characteristics have been deduced from the technological analysis ofunfinished archaeological preforms.


(Figs 3 & 4). These two variants are simply adaptations for themorphologies of the flakes themselves, and they are attemptsto compensate for the volumes of each of the faces.

REPLICATION OF THE QUARTZ BIFACIAL POINTSFor a better understanding of the reduction sequence of the

Sibudu quartz points, P.d.l.P. used our hypothetical four-stagemodel during experimental knapping to test whether the repli-cated points were similar to the archaeological material. Wealso aimed to get greater detail about the reduction sequenceinvolved in the point knapping process.

We focused on quartz, since most of the bifacial elementsfound in Howiesons Poort levels were made on this rock(92.8%). More experimental work on quartz knapping techniquesis needed, even though previous replications have providedsome awareness of the dynamics of this rock type (e.g.Flenniken 1981; Sussman 1985; Barham 1987; Callahan 1987;Knutsson 1988; Mourre 1996; Ballin 2004, 2005; Lombera-Hermida 2009; Tallaavara et al. 2010; Driscoll 2010). Quartzexperiments in an African context have been conducted mainlyfor Earlier Stone Age technology; see for example the recentwork of Díez Martín and colleagues (2009). However, quartz isalso a common rock type in many Middle Stone Age and LaterStone Age sequences (Bisson 1990), although, in the HowiesonsPoort, the importance of quartz has passed almost unnoticedcompared to other fine-grained rocks with mechanical featuresthat have greater technological-readability. Our experimentsmay, furthermore, be useful for explaining other types ofbifacial knapping on other rock types.

Vein quartz with similar properties to that from Sibudu wasselected from sources in Namibia, Polokwane and Johannesburg.First, flake blanks were produced using a discoidal reductionsequence. Secondly, blanks were selected based on the averagelength, breadth and thickness of the Sibudu points, that is,about 4 cm length, 2.5–3 cm breadth and 2 cm thick (see below).We took into account that initial blanks must be slightly bigger

than the end-products. We used different knapping tech-niques (following Tixier in Pelegrin 2000) with soft mineralhammer (sandstone), hard mineral hammer (quartzite andiron stone), bone hammer (antelope metapod) and pressureflaking (with the bone retouchers previously published ind’Errico et al. 2012). More than 100 tests were accomplished.However, not all of the products ended up as finished points be-cause on many occasions the preform points broke duringknapping, or the selection of the primary blankflake was notoptimal. Also, some tests were carried out simply to comparedifferent knapping techniques. Fifty-five tests were conductedonly using hard mineral hammer and soft mineral hammer. Inanother 48 tests P.d.l.P. used a combination of hard mineralhammer for stages 1 and 2, and bone hammer and pressureflaking for stages 3 and 4 (Fig. 5).

The experimental programme confirmed our four-stagemodel. Moreover, it also enabled us to understand that thestages pointed out in our model must be thought of in adynamic technological way, not as static stages. The experi-ment highlighted the difficulty of knapping quartz (Callahan1987; Knutsson 1988; Mourre 1996; Driscoll 2010). It should benoted that, while knapping quartz, the artisan is obligedrepeatedly to change his/her strategy as a result of the highpercentage of impurities, flaws and unpredictable fracturing.Given such difficulty, it is striking that quartz was preferen-tially selected for making bifacial points during the HowiesonsPoort at Sibudu. Even when good characteristics for removalswere initially present on a preform, such as an appropriatestriking angle and preparation surface, the ‘desired’ subse-quent removals were not always assured. Also, the mostcommon causes for point abandonment were breakagebecause of flaws and internal small diaclases in the quartz, orbecause poor flake blanks were unintentionally selected.

We also paid attention to the manufacturing by-products(discards) from our bifacial knapping. Certainly, some of thetypical manufacturing by-products described in the literature

TABLE 2. Callahan (1991) and Nami (1991) models for bifacial reduction sequences compared with the Sibudu bifacial point reduction sequence model and StillBay point reduction sequence model from Blombos (Villa et al. 2009) and Hollow Rock Shelter (Högberg & Larsson 2011). Stages not found in Howiesons Poortbifacial points from Sibudu have been highlighted in grey.

Callahan’s six-stagemodel

Bifacial Howiesons Poort points from Sibudu following a‘minimum effort strategy’

Blombos and Hollow Rock Shelter Still Bay point model

1 Obtaining the blank 1. Obtaining the blank (from discoidal or unprepared core).Flake blank struck by hard mineral hammer.

Phase 1. ‘Initial shaping’. Obtaining the blank/slightly workedblock.

2 Initial shaping ‘Initial shaping’ stage is not present because the blanks wereflakes and not blocks, and also because the flakes were close insize to the finished products, following a ‘minimum effortstrategy’.

3 Primary thinning 2. Minimal thinning of the flake blank, probably performedwith hard mineral hammer. One of the main objectives of thisstage was to eliminate the butt of the flake-blank.

Unifacial or bifacial series of removals.

Bifacial preform was obtained, but usually not with a pointform. Sometimes the flake butt of the preform could not beremoved and the piece was consequently abandoned, or alter-natively it passed to the following stage with the butt stillattached. Stage 2 resumes Callahan s thinning stages 3 and 4.

Phase 2. ‘Advanced shaping’.Characterised by the use of mar-ginal percussion (soft or softstone hammer) to thin theblank.

2a. ‘Worked piecewith a distinctshape’. Use of hard and softhammer.

4 Secondary thinning 2ab. ‘Preform shaped as a point’.Only proposed in Hollow Rockshelter model.

5 Preform 3. Refined preform, probably produced by a combinationof hard mineral hammer and soft organic hammer, whichresulted in regular scars.

2b. Point clearly shaped andwith well-balanced propor-tions. It has only soft hammerscars.

6 Finished product 4. Finished product. Probably produced by pressure flaking. Phase 3. Finished product

No recycling strategies have been found in the Sibudu sample. Phase 4. Recycling and modifications (hard mineral hammer)

for fine-grained material are present (with an acute dorsal-ventral angle and flat retouch in the dorsal face) (e.g. Callahan1979; Inizan et al. 1995), although the majority of the flakes andchips observed do not correspond to what would be expected.Most of the flakes shatter during knapping and many piecesare difficult to classify or even to orient the knapping strike.

Furthermore, the by-products usually have step or hingeterminations. Experiments show that there is a striking qualita-tive overlap between the characteristics of the quartzby-products produced by bifacial knapping, normal freehandpercussion and bipolar knapping (Flenniken 1981, and P.d.l.P.,personal observation).


FIG. 4. (A) Sibudu examples of flakes knapped bifacially (point preforms). They were abandoned at stage 2 of our classification (see Table 2 and Fig. 2). (B) Brokenbifacial point tip examples from Howiesons Poort layers. The type of fracture is typical of manufacturing failures. (C) Broken bifacial bases. (D) Examples of flakingby-products from bifacial knapping in Howiesons Poort layers. All the scales are 1 cm.


Although the information obtained for the by-productswas important in order to have a realistic idea of the bifacialby-products related to quartz knapping, our experiments weredecisive in that they showed the different morphologicalcharacteristics of the scar pattern (negatives) of the points

obtained through different knapping techniques (followingTixier in Pelegrin 2000). During the experiments, the maindifferences detected, macroscopically, between the differentknapping techniques were as follows:1. Using a hard mineral hammer usually produced very

FIG. 5. Replicated quartz bifacial points. (A, B, C) Different examples of quartz unfinished points, in stage 2 (minimal thinning). (D, E, F) Points broken duringknapping because of quartz fissures and flaws. Some of the refitted broken bifacial fragments are identical to fragments from Sibudu. (G, H, I) Finished productswith different shapes. All the examples shown in the figure are made from automorphic quartz. Pieces collected in Johannesburg are A, B and F, while the rest of theexamples are from Namibia.

pronounced contrabulbs, fissures on the edge, knapped,hinge and step terminations in the scars, rectangular-shaped scars as the most frequent shapes, irregularity andheterometry (different sizes and morphology) between thedifferent scars, and hinge and step scars in cascade(Fig. 6A–H). These attributes partially coincide with thoseobtained by Lombera-Hermida (2009) and Knutsson (1988),who have highlighted similar characteristics for hard mineralpercussion, for example, splintering, edge battering and

fissures. These scar characteristics obtained by freehandpercussion in quartz are similar to the ones produced onfine-grained rocks (such as chert or flint) during bipolarknapping (following de la Peña 2011).

2. A bone hammer produced mainly shallow scars, fissureslocalised just next to the edge, and irregularity/heterometrybetween the scars (but less notably than with mineralpercussion) (Fig. 6I–L).

3. Finally, pressure flaking produced shallow scars, mainly


FIG. 6. (A–H) Macroscopic scar characteristics of experimental quartz points knapped with hard (quartzite) and soft (sandstone) mineral hammers. Note thepronounced contrabulbs in all the examples (A–H), the heterometry between scars, the fissures of the edges (C), the rectangular scars which are the most frequentshapes (F and G), and the step terminations of the scars in ‘cascade’ (A, E, D). (I–L) Macroscopic scar characteristics of experimental quartz points knapped with abone hammer. Note the shallow scars in comparison to hard mineral examples, and the fissures just beside the edge (I, on the right ×2). (M–T) Macroscopic scarcharacteristics obtained by pressure flaking. Note the high regularity in shape of the scars of example (M), the microdenticulation (M, N, O, P, Q), the semi-crescentshapes in some cases (R) and the bone residues attached to the protrusions of the scars (S, T). All the pieces shown in this figure are from experiments. Examples Kand R are casts of experimental pieces, in order to avoid the reflectiveness of quartz. All the scales are 1 cm unless otherwise indicated.


crescent-shaped scars, sometimes micro-denticulation anda high regularity in shape of the scars (homogeneity) (Fig. 6M–T).The experiments show that stages 1 and 2 of our model for

quartz bifacial points probably were conducted with hardmineral percussion, while stages 3 and 4 probably were carriedout with a combination of organic hammer and hard mineralhammer (stage 3) and perhaps also pressure flaking (stage 4)(see Table 2). The fact that pressure flaking scars are docu-mented seems consistent with bone pressure flakers found inlayer GR (see d’Errico et al. 2012). The pressure flakers couldalso have been used for the backing of segments and otherformal tools in the Howiesons Poort. More experiments arerequired to resolve this issue. In Fig. 7 several knapping scarson archaeological pieces exemplify the morphological charac-teristics highlighted above. We are aware that the macroscopiccharacterisation is preliminary and perhaps too general tomake a refined distinction between knapping techniques.However, the macroscopic approach is a necessary step for anyfunctional or technological approach (Plisson 1981; GonzálezUrquijo & Ibáñez Estévez 1994; Pelegrin 2000; Claud et al. 2009),not least because the issue of knapping techniques in quartz isseldom studied.

TYPOMETRIC STUDYSince the Howiesons Poort bifacial points were unstandar-

dised morphologically and we found several shapes in oursample, we decided to explore ways to distinguish our samplefrom other bifacial points in the Sibudu sequence. For thisreason we made a typometric approximation of the measure-ment distributions of the points. In Fig. 8 we show the differentdistribution of length, width and thickness of Sibudu’sHowiesons Poort bifacial points (from all the levels) comparedto Sibudu s Still Bay points (from layer RGS, published inWadley 2007). To do so, we have used all the points (finishedand unfinished of both industries).

We also performed an independent sample t-test for eachvariable of interest (i.e. length, breadth and thickness). Theindependent sample t-test compares the mean scores of twogroups on a given variable. The strict assumptions for this testare the following: the dependent variable is normally distributed,the two groups compared have approximately equal varianceon the dependent variable, and the two groups are independentof one another. Before we performed the test for each variable,we checked for normality and equality of variances for all threevariables for the two groups (Still Bay vs Howiesons Poortpoints). Normality was checked with a Kolmogorov-Smirnovand a Shapiro-Wilk test and equality of variances with aLevene’s test (everything with SPSS software). Normality wasobserved in all variables except for the thickness variable inHowiesons Poort bifacial points. Equality of variances wasobserved for all variables except length. Significant differencesbetween the two compared groups (Still Bay vs HowiesonsPoort points) of points (P £ 0.05) have been found for lengthand breadth.

In addition, we explored the possibility that the quartzpoints were hunting weapons like those used ethnographically.The comparisons were made by calculating Tip Cross-SectionalArea (TCSA) and Perimeter (TCSP) on the quartz bifacialpoints, following Hughes (1998) and Sisk and Shea (2011).The TCSA and TCSP indices represent the force necessary topenetrate a target (Shea 2006; Sisk & Shea 2011). The TCSPadditionally takes account of a point’s perimeter which ‘slices ahole in the target’, unlike modern bullets that strike their target(Sisk & Shea 2011). The mean and standard deviation (SD) of

both indices were as follows: TCSA Mean 39.52, SD 76.65,and TCSP Mean 18.05, SD 23.02. The high values of thestandard deviations are due to great variability amongst themeasurements of our sample and they invalidate the means.The variable measurements probably reflect the low frequencyof finished products, as highlighted in the technological

FIG. 7. (A–J) Macroscopic scars on Sibudu quartz points showing characteris-tics typical of hard mineral hammering. Note the pronounced contrabulbs in allthe examples (A–J), the heterometry between scars, the fissures of the edges(B, C, D), the frequent rectangular scars (F, G) and the step terminations ofthe edges (C, D, H, I). (K–N) Macroscopic scar characteristics of Sibuduquartz points that show characteristics typical of soft hammer percussionand pressure flaking. Note the shallow scars (K–N) and the microdenticulation(K, L, M).

analysis. Notwithstanding their flaws, the means of bothindices imply a tendency towards small finished products,that is, the quartz bifacial points have indices that fall into therange of darts and arrowheads, using ethnographic examples(Hughes 1998; Shea 2006; Sisk & Shea 2011).

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSISTo assess the function of the quartz points, ML conducted

detailed use-trace analysis on three of the pieces (Fig. 9), follow-ing methods previously described (e.g. Lombard 2005, 2008,2011; Fullagar 2006). Interpreting use direction, impact andhafting positions based on mechanical traces, wear and fracturepatterns is a well-established practice since the 1960s (e.g.Semenov 1964; Hayden 1979; Fischer et al. 1984; Hurcombe1992; Rots et al. 2006; Rots 2010; Van Gijn 2010), also on quartz(e.g. Sussman 1985; Knutsson 1988). Blind tests attest to thegeneral reliability of the microscopic, morphological identifica-tion of micro-residue types left on stone tools as a result of use(Hardy & Garufi 1998; Wadley et al. 2004; Lombard & Wadley2007; Monnier et al. 2012). For the characteristics of in situmicro-residues see Appendix A in Lombard (2008). To increasethe dependability of interpretations, we also seek concomitantsupport for the identification of such residues. The repetitiveclustering of attendant residues, for example, the combinationof fat, blood, bone, and animal tissue on a tool portion providesa far more secure interpretation of an animal residue type thanany single residue (Wadley & Lombard 2007; Langejans 2011).This is particularly relevant in archaeological contexts wheresome residues may be partially degraded and where the potentialfor ancient, post-depositional or post-excavation contaminantsis high. The functional interpretations below are based on thismulti-stranded approach, which also includes mechanicaltraces such as wear and fracturing. Final interpretations areonly ventured once all variables on the tool surfaces have beenconsidered.

Tool GR6 is a small point with a missing tip (see Figs 9 &10)for use-trace details discussed below). Microscopically, the tipdamage can be considered diagnostic of a hunting function.The bending fracture is associated with crushing and bifacial,step-terminating, spin-off fractures that are most likely to developduring hunting (Fischer et al. 1984; Pargeter & Bradfield 2012).The distal portion of the tool also has several occurrences ofanimal tissue, fat, bone and some blood residues along theedges and on the surface, which is consistent with the huntinginterpretation. All the striation sets on the distal portion arelongitudinally oriented and present along the edges as well ason the inner surface of the tool. This distribution pattern forstriation sets is common for hafted hunting weapons (Fischeret al. 1984; Kay 1996; Yaroshevich et al. 2010). Hafting issupported by the large areas (area 1) of bright polish on thedorsal and ventral, proximal portions of the tool (e.g. Rots2010). The proximal half of the tool is also the location of most ofthe resinous/gum or adhesive residues together with yellowfatty/waxy deposits. Fat and/or wax might have been used inthe adhesive recipe (Lombard 2005; Wadley et al. 2009). Onlytwo isolated ochre occurrences were recorded on the ventralside, and these are not replicated on the proximal, dorsalportion of the tool. It seems that the adhesive recipe for this tooldid not deliberately include ochre because the clear associa-tion, as was reported for hornfels and dolerite segments fromthe same context (Lombard 2007), is absent. Rather, a stickierglue recipe might have been preferred for quartz tools(Lombard 2007). Striations and striated polishes are present inall directions on the proximal portion of this artefact, perhapsindicating the wiggling of the tool into place and subsequentfriction with the haft during hunting use. Woody residuesimply the hafting material, and transverse striations situated inassociation with lateral damage and the probable hafting line,imply the use of a binding material. The latter might have beenplant twine, as a single plant fibre is associated with brightpolish on the proximal surface of the tool.


FIG. 8. Box-plots for length, breadth and thickness (all measurements in mm)of Howiesons Poort quartz points (from layers GR, GR2, GS, GS2, PGS andPGS2) and Still Bay points (from layer RGS) of Sibudu. Each box plotrepresents the median (black horizontal bar), the 25th and 75th percentiles,represented as the lower and upper edges of the box and the 10th and 90thpercentiles as error bars; symbols above or below each box show outliers.Significant differences according to an independent sample t-test between thetwo compared groups of points (P £ 0.05) have been found for length andbreadth, after verifying normal distribution and equality of variances of thecompared groups with Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene’s tests, respectively.


FIG. 9. Use-trace plots on the Sibudu quartz points. The annotations on this figure indicate the use-traces as plotted and interpreted during microscopy. Individualtraces are indicated in black and are self-evident. In several instances, however, larger areas on the artefacts display broad trends with interpretative value, and theseare indicated by the dashed lines/areas. GR6D and GR6V – Line A indicates the probable hafting line (where haft, glue and possible binding terminate) based onthe distribution of use-traces; area 1 is heavily polished on both sides of the tool. GS1D and GS1V – Line A again indicates the probable hafting line and is consis-tent on both sides of the tool; area 1 is heavily polished; area 2 has post-depositional residues (ash, soil, charcoal, etc.) on top of which is some bone and ochre, theseresidues are not interpreted as use-related; area 3 is somewhat polished, perhaps as a result of trampling as this pattern is not repeated on the ventral surface; area 4has a hard concretion of post-depositional residues with bone on top, probably not use-related. GR4D and GR4V – Along line A the artefact has damage consistentwith what can be expected when used for cutting/butchery on both sides; line B on the other hand is remarkably undamaged on both sides; area 1 is covered in a thinlayer of animal tissue; area 2 also has many animal residues on its surface, but these are more fragmented, and sometimes they are thicker than those on area 1. Area 3has red mineral inclusions in the rock.

Similar to the previous tool, GS1 is interpreted as havingbeen hafted as a tip of a hunting weapon (see Figs 9 & 11 fortrace details discussed below). The ventral side of the tool espe-cially attests to this function. The tip has severe micro crushingassociated with longitudinal striations. Longitudinal striationsets, animal tissue, fat and bone residues are prolific on thedistal portion of the ventral side, and some blood residues havealso been recorded here. A few resinous residues were recordeddistally, but this residue type is more abundant on the proximalportion of the tool, where it is also associated with polish andcriss-cross striations or striated polishes indicative of hafting.Corresponding damage on the lateral edges of the tool is addi-tional evidence for hafting, and it provides points of referencefor the probable hafting line. Woody residues on both proximalportions confirm the hafting material. Use-traces on the dorsalside are less clear, and might have been influenced by post-depositional factors such as trampling, pressure or heating.Several areas show random polishing of the protruding ridgesand some areas have concretions that include ash, charcoal andsoil. In a few instances bone and ochre residues were recordedon top of these concretions, but, based on their layering theseare not considered use-related residues.

GR4 is considered unfinished from a technological perspec-tive, yet it shows clear traces of use (see Figs 9 & 12 for trace

details discussed below). Contrary to what is often expected ofretouched points, this artefact does not seem to have beenhafted, nor was it used to tip a hunting weapon. Its use tracesare more consistent with those of a handheld butchery tool(e.g. Semenov 1964; Rots 2010; Robertson 2011). Only one edgeseems to have been used this way, with both the dorsal andventral sides of edge A (Fig. 9) showing the characteristic longi-tudinal or slightly diagonal striations and some edge damage.Fragmented animal tissue, fat, bone and blood residues are alsoassociated with this edge and its adjacent surface. The oppositeedge is remarkably undamaged, but has some animal residues,as can be expected when working with wet meat. Area 1 (Fig. 9)on the proximal portion of the tool is also inundated withanimal residues, sometimes in thin smears. This is interpretedas the area that was held during the butchery process, and theresidues as a result of the butcher’s hand being covered inblood and animal tissue. Thick bone residue in some placessuggests that the tool was used for dismemberment and therecorded hair fragments might imply the skinning of ananimal. Even though some of the proximal lateral edges showdamage and crushing, these traces might be a result of theknapping effort (trying to remove the thick bulb), rather thanfrom use or hafting, because the tell-tale surface polish andwell-developed polish spots (Rots et al. 2006) often associated


FIG. 10. Micrographs of some use-traces recorded on the dorsal (D) and ventral (V) sides of artefact GR6. GR6D – (a) Microscopic step-terminating fractures andcrushing associated with animal residues and longitudinal striations; (b) longitudinal striations associated with microscopic step-terminating, spin-off fracture;(c) bone residue; (d) animal residue and collagen; (e) transversely striated polish; polished surface with associated adhesive residue; (f) highly polished proximaledge and surface; wood fibre; (g) bone flake; (h) highly polished and rounded proximal edge and surface; (i) woody residue; (j) surface polish with associatedresinous and wood residues; (k) edge damage, transversely oriented polish, resinous residue and fatty animal residues; (l) erythrocyte outlines (white arrows).GR6V – (a) Crushing and step-terminating, spin-off fracture with associated fatty animal residue; (b) bone/collagen in tip damage; (c) fatty animal residue;(d) longitudinal striations; (e) transverse striations with wood/plant fibre; (f) heavily polished protrusion with rounded edges and associated resinous/gum resi-due; (g) resinous/gum residue with yellow fatty residue; (h) damaged and rounded edge with polish on the tool surface and associated resinous/gum residue;(i) plant fibre on heavily polished surface; j) edge damage with associated resinous and yellow fatty residue.


with hafting are absent, as are clear indications of an adhesiveon the proximal portion of the tool. This tool, with its sharplateral edges, may thus not have been a finished bifacial point,but the use-traces attest that it was nonetheless used.

The use-trace analysis of these artefacts suggests that thefinished quartz points were intended for hafting as sharp tipsfor hunting weapons, and that the unfinished products werenot discarded, but were put to good use by their makers. Inaddition to the wear traces, the hunting/butchery interpreta-tion is amply supported by the range and quantity of animalmicro-residues on the tools.

DISCUSSIONQuartz was the preferred rock for knapping bifacial points

in the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu. Some reasons for its choiceare difficult to elucidate. Yet, despite the difficulty of knappingbrittle quartz (see above), this quality of the rock may constitutean advantage for hunting weapons. The brittleness of quartzmakes it shatter on impact, and this might make the weaponmore lethal than those made from other rock types. This expla-nation would be consistent with previous studies of quartzbacked implements in the Howiesons Poort, which are associ-ated with hunting (Lombard & Phillipson 2010; Lombard2011).

It is noteworthy that, from a preliminary technologicalstudy of quartz artefacts in layer GS, it appears that quartz

pieces were exploited to exhaustion. Cores under three centi-metres in length were often subject to bipolar knapping toobtain small flakes and bladelets and to reduce the cores as faras possible. This implies, indirectly, that although quartz wasnot the most prolific rock type in the Howiesons Poort, it washighly valued in the economy of rock types at Sibudu (seealso Perlès 1992 for a description of the term ‘economy of rocktypes’).

The discovery of the quartz bifacial points with their associ-ated bifacial manufacturing by-products, and their functionalassociation with hunting (as demonstrated above with theuse-wear and micro-residue results), adds a largely unacknowl-edged element to the repertoire of hunting strategies withinthe Howiesons Poort. As already mentioned in the introduction,different sizes of backed tools have been attributed to huntingweapons such as spears and arrowheads, and snares have beendeduced from Sibudu’s faunal record. The Sibudu HowiesonsPoort thus has strikingly abundant evidence within its lithicand other assemblages for a variety of hunting weapons andstrategies. On the one hand, the quartz bifacial points at Sibudumight represent a local or regional technological tradition. Onthe other hand, bifacial points might not be reported oremphasised in Howiesons Poort assemblages at some othersites because they are assumed to be out of context.

Another interesting feature provided by Sibudu’s quartzbifacial points, is that even if the typometric study is inconclu-

FIG. 11. Micrographs of some use-traces recorded on the dorsal (D) and ventral (V) sides of artefact GS1. GS1D – (a) Edge damage; (b) tip damage; (c) erythrocyteoutlines (white arrows); (d) edge damage with putative blood residue; (e) cemented post-depositional residues with rootlet; (f) cemented post-depositional residueswith bone (probably not use related); (g) ochre residue on top of post-depositional residues (isolated and probably not use-related); (h) polished edge and surface withassociated resinous residues; (i) thick resinous deposit; (j) woody residue; (k) rigid wood fibre (horizontal arrow) and associated starch grains (vertical arrows).GS1V – (a) Bone flakes in edge damage on top of resinous deposit; (b) fatty bone residue and animal cell (white arrow); (c) crushed tip with ‘rotating’ damageand animal residues; (d) longitudinal striations on tip; (e) crushed bone residue; (f) edge damage with longitudinally oriented polish originating from damage;(g) polished surface with associated resinous residues; (h) rounded and polished proximal edge with resinous residues; (i) resinous residues with woody residue;(j) wood cells; (k) edge damage with associated polish and resinous residues.

sive (because of the great standard deviation of the sample), thesmall size of the quartz points and the presence of animalresidues on their tips adds weight to the association betweenthe Howiesons Poort and arrowheads (Backwell et al. 2008;Lombard & Phillipson 2010; Lombard 2011). The use of arrowsand bows is not a trivial matter because of the cognitive impli-cations of such symbiotic weapon systems (Lombard & Haidle2011). Since the dimensions of several points place them withinthe range of darts, we cannot exclude the possibility thatsuch projectile heads were also used at Sibudu. Indeed, someresearchers consider that darts were used early in the MiddleStone Age of East Africa (Brooks et al. 2006). Darts are notknown ethnographically in Africa, but it is not impossible thatthe technology appeared in the Middle Stone Age and waslater abandoned.

Moreover, from a general point of view, the discovery of thequartz bifacial points links the Howiesons Poort with othertechnocomplexes of the Middle Stone Age, several of whichhave bifacial technology as a common denominator. The Sibudusequence is a clear example of recurrent bifacial technology.Bifacial technology appears in layers associated with assemblagesthat are attributed to the pre-Still Bay, Still Bay, HowiesonsPoort, and (in some instances) post-Howiesons Poort (Fig. 2).

Bifacial technology recurs repeatedly, albeit unpredictably,in spatially and chronologically separated industries of theAfrican Middle Stone Age. Bifacial axe production on quartz

may have been the forerunner of quartz bifacial point produc-tion even though the use of these smaller tools would havebeen different from that of the axes. The middle Sangoan levelin Sudan, at Sai Island, 8-B-11 (~200 ka), yielded 48 core-axes,mostly made on quartz (Rots & van Peer 2006). Fourteen of thecore-axes had been used; four were possibly used and the 30that remained unused were generally unfinished, mainly dueto production problems (such as breakage). The repeatedproduction difficulties evidenced nearly a quarter of a millionyears ago with the bifacial working of quartz suggests that thematerial’s hard and sharp cutting edges compensated for someinevitable disappointments during the knapping phase. AtTwin Rivers, Zambia, quartz bifacial points occur together withquartz backed blades (including segments) in the LupembanIndustry, which has suggested ages between 270 ka and 170 ka(Barham 2000; Barham et al. 2000). Some of the Twin Riversquartz points are lanceolates, but others are small like theSibudu ones; some Twin Rivers points have basal thinning,while others are tanged and shouldered. Quartz bifacial pointsare even associated with backed artefacts at Magosi, Uganda(Wayland & Burkitt 1932). At Redcliff, Zimbabwe, backedblades and bifacial points co-occur in the deep open site (Cooke1978), but there is potential for mixed assemblages here becausethere are no clear stratigraphic markers.

Archaeologists do not presently consider sites north of theLimpopo to belong to the Howiesons Poort, but the old collec-


FIG. 12. Micrographs of some use-traces recorded on the dorsal (D) and ventral (V) sides of artefact GR4. GR4D – (a) Distribution of a thin layer of animalresidues; (b) thick bone residue crushed within a knapping scar; (c) putative blood residue based on the presence of an erythrocyte outline (white arrow) as well asconcomitant animal residues; (d) putative blood spatter; (e) animal tissue distributed on tool surface; (f) nucleated animal cells; (g) animal tissue smeared on thetool surface; (h) bone flake; (i) fatty residue smeared on edge; (j) fungal growth; (k) edge damage and diagonal striations; (l) edge damage with animal residues;(m) putative blood residue. GR4V– (a) Animal residues in scars along the edge; (b) animal residue; (c) putative blood residue associated with diagonal striation;(d) erythrocyte outline (white arrow); (e) edge damage and diagonal striations associated with animal residue; (f) nucleated animal cell; (g) edge damage anddiagonal striations associated with animal residue and putative blood residue; (h) erythrocyte outlines (white arrows); (i, j) fatty animal residues with hairfragments; (k) hair fragment with visible medulla (white arrow); (l) thin film of animal residues; (m) thick bone deposit; (n) bone residue in knapping scar; (o) fattyresidue; (p) relative pristine tool edge; (q) bone and animal residue along edge.


tions need revisiting to reassess this interpretation. ZimbabweanMiddle Stone Age Bambata industries (formerly known as theRhodesian Still Bay) contain quartz bifacial points togetherwith backed blades. One such site is Zombepata, level 0.83–0.91metres (Cooke 1971). Units 4 and 5 at ◊Gi in Botswana haveassemblages similar to the Bambatan industries in Zimbabwe(Kuman 1989). The most abundant formal tools in both unitsare unifacial and bifacial points. Rhino Cave, also in Botswana,has quartz bifacial points and there are points in various stagesof manufacture (Robbins et al. 2000), but, again, the assemblageis not a Howiesons Poort one. In southern Namibia, in Apollo 11,quartz bifacial points occur together with backed tools in theHowiesons Poort (Vogelsang et al. 2010).

Some open-air sites that are definitely not Howiesons Poortalso contain quartz bifacial points: these include ◊Hing-◊hais,central Namibia (Shackley 1985), and Soutfontein-001, southernNamaqualand, South Africa (Mackay et al. 2010). At HollowRock Shelter and at Blombos, South Africa, there are somequartz bifacial points in the Still Bay Industry (Villa et al. 2009;Högberg & Larsson 2011). Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter,KwaZulu-Natal, about 90 km from Sibudu, has nine quartzbifacial points in levels 25–27, but these points are serrated andare thought to belong with the Still Bay, rather than theHowiesons Poort Industry (Lombard et al. 2010). Level 25 hasan OSL age of 70.5 ± 4.7 (Lombard et al. 2010), and is associatedwith an abundance of backed tools (Kaplan 1990). Rotationalslippage of sediments at the site (Kaplan 1990), together withthe excavation of sediments in 50–100 mm spits, has invariablyresulted in some mixing of the Umhlatuzana material so it isnot straightforward to compare the site’s lithic assemblageswith those from Sibudu where the sediments are remarkablyintact (Goldberg et al. 2009). Two quartz bifacial points werealso found in level 19 at Umhlatuzana, together with backedtools (Kaplan 1990).

Volman (1984) commented that there is considerable vari-ability amongst Howiesons Poort sites in terms of the formaltools represented, so that some assemblages have unifacial andbifacial points whilst they are absent or very rare in others.Thus the Sibudu Howiesons Poort assemblage is not alone inhaving bifacial points as an integral part of its backed bladeindustry even though, at other sites, the points are often notmade on quartz. Some records from the 1920s do describebifacial points in southern African sites with Howiesons Poortassemblages. The prime example is the Howiesons Poort namesite, in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. It was excavated firstby Stapleton and Hewitt (1927) and later by the Deacons(Deacon 1995). It contained backed blades together with pointsbearing flat unifacial and bifacial retouch. Most points aresilcrete, but some are quartzite, so the comparison with Sibuduis not entirely appropriate. Retouch tends to be flat on theventral surface of the cutting edge and some bifacial specimensfrom Howiesons Poort have steep retouch on the dorsal surface(Deacon 1995). These Howiesons Poort points excavated in the1920s are reported to be smaller and less ‘finished’ than those ofthe earlier Still Bay Industry (Goodwin 1929). Dating of theHowiesons Poort name site is problematic (Deacon 1995); itsstratigraphy is unclear, and the observations about its lithicindustry have therefore been downplayed.

Points do not appear to feature strongly in the HowiesonsPoort assemblages at Klasies River, Eastern Cape. The Klasiessites have often been considered the template for the MiddleStone Age cultural sequence, at least in southern Africa. Bifacialpoints were rare in the Singer and Wymer (1982) excavations.There are six broken or unfinished bifacial points in theHowiesons Poort of Shelter 1A, but not one of these is made

from quartz. The technological analysis of Wurz (2000) left thepresence of these points as an open question. In Nelson BayCave, Western Cape, the Howiesons Poort is present in levels 7and 6, and in level 7 there are silcrete bifacial points togetherwith backed blades (Volman 1980).

Finally, the recent publication of Diepkloof ’s HowiesonsPoort layers presents bifacial pieces in what their researcherscall ‘Early Howiesons Poort’ (Porraz et al. 2013). Indeed, thesebifacial pieces, (together with strangulated-notched pieces),are part of the typo-technological argument to support theconclusion that the Diepkloof sequence is the only docu-mented one having an ‘Early Howiesons Poort’ in southernAfrica. It is further argued that the other Howiesons Poortassemblages in southern Africa are equivalent to Diepkloof ’s‘Intermediate’ and ‘Late Howiesons Poort phases’. However, inlight of the data just presented from Sibudu, this typo-technological conclusion does not apply, because bifacial tech-nology is common practice particularly in Sibudu’s most recentlayers (GR and GR2) associated with Howiesons Poort (Table 1and Fig. 2). However, it is possible that the bifacial technologicaltradition from Diepkloof differs from that presented here forSibudu and this would not be a surprise given the considerabledistance between the sites. Yet, as our brief review above dem-onstrates, there is evidence for the co-occurrence of bifacialpoints and backed tools in several different southern Africansequences. By revisiting previously excavated assemblagesfrom a technological point of view more bifacial HowiesonsPoort points might be recorded.

CONCLUSIONSHere we have shown that quartz bifacial points, which are

smaller than points elsewhere in the sequence, are unquestion-ably a part of Sibudu’s Howiesons Poort. Layers GS, GR2and GR, from which most of these bifacial remains come, havestratigraphic integrity and seem not to have any potential sedi-ment mixture. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that thesize of these Howiesons Poort bifacial points differs statisticallyfrom the well-known Still Bay points, also present in thesequence of Sibudu (Wadley 2007).

Technological analysis suggests that the reduction sequenceof the Howiesons Poort quartz bifacial pieces followed a shortschema with four potential phases, in which differentknapping techniques were involved. The analysis of all thebifacial fragments, preforms and bifacial points has shown thatmost of the points found at Sibudu were not finished. Thisresult contradicts the functional study, which provides evi-dence of use on pieces even where this was unexpected from atechnological point of view (i.e. GR4). Two other bifacial pointsdisplay use-wear, striations, macroscopic fractures and residuesthat link them most plausibly with hunting tasks.

The diversity of hunting weapons implied by Sibudu’sbacked tools, possible bone arrowhead, the quartz bifacialpoints, and circumstantial evidence for snares, suggests a rangeof design variability amongst Howiesons Poort weaponry notyet demonstrated in earlier industries where backed tools occur(Barham 2000; Brown et al. 2012) and where hafted weapons areinferred (Wilkins et al. 2012). The wide assortment of huntingtechniques used in the Howiesons Poort is reminiscent of thoseused by recent hunter-gatherers. We suggest two potentialscenarios to explain the unexpected inclusion of quartz bifacialpoints in the already rich technical package of the HowiesonsPoort at Sibudu. First, a short-lived and local, technologicaltradition may be implied by the suite of bifacial points;secondly, it is not impossible that undiscovered HowiesonsPoort quartz bifacial point assemblages exist elsewhere.


Here we have called attention to bifacial technology associ-ated with Howiesons Poort assemblages better known for theirbacked tools. It is clear that bifacial elements are not a negligiblepart of the Sibudu Howiesons Poort sequence, particularly inits most recent phases. Industrial variability of this kind is likelyto be farther refined in the future when techno-functionalstudies are extended to more Middle Stone Age collections.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors acknowledge the financial assistance of the

National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa. We thankFrancesco d’Errico for the use of the experimental boneretouchers (published d’Errico et al. 2012). Opinions expressedhere are not necessarily those of the NRF. Hugo Nami, J.M.Maíllo and Eduardo de la Peña gave comments and advice onthe technological analysis to Paloma de la Peña. We thank SarahWurz and an anonymous reviewer for invaluable comments onthe paper.

REFERENCESBackwell, L., d’Errico, F. & Wadley, L. 2008. Middle Stone Age bone tools

from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journalof Archaeological Science 35: 1566–1580.

Ballin, T.B. 2004. The worked quartz vein at Cnoc Dubh, Uig Parish, Isleof Lewis, Western Isles: presentation and discussion of a small prehis-toric quarry. Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports (SAIR) 1(consulted May 2013): http://www.sair.org.uk/sair11/index.html

Ballin, T.B. 2005. Re-examination of the quartz artefacts from Scord ofBrouster: a lithic assemblage from Shetland and its Neolithic context.Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports (SAIR) 1 (consulted May2013): http://www.sair.org.uk/sair17/index.html

Barham, L. 1987. The bipolar technique in southern Africa: a replicationexperiment. South African Archaeological Bulletin 42: 45–50.

Barham, L. 2000. Backed tools in Middle Pleistocene of central Africaand their evolutionary significance. Journal of Human Evolution 43:585–603.

Barham, L., Simms, M.J., Gilmour, M. & Debenham, N. 2000. TwinRivers: excavation and behavioural record. In: Barham, L. (ed.) TheMiddle Stone Age of Zambia, South-central Africa: 165–216. Bristol:Western Academic and Specialist Press.

Bisson, M.S. 1990. Lithic reduction sequences as an aid to the analysisof Later Stone Age quartz assemblages from the Luano Spring,Chingola, Zambia. The African Archaeological Review 8: 103–138.

Bradfield, J. & Lombard, M. 2011. A macrofracture study of bone pointsused in experimental hunting with reference to the South AfricanMiddle Stone Age. South African Archaeological Bulletin 66: 67–76.

Brooks, A., Nevell, L., Yellen, J.E. & Hartman, G. 2006. Projectile tech-nologies of the African MSA: implications for modern human origins.In: Hovers, E. & Kuhn, S.L. (eds) Transitions before the Transition:Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age:233–255. New York: Springer.

Brown, K.S., Marean, C.W., Jacobs, Z., Schoville, B.S., Oestmo, S., Fisher,E.C., Bernatchez, J., Karkanas, P. & Matthews, T. 2012. An early andenduring advanced technology originating 71 000 years ago in SouthAfrica. Nature 491: 590–593.

Callahan, E. 1979. The basics of biface knapping in the Eastern FlutedPoint Tradition: a manual for flintknappers and lithic analysts.Archaeology of Eastern North America 7: 1–180.

Callahan, E. 1987. An evaluation of the lithic technology in middleSweden during the Mesolithic and Neolithic. Uppsala: SocietasArchaeologica Upsaliensis 8.

Callahan, E. 1991. A comment on Nami’s comment. Plains Anthropolo-gist 36: 367–368.

Claud, E., Brenet M., Mourre V. & Maury S. 2009. Etude expérimentaledes macrotraces d’utilisation sur les tranchants des bifaces: caractéri-sation et potentiel diagnostique. Les Nouvelle de l’Archéologie 118: 55–60.

Cochrane, G.W.G. 2006. An analysis of lithic artefacts from ~60 kalayers of Sibudu Cave. Southern African Humanities 18(1): 69–88.

Cooke, C.K. 1971. Excavation in Zombepata Cave, Sipolilo District,Mashonaland, Rhodesia. South African Archaeological Bulletin 26:104–126.

Cooke, C.K. 1978. The Redcliff Stone Age site, Rhodesia. OccasionalPapers of The National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia, Series A, 4:45–73.

Deacon, J. 1995. An unsolved mystery at the Howieson’s Poort namesite. South African Archaeological Bulletin 50: 110–120.

d’Errico, F., Backwell, L. & Wadley, L. 2012. Identifying regionalvariability in Middle Stone Age bone technology: the case of SibuduCave. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 2479–2495.

Díez-Martín, F., Sánchez, P., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. & Barba, R. 2009.Were Olduvai hominins making butchering tools or battering tools?Analysis of a recently excavated lithic assemblage from BK (Bed II,Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:274–289.

Driscoll, K. 2010. Understanding quartz technology in early prehistoricIreland. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Dublin: University CollegeDublin.

Fischer, A., Vemming Jansen, P. & Rasmussen, P. 1984. Macro and microwear traces on lithic projectile points: experimental results andprehistoric examples. Journal of Danish Archaeology 3: 19–46.

Flenniken, J.F. 1981. Replicative systems analysis: a model applied tothe vein quartz artifacts from the Hoko River site. Pullman: WashingtonState University Laboratory of Anthropology Reports of Investigations 59.

Fullagar, R. 2006. Residues and usewear. In: Balme, J. & Paterson, A.(eds) Archaeology in Practice: a Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses:207–233. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Goldberg, P., Miller, C.E., Schiegl, S., Ligouis, B., Berna, F., Conard, N.J.& Wadley, L. 2009. Bedding, hearths, and site maintenance in theMiddle Stone Age of Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Ar-chaeological and Anthropological Sciences 1: 95–122.

González Urquijo, J.E & Ibáñez Estévez, J. 1994. Metodología de análisisfuncional de instrumentos tallados en sílex. Bilbao: Universidad deDeusto.

Goodwin, A.J.H. 1929. The Middle Stone Age. Annals of the South AfricanMuseum 27: 95–145.

Hardy, B.L. & Garufi, G.T. 1998. Identification of woodworking onstone tools through residue and use-wear analyses: experimentalresults. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 177–184.

Hayden, B. 1979. Lithic Use-wear Analysis. New York: Academic Press.Högberg, A. & Larsson, L. 2011. Lithic technology and behavioural

modernity: new results from the Still Bay site, Hollow Rock Shelter,Western Cape Province, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 61:133–155.

Hughes, S.S. 1998. Getting to the point: evolutionary change in prehis-toric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(4):345–408.

Hurcombe, L.M. 1992. Use wear analysis and obsidian: theory, experi-ments and results. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4.

Inizan, M-L., Reduron, M., Roche, H. & Tixier, J. 1995. Technologie de la pi-erre taillée. Paris: C.R.E.P.

Jacobs, Z. & Roberts, R.G. 2008. Testing times: old and new chronologiesfor the Howieson’s Poort and Still Bay industries in environmentalcontext. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 10: 9–34.

Jacobs, Z., Roberts, R.G., Galbraith, R.F., Deacon, H.J., Grün, R., Mackay,A., Mitchell, P., Vogelsang, R. & Wadley, L. 2008. Ages for the MiddleStone Age of southern Africa: implications for human behaviour anddispersal. Science 322: 733–735.

Kaplan, J. 1990. The Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter sequence: 100 000 yearsof Stone Age history. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 2: 1–94.

Kay, M. 1996. Microwear analysis of some Clovis and experimentalchipped stone tools. In: Odell, G.H. (ed.) Stone Tools: TheoreticalInsights into Human Prehistory: 315–344. New York: Plenum Press.

Knutsson, K. 1988. Patterns of Tool Use: Scanning Electron Microscopyof Experimental Quartz Tools. Uppsala: Societas ArchaeologicaUpsaliensis.

Kuman, K.A. 1989. Florisbad and ◊Gi: the contribution of open-air sitesto study of the Middle Stone Age in Southern Africa. UnpublishedPhD dissertation. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.

Langejans, G.H.J. 2011. Discerning use-related micro-residues on tools:testing the multi-stranded approach for archaeological studies.Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 985–1000.

Lombard, M. 2005. Evidence of hunting and hafting during the MiddleStone Age at Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a multi-analytical approach. Journal of Human Evolution 48: 279–300.


Lombard, M. 2007. The gripping nature of ochre: the association ofochre with Howiesons Poort adhesives and Later Stone Age masticsfrom South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 53: 406–419.

Lombard, M. 2008. Finding resolution for the Howiesons Poort throughthe microscope: micro-residue analysis of segments from SibuduCave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 26–41.

Lombard, M. 2011. Quartz-tipped arrows older than 60 ka: furtheruse-trace evidence from Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 38: 1918–1930.

Lombard, M. & Haidle, M.N. 2011. Thinking a bow-and-arrow set:cognitive implications of Middle Stone Age bow and stone-tippedarrow technology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22: 237–246.

Lombard, M. & Pargeter, J. 2008. Hunting with Howiesons Poort seg-ments: pilot experimental study and the functional interpretation ofarchaeological tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 26–41.

Lombard, M. & Phillipson, L. 2010. Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64 000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.Antiquity 84: 635–648.

Lombard, M. & Wadley, L. 2007. The morphological identification ofmicro-residues on stone tools using light microscopy: progress anddifficulties based on blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:155–165.

Lombard, M., Wadley, L., Jacobs, J., Mohapi, M. & Roberts, R.G. 2010.Still Bay and serrated points from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter, Kwa-Zulu-Natal, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1773–1784.

Lombera-Hermida, A. 2009. The scar identification of lithic quartzindustries. In: Sternke, F., Costa, L-J. & Eigeland, L. (eds) Non-FlintRaw Material Use in Prehistory. Old Prejudices and New Directions.Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the U.I.S.P.P.: 5–11. Oxford:BAR International Series 1939.

Luedtke, B.E. 1992. An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. LosAngeles: University of California.

Mackay, A., Orton, J., Schwortz, S. & Steele, T.E. 2010. Soutfontein(SFT)-001: preliminary report on an open-air site rich in bifacialpoints, southern Namaqualand, South Africa. South African Archaeo-logical Bulletin 65: 84–95.

Monnier, G.F., Ladwig, J.L. & Porter, S.T. 2012. Swept under the rug: theproblem of unacknowledged ambiguity in lithic residue identifica-tion. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 3284–3300.

Mourre, V. 1996. Les industries en quartz au Paléolithique: terminologie,méthodologie et technologie. Paléo 8: 205–223.

Nami, H. 1991. Callahan’s Clovis production model: a commentderived from Bement’s article. Plains Anthropologist 36(137): 365–366.

Nami, H. 2010. Experiments to understand North and South AmericanLate Pleistocene lithic reduction sequence: an actualistic and com-parative study. In: Nami, H.G. (ed.) Experiments and Interpretation ofTraditional Technologies: Essays in Honor of Errett Callahan: 203–253.Buenos Aires: Ediciones de Arqueología Contemporánea.

Pargeter, J. 2007. Howiesons Poort segments as hunting weapons:experiments with replicated projectiles. South African ArchaeologicalBulletin 62: 147–53.

Pargeter, J. & Bradfield, J. 2012. The effects of class I and II sized bovidson macrofracture formation and tool displacement: results of atrampling experiment in a southern African Stone Age context. Jour-nal of Field Archaeology 37: 238–251.

Patterson, L.W. 1979. Minimum effort strategies in lithic reduction.Flintknappers’ Exchange 2: 10–12.

Pelegrin, J. 2000. Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciare:critères de diagnose et quelques réflexions. In: Valentin, B., Bodu, P. &Christensen, M. (eds) Europe centrale et septentrionale au Tardiglaciare:73–85. Paris: Mémoires du Musée de Préhistoire d’ile de France 7.

Peña, P. de la. 2011. Sobre la identificación macroscópica de las piezasastilladas: propuesta experimental. Trabajos de Prehistoria 68 (1):79–98.

Perlès, C. 1992. In search of lithic strategies: a cognitive approach toprehistoric chipped stone assemblages. In: Gardin, J-C. & Peebles, S.(eds) Representations in Archaeology: 223–247. Indiana: IndianaUniversity Press.

Plisson, H. 1981. Etude fonctionelle d’outillages lithiques préhistoriquespar l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique etarchéologique. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Paris: Paris IPantheon Sorbonne.

Porraz, G., Texier, P-J., Archer, W., Piboule, M., Rigaud, J-P. & Tribolo, C.2013. Technological successions in the Middle Stone Age sequence ofDiepkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa. Journal ofArchaeological Science. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.012

Robbins, L.H., Brook, G.A., Murphy, M.L., Campbell, A.C., Mellear, N.& Downey, W.S. 2000. Late Quaternary archaeological andpalaeoenvironmental data from sediments at Rhino Cave, TsodiloHills, Botswana. Southern African Field Archaeology 9: 17–31.

Robertson, G. 2011. Aboriginal use of backed artefacts at LapstoneCreek Rock-shelter, New South Wales: an integrated residue anduse-wear analysis. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum 23:83–101.

Rots, V. 2010. Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: a Methodology.Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Rots, V., Pirnay, L., Pirson, P. & Baudoux, O. 2006. Blind tests shed lighton possibilities and limitations for identifying stone tool prehensionand hafting. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 935–952.

Rots, V. & Van Peer, P. 2006. Early evidence of complexity in lithiceconomy: core-axe production, hafting and use at Late Middle Pleis-tocene site 8-B-11, Sai Island (Sudan). Journal of Archaeological Science33: 360–371.

Semenov, S. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. London: Cory, Adams & Mackay.Shackley, M. 1984. ◊hing-◊hais; an early Holocene stoneworking site

from the central Namib Desert. Madoqua 13(4): 271–279.Shea, J. 2006. The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence

from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science33: 823–846.

Sisk, M.L. & Shea, J. 2011. The African origin of complex projectile tech-nology: an analysis using Tip Cross-Sectional Area and Perimeter.International Journal of Evolutionary Biology. doi:10.4061/2011/968012.

Singer, R. & Wymer, J. 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth inSouth Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Skinner, E. & Ainsworth, P. 1991. Unifacial bifaces: more than one wayto thin a biface. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13:160–171.

Stapleton, P. & Hewitt, J. 1927. Stone implements from a rock-shelter atHowieson’s Poort near Grahamstown. South African Journal of Science24: 574–587.

Sussman, C. 1985. Microwear on quartz, fact or fiction. World Archaeology17: 101–111.

Tallaavara, M., Manninen, M.A., Hertell, E. & Rankama, T. 2010. Howflakes shatter: a critical evaluation of quartz fracture analysis. Journalof Archaeological Science 37: 2442–2448.

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. Howiesons Poort tradition of engravingostrich eggshell containers dated to 60 000 years ago at DiepkloofRock Shelter, South Africa. Proceedings of National Academy of Science107: 6180–6185.

Thackeray, A.I. 1992. The Middle Stone Age south of the LimpopoRiver. Journal of World Prehistory 6(4): 385–431.

Van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in Focus: Lithic Biographies in the Neolithic andBronze Age. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Villa, P., Soressi, M., Henshilwood, C.S. & Mourre, V. 2009. The Still Baypoints of Blombos Cave (South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science36: 441–480.

Vogelsang, R., Richter, J., Jacobs, Z., Eichorn, B., Linseele, V. & Roberts,R. 2010. New excavations of Middle Stone Age deposits at Apollo 11Rockshelter, Namibia: stratigraphy, archaeology, chronology andpast environments. Journal of African Archaeology 8: 185–218.

Volman, T. 1980. The Middle Stone Age in the southern Cape. Unpub-lished PhD dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Volman, T.P. 1984. Early prehistory of southern Africa. In: Klein, R.G.(ed.) Southern Africa Prehistory and Paleoenvironments: 169–220. Rotter-dam: A.A. Balkema.

Wadley, L. 2007. Announcing a Still Bay industry at Sibudu Cave, SouthAfrica. Journal of Human Evolution 52: 681–689.

Wadley, L. 2008. The Howieson’s Poort industry of Sibudu Cave. SouthAfrican Archaeological Society Goodwin Series, 10: 122–132.

Wadley, L. 2010. Were snares and traps used in the Middle Stone Ageand does it matter? A review and a case study from Sibudu, SouthAfrica. Journal of Human Evolution 58: 179–192.


Wadley, L. 2012. Some combustion features at Sibudu, South Africa,between 65 000 and 58 000 years ago. Quaternary International 247:341–349.

Wadley, L., Hodgskiss, T. & Grant, M. 2009. Implications for complexcognition from the hafting of tools with compound adhesives in theMiddle Stone Age, South Africa. Proceedings of National Academy ofScience 106: 9590–9594.

Wadley, L. & Jacobs, Z. 2006. Sibudu Cave: background to the excava-tions, stratigraphy and dating. Southern African Humanities 18(1):1–26.

Wadley, L. & Kempson, H. 2011. A review of rock studies for archaeolo-gists, and an analysis of dolerite and hornfels from the Sibudu area,KwaZulu-Natal. Southern African Humanities 23: 87–107.

Wadley, L. & Lombard, M. 2007. Small things in perspective: the contri-bution of our blind tests to micro-residue studies on archaeologicalstone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1001–1010.

Wadley, L. & Mohapi, M. 2008. A segment is not a monolith: evidencefrom the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu, South Africa. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 35: 2594–2605.

Wadley, L., Lombard, M. & Williamson, B. 2004. The first residue analysisblind tests: results and lessons learnt. Journal of Archaeological Science31: 1491–1501.

Wadley, L., Sievers, C., Bamford, M., Goldberg, P., Berna, F. & Miller, C.2011. Middle Stone Age bedding construction and settlementpatterns at Sibudu, South Africa. Science 334: 1388–1391.

Wayland, E.J. & Burkitt, M.C. 1932. The Magosian culture of Uganda.Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1932: 369–390.

Wilkins J., Schoville, B.J., Brown K.S. & Chazan, M. 2012. Evidence forearly hafted hunting technology. Science 338: 942–946.

Wurz, S. 2000. The Middle Stone Age sequence at Klasies River, SouthAfrica. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Stellenbosch: University ofStellenbosch.

Yaroshevich, A., Kaufman, D., Nuzhnyy, D., Bar-Yosef, O. & Weinstein-Evron, M. 2010. Design and performance of microlith implementedprojectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant:experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 37: 368–388.

Quartz bifacial points in the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu

Documents

Transcript of Quartz bifacial points in the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu