Implications of the Marked Artifacts of the Middle Stone Age of Africa

Implications of the Marked Artifacts of the Middle Stone Age of AfricaAuthor(s): Chester R. CainSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 47, No. 4 (August 2006), pp. 675-681Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/506287 .

Accessed: 23/08/2013 23:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.14.136.96 on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:57:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergren

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergren

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/506287?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


675

Implications of the Marked Artifacts of theMiddle Stone Age of AfricaChester R. Cain

ACACIA Programme, Department of Archaeology, Schoolof Geography, Archaeology, and Environmental Studies,Private Bag 3, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050,South Africa ([email protected]). 8 III 06

Study of the marked objects made of bone, ochre, and ostricheggshell reported for the Middle Stone Age in Africa indicatesthat they are nonrepresentational, relatively small, and rareand that they may have been made in a single sitting with adesign intended from the outset. Explanations for their ap-pearance may involve a change in mental abilities and, ulti-mately, a change in early modern human society.

The origin of anatomically or culturally modern humans isan important topic, and recently researchers have been look-ing at how to study it better. In a recent review of researchon early modern human behavior, Henshilwood and Marean(2003, 637) criticize what they see as the dominant model,defined by “a Eurocentrically derived trait list,” and call foran alternative approach. They suggest that “the constructionof clear test implications for the competing models” is critical,albeit difficult, if this research is to move forward (p. 636).Notably, they encourage researchers to examine certain as-sumptions about what culturally modern behavior is—thereasons certain traits are used to denote cultural modernity(pp. 628–29). Predominantly, they are critiquing and evalu-ating the higher-level models, but they also advocate morediscussion and evaluation of the material used for this debateand argue that broader thinking may be necessary to dealwith the material from Europe, Asia, and Africa at the levelof specific types of material and specific contexts.

An example of this approach is the study by Hovers et al.(2003) evaluating the significance of ochre at Qafzeh Cave.They studied the occurrence of ochre at the site, examinedthe potential explanations for it, and selected from the alter-natives the most appropriate (i.e., parsimonious) explanation.They concluded that the ochre at Qafzeh was used symbol-ically but had trouble explaining the use of ochre in the Mid-dle Palaeolithic of the Levant.

To advance the discussion, I examine another marker men-tioned in reference to early cultural modernity—the markedobjects made of bone, ochre, and ostrich eggshell that havebeen reported from the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa(McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mellars 1989, 362). Patterns ofintentional scratches, notches, incisions, and flakes on bone

� 2006 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.All rights reserved 0011-3204/2006/4704-0007$10.00

fragments and other materials are generally associated withthe Upper Palaeolithic and Late Stone Age (LSA) and seem-ingly not earlier (Chase and Dibble 1987; J. Deacon 1984;McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mitchell 2002). However, a num-ber of artifacts with such intentional markings—marks madeby humans with tools that are not associated with humanprocessing (e.g., butchery, grinding) or with unintentionalactivities (e.g., trampling)—have been found in Africa fromMSA contexts, suggesting a longer history than was previouslythought. Most recently, Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, SouthAfrica, has provided additional examples (Cain 2004; Wadley2001a; Wadley and Jacobs 2004). Such objects have been sug-gested to represent ornamentation, precursors to art, sym-bolism, items related to early speech, representations of quan-tities, and teaching instruments (Conkey 1996; d’Errico andCacho 1994; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mellars 1989).

Since various types of markings may connect these objects,the first objective of this paper is to evaluate whether theyrepresent a class of artifact. The other objectives are to showthat a critical mass of marked objects seems to exist thatsuggest that they are part of the African MSA and then tosee how well they fit with potential hypotheses for their ap-pearance. I have tried to show that there may be more tothese objects than the ability to use symbolism. My conten-tion, similar to that of Chase and Dibble (1987, 285), is that,whether symbol use in humans was a result of a push, pull,or random process, this adaptation may have had a significantimpact on many aspects of human activity.

Given that we have no direct analogies with what theseobjects are, to what extent they are related, and how theyfunctioned in the lives of MSA people, I start by describingthe marked objects. From there, I relate the seemingly com-mon features of these objects so that we can link these datato the potential explanations for their appearance in the ar-chaeological record.

Marked Objects

A number of marked artifacts have recently been reportedfrom Blombos Cave, Western Cape coast, South Africa. Abone plaque has 11 largely parallel incisions and an obliqueincision across the surface (fig. 1; d’Errico, Henshilwood, andNilssen 2001; Henshilwood and Sealy 1997; Henshilwood etal. 2001). The artifact was made on a mandible fragment froma large mammal of which a 120#230-mm fragment was re-covered. The incisions were made with a single stone pointduring a single session of manufacture (d’Errico, Henshil-wood and Nilssen 2001). From the sample of ochre fragmentsat Blombos, two of the blocks have geometric designs en-graved into the ground surfaces. One has parallel lines, crosshatches, and a line through the middle; the other has crosshatches with a line through the middle and lines along thetwo long edges of the figure (fig. 1; Henshilwood et al. 2002).The incisions are both less than 100 mm in maximum length.



676 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 4, August 2006

Figure 1. Some of the marked objects from the Middle StoneAge in Africa. Top to bottom, notched bone from Sibudu Cave(redrawn from Cain 2004); engraved ochre from Blombos Cave(redrawn from Henshilwood et al. 2002); engraved bone fromBlombos Cave (redrawn from d’Errico, Henshilwood, and Nils-sen 2001); two engraved ostrich eggshell fragments from Diep-kloof, scale not available (redrawn from Parkington 1999);notched bone from Klasies River (Singer and Wymer 1982, fig.8.1). Scales in centimeters.

This Blombos material is believed to date between 70,000 and80,000 years BP (Henshilwood et al. 2002). Henshilwood,d’Errico, and others believe that the marks on the ochre andthe bone fragment had symbolic content and that the meaningof these symbols was shared through language (Henshilwoodet al. 2002, 1279; d’Errico, Henshilwood, and Nilssen 2001;Henshilwood and Marean 2003).

At Hollow Rock Shelter in South Africa, a subrectangularochre fragment less than 10 mm in maximum dimension hadat least 11 small notches around the edge (Knight, Power,and Watts 1995, fig. 3; McBrearty and Brooks 2000, fig. 12).This material predates the Howiesons Poort industry (a largelyMode-5 stone tool tradition in southern African MSA thatcontains a high proportion of characteristic large backed “seg-ments” and is preceded and followed by Mode-3-dominatedflake tool assemblages) and is possibly more than 70,000 yearsold.

Incised ochre plaques were found at Klasies River Mouth,Eastern Cape coast, South Africa (Singer and Wymer 1982,chap. 8). Also, two bones with irregularly made but evenlyspaced notches along one edge were found in MSA levels (fig.1; Singer and Wymer 1982, chap. 8). The objects were re-portedly made from rib fragments. The largest object is about100 mm long. Diepkloof Cave in the Western Cape has en-graved ostrich eggshell fragments that are associated with lu-minescence dates of around 63,000 years BP and HowiesonsPoort lithics (fig. 1; Parkington 1999, 27). Both fragments areless than 50 mm in maximum dimension and have subparallelincisions across the surfaces.

The marked bone objects from Sibudu Cave have beendescribed elsewhere (Cain 2004). One object has a series often notches perpendicular to the long axis on a 22-mm-longfragment of bone (fig. 1). Microscopic study of the marks hassuggested that they were made by the same tool, presumablyby the same individual in one session. Another object has aseries of five small flakes along a broken edge on a 23-mm-long bone shaft segment. All of the Sibudu objects docu-mented so far postdate the Howiesons Poort industry. Thenotched object was directly dated to years BP28,880 � 170(GrA19670) (Cain 2004). All of the Sibudu objects probablydate to at least 29,000 years BP, although radiocarbon datingof bone can give unreliable and often conservative dates (e.g.,Ambrose 1998, 379; Tamers and Pearson 1965). The associ-ated single-grain optically stimulated luminescence dates ofthe context are more than 50,000 years ago (Cain 2004; Z.Jacobs, personal communication; Wadley and Jacobs 2004).

Notched bones were found in MSA levels at Apollo II Cavein Namibia (Wendt 1972, 1976). This material is shown inphotographs (Wendt 1972, fig. 9), but the notches are difficultto see. They may be similar to the Sibudu objects. This ma-terial was found at the transition from the MSA to the LSAand thus is less controversial. An incised bone was describedas associated with a transitional MSA-LSA assemblage at Bor-der Cave in Swaziland (Beaumont, de Villiers, and Vogel1978). Finally, a notched bone from Ishango in the Demo-



677

cratic Republic of Congo, associated with bone points andnonmicrolithic tools, seems to come from a late MSA context(Brooks and Smith 1987, 72).

Even with the recent Sibudu and Blombos material, evi-dence for marks on artifacts in the MSA remains limited.Some of the examples are not easily distinguished fromscratches that may not have been made as a coherent designor even made by a person. For example, the images of theochre from Hollow Rock Shelter suggest that the notches maybe the result of grinding to make powder. The contexts ordating for the marked objects reported in the 1970s and 1980shave been criticized, and excavators have focused their de-scriptions on the potential provenience problems rather thanon interpretation (e.g., Singer and Wymer 1982, 115–16). Therecent material from Blombos and Sibudu suggests that theattribution of at least some of the previous examples to theMSA may be correct. The Sibudu material, the ochre plaquesfrom Blombos, the bone fragments from Klasies, and theDiepkloof engraved ostrich eggshell fragments, I believe, arethe most convincing of the early marked objects in terms ofcontext, dating, and human intention.

Characteristics of MSA Marked Objects

The African MSA objects seem to conform to the followinggeneralizations:

1. They are nonrepresentational: notches, lines, or simplegeometric patterns. The patterns vary, but notched edges arerepeated at Sibudu and Klasies. The repertoire is relativelylimited compared with that of LSA designs.

2. They are all relatively small.3. They are made of durable materials. This could signal

either that they were intended to be used or curated for arelatively long period of time or that they are examples ofobjects generally made of an archaeologically invisible ma-terial.

4. They are quite rare through the MSA in both numberof objects and number of sites at which they are found. Manysites and contexts with good preservation lack such objects.However, there is a possible concentration at the MSA-LSAboundary. In the LSA, similar objects are more common innumbers of sites and number of objects per site but are stillfound in small numbers relative to other artifact classes (J.Deacon 1984, 169–79).

5. Studies of the Sibudu and Blombos bone plaques suggestthat each of these objects was made in a single sitting with adesign intended from the outset and not modified subse-quently (Cain 2004; d’Errico, Henshilwood, and Nilssen2001).

Most of these items are broken, and therefore it is difficultto see their original forms, but the fragments we have allcontain small engraved geometric designs. They are made ofmany different materials and therefore may not be one artifactclass, but the marking of an intentional design is shared. It

is possible that these objects can be discussed as a class ofartifact and explained with a single interpretation.

Interpretations of Marked Objects

The interpretations of notched or marked objects used forthe African MSA or the European Upper Palaeolithic may beseparated into four broad categories: numerical, functional,cognitive, and social. With the characteristics specified above,it may be possible to identify an explanation that accountsfor all of the seemingly common characteristics of thesemarked objects and perhaps for their appearance in the ar-chaeological record during the Middle Stone Age.

Numerical. The numerical explanations applied to similarUpper Palaeolithic materials include records of astronomicalobservations, musical notations, or the recording of quantities(d’Errico 1991, 1995, 1998; d’Errico and Cacho 1994; Mar-shack 1991). These explanations seem inappropriate for theMSA material because the Sibudu and Blombos artifacts donot suggest that they were made over a period of time (Cain2004; d’Errico, Henshilwood, and Nilssen 2001). This hasbeen pointed out for a number of the Upper Palaeolithicobjects as well (d’Errico 1989, 1995; d’Errico and Cacho1994). Bullington and Leigh (2002) have argued, however,that the ochre objects from Blombos are tally tablets. It isdifficult to argue that MSA hunter-gatherers needed to recordnumbers or musical notation when recent hunter-gatherersdo not. Without secure evidence of the production of marksover time and an understanding of why such notation wouldhave been required, it is difficult to see how the characteristicsof the marked objects fit this explanation.

Functional. A functional explanation for the marks on thebone fragments include preparation for hafting or binding,but research on the Sibudu material does not support thisinterpretation. The wear and residue data for one of the ob-jects (Cain 2004) show plant residues but not in the notches,and the marks appear to have been unmodified after theywere made. Furthermore, the elements used and the formsof the objects seem inappropriate for making points, link shaftsegments, or handles. A functional explanation was similarlyrejected for the Blombos bone plaque (d’Errico, Henshilwood,and Nilssen 2001), and none of the other objects are reportedto be associated with a function.

Cognitive. Some explanations have looked at ancient cog-nition—the perception, processing, storage, and use of in-formation by an individual. These explanations suggest thata change in mental abilities was expressed through objects,namely, symbolic content and storage of information (Donald1998, 15; Marshack 1991; see also discussion in Conkey 1987,420–21; Renfrew and Scarre 1998; Wadley 2001b). Both rockart and portable art in the Upper Palaeolithic are importantto discussions of the origins of modern humans in south-western Europe (Conkey 1987, 421; Mithen 1998, 2000; Ren-frew and Scarre 1998). The development of modern cognitionin the MSA of Africa has been discussed by some researchers,




pointing to objects (including marked objects) and behaviorsthat begin to appear during this period (Henshilwood et al.2002; Klein 2001, 12; Wadley 2003). Prior to the developmentof such ability, no such artifacts could have been produced.

The association of objects marked with nonrepresentationaldesigns with a change in human abilities may be appropriate,but previous discussions have generally given vague reasonsfor the production of these objects and the way in whichmental ability is translated into the material object (Mithen2000, 216; cf. the symmetry-in-stone-tools debate (Chase1991; Chase and Dibble 1987; Wynn 2000), which is part ofChase and Dibble’s [1987] rejection of the marked objectsproposed for the Middle Palaeolithic; see also Wadley 2003).

D’Errico, Henshilwood, and Nilssen (2001, 317) specifiedhow it might be possible to identify the appearance of “sym-bolic societies,” which MSA groups would presumably havebecome when they developed new cognitive abilities. Theybelieve that it would be necessary to find such objects re-gionally and interregionally and that representations wouldhave to be similar regionally and different or the same acrossgeographic areas. As they point out, the data set is quitelimited, even in southern Africa. From an initial evaluationof the available evidence it appears that the marked objectshave a patchy distribution through the MSA and across thecontinent. The motifs appear to be diverse within areas (e.g.,South African Cape sites). These marked objects do not seemto fit well with the idea that cognitive developments explaintheir timing and appearance. However, more data or revisedcriteria for the way in which cognitive abilities would be trans-lated into marked objects in the MSA might support a stron-ger argument for the association of marked objects with cog-nitive changes.

Social. The modern mind may be shaped more by culturethan by intrinsic ability (Boyer 2000). Both culture and cog-nition are related to culturally modern behavior, but focusshould perhaps be concentrated on the social aspects of sym-bolism in the archaeological record. How individuals orientthemselves to others and interact with others, including theexpression of individuality, group affiliation, or social bound-aries, could be equally significant in this discussion (Barton,Clark, and Cohen 1994; Clark 2002; Earle 1990; Gamble 1983,1999; Gilman 1984; Wiessner 1983). Some researchers haverelated the pressures from changing social systems to cognitivechanges in human evolution (e.g., Dunbar 2000), but it isalso possible that cognitive abilities existed previously andwere only manifested later during social change or crisis. So-cial explanations seem to offer an alternative to, although theyare not completely separate from, cognitive explanations.Even if the proximate explanation for these marked objectsfrom the MSA is that they are related to changes in cognition,the ultimate explanation may lie in changes in early modernhuman society.

Such explanations have occasionally been invoked for theAfrican material (see below) but have been used more formaterial from the early Upper Palaeolithic. Mobilary art has

been used to identify social boundaries, demarcations of ter-ritory, or social networks (Barton, Clark, and Cohen 1994;Clark 2002, 10; Gamble 1983, 1999). However, the social andterritorial boundaries postulated for the European situationseem inappropriate for the African data. The marked objectsseem to be too infrequent and too small to be broadcasting“social information before social interaction” or what Wies-sner (1983, 271) has called emblemic style—the placing oftwo individuals in social context when they first meet. Also,it is assumed that MSA groups were relatively small (althoughpossibly larger than contemporary hunter-gatherer groups[McBrearty and Brooks 2000, 532–33]), and if they were therewas probably little pressure to produce objects that encodedgroup membership or social boundaries.

Other social conditions may be associated with the ap-pearance of these objects. The marks on them may be ex-pressions of individuality within a society of cooperation andegalitarianism—what Wiessner (1983) has called assertivestyle. Although it is difficult to understand how MSA societieswere structured, some generalizations seem appropriate. Weknow that they were hunter-gatherers. During the MSA (orearlier), meat acquisition changed from opportunistic en-counters with scavenged carcasses to hunting and especiallycooperative hunting (Milo 1998; Wadley 1998). Recent eth-nographic evidence suggests that most such delayed-returnhunter-gatherers are egalitarian and economically dependenton meat sharing (F. Marshall 1993; L. Marshall 1976). Dif-ferences in hunting ability among individuals and meat shar-ing among the members of a society are standard (F. Marshall1993). Sharing of meat may be an inherent aspect of hunting-gathering communities in which skill, technology, and co-operation are important parts of the economic system. LornaMarshall (1976) argues that the !Kung San were dependenton cooperation and band membership because of their hunt-ing-and-gathering economy. To prevent “ill will and hostility,”she argues, the society has standards of behavior that keeptroubles from building up. Specifically, Wiessner (1983, 271)points out that, at least in !Kung San communities, the main-tenance of such sharing requires the reduction of interper-sonal differentiation and the maintenance of equality. Suchsharing and social pressures are not associated with the gath-ered foodstuffs or the scavenged carcasses that seem to havecharacterized the economy in pre-MSA communities.

These pressures for egalitarianism and cooperation inhunter-gatherer groups may, as Wiessner (1983, 271) arguesfor the !Kung San, mean that members of these groups may“react stylistically against uniformity in their egalitarian so-ciety and strive to differentiate themselves from others bychoosing different objects or art forms for personal expres-sion.” She observes that the making of markings and deco-rations arising from this type of social behavior has threebasic characteristics: (1) it is an uncommon event, (2) it oc-curs on various types of artifacts (i.e., to avoid competition),and (3) it varies in quality. The implications of this expla-nation fit the characteristics of the MSA marked objects fairly



679

well. They can potentially explain the rarity of the objects atindividual sites, across sites, and through time and are con-sistent with the diversity of the artifacts recovered so far andtheir small, modest patterns. More research is needed to iden-tify in the MSA the cultural processes that this explanationrequires. It is clear that MSA hunting was similar to modernpractices in many ways, and this probably implies some sim-ilarities in social systems. However, the explanation is still anassumption.

Other Social Explanations in the MSA

Other researchers have also proposed that changes in theappearance of classes of material culture in the MSA may befueled by changing social systems. Specifically, they identifysocial behaviors that may have increased the economic successof hunter-gatherer groups.

Two classes of objects that appear during the MSA havebeen associated with the need to encourage and maintainsocially based exchange relationships as part of an effectivehunting-and-gathering economy. Ambrose (1998) has seem-ingly well-dated ostrich-eggshell beads and manufacturing de-bris from Enkapune ya Muto, Kenya, dating to just after40,000 years BP and associated with LSA lithic technology.These data are consistent with other claims of such beadsdating from MSA and transitional MSA-LSA contexts at othersites in Africa (Beaumont, de Villiers, and Vogel 1978; H.Deacon 1995; J. Deacon 1966, 25; McBrearty and Brooks2000, 521–22; Miller et al. 1992). Ambrose (1998) believesthat the origin of ostrich-eggshell bead manufacture is tiedinto the rise of the hxaro-like1 exchange relationships (Wies-sner 1986, 105–14) in eastern Africa that, as a form of delayedreciprocity, improved the viability of the hunting-and-gath-erering economy in potentially variable or difficult environ-ments. He further links this cultural adaptation to the rela-tively greater success of such groups and to “populationincrease in Africa, the spread of modern humans out of Africa,and the replacement of archaic human populations in Eur-asia” (Ambrose 1998, 389).

Similarly, H. J. Deacon (1992, 1995; see also Barham 2002)has proposed that the appearance of standardized backed seg-ments of the Howiesons Poort of southern Africa and thecommon use of exotic raw materials in this tradition mayreflect the rise of tool-based exchange relationships (Wiessner1983). However, exchange relationships would have neededto be extensive to be viable, and the rarity of the markedobjects in the MSA does not fit this scenario.

Exchange relationships may or may not have appeared dur-ing the MSA, but such changes would not explain the ap-

1. hxaro is a relationship is “a bond of friendship accompanied bymutual reciprocity and access to resources” based on a “balanced butnonequivalent delayed exchange of gifts” (Wiessner 1986, 105). The rec-iprocity is often carried out when one partner has means to give whenthe other is in need, but explicitly the exchange is in nonfoodstuffs suchas arrows, beads, clothes, and blankets.

pearance of the marked objects. However, the possible ap-pearance of exchange relationships or social changesassociated with new hunting patterns suggests that the MSAmay be associated with changing social realities, and thus thesedynamics should perhaps be considered in the search for theorigins of culturally modern behavior.

Conclusion

I believe that the MSA was a period of societal transformationnot only at the individual level—that the marked bone objectsof the African MSA reflect increasing dependence on groupmembership, sharing behavior, or potentially other socialtransformations rather than simply reflecting changes in cog-nitive abilities. In the same vein, McBrearty and Brooks (2000,533) hypothesize that the transition from the MSA to the LSAwas partly fueled by increasing human population density thatimpacted the livelihoods of groups but also contributed tocultural developments and societal changes.

The objects from Sibudu and other marked items from theMSA in Africa are still enigmatic. More information relatedto their timing and nature is needed. Working in the MSA,archaeologists are hampered by great time depth, dating prob-lems, and taphonomic issues at all but a few sites (Henshil-wood and Marean 2003). These rare and unusual objectsshould not be automatically disassociated from the MSA orregarded as insignificant (cf. Duff, Clark, and Chadderdon1992, 214). New information is suggesting that these objectsdo appear in Africa before the Upper Palaeolithic/LSA.

Few people link marked objects (or the lack thereof) inrecent hunter-gatherer communities to cognitive abilities.Therefore, neither their appearance nor their absence is suf-ficient to contribute to the discussion of the timing of ancientcognitive changes. I believe that the appearance of these ob-jects is indicative of both modern cognitive abilities, includingextensive use of symbolism, and social conditions that en-couraged their production. Both needed to be in place, andthe combination probably occurred during the MSA. TheseMSA worked objects may be associated with the origins ofmodern thought and symbolic behavior, but I would en-courage addressing the social implications of such origins aswell. Ultimately, it is unclear at this point if certain possibletransformations in the MSA were associated with socioeco-nomic changes that encouraged the more extensive and ex-plicit use of cognitive ability (including symbolism) or wereassociated with cognitive changes that marked the start ofsignificant societal transformations.

Acknowledgments

Support for this research came from a URC postdoctoralfellowship from the University of the Witwatersrand, theACACIA programme of the Archaeology Department at Wits,and the National Research Foundation (South Africa) (grantto ACACIA). I thank the editor and the five reviewers for




taking the time and effort that encouraged me to clarify myideas. I also thank Lyn Wadley for her support and helpfulcomments on the paper, although I am solely responsible forits content. The Department of Anatomy at Wits did themoulding and casting of the Sibudu notched bone. I amgrateful to Wendy Voorvelt for producing figure 1.

References Cited

Ambrose, S. H. 1998. Chronology of the Later Stone Age andfood production in East Africa. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 25:377–92.

Barham, L. 2002. Backed tools in the central African MiddlePleistocene and their evolutionary significance. Journal ofHuman Evolution 43:585–603.

Barton, C. M., G. A. Clark, and A. E. Cohen. 1994. Art asinformation: Explaining Upper Palaeolithic art in westernEurope. World Archaeology 26:185–207.

Beaumont, P. B., H. de Villiers, and J. C. Vogel. 1978. Modernman in sub-Saharan Africa prior to 49 000 years B.P.: Areview and evaluation with particular reference to BorderCave. South African Journal of Science 74:409–19.

Brooks, A. S., and C. C. Smith. 1987. Ishango revisited: Newage determinations and cultural interpretations. African Ar-chaeological Review 5:65–78.

Boyer, P. 2000. Evolution of the modern mind and the originsof culture: Religious concepts as a limiting-case. In Evo-lution and the human mind: Modularity, language, andmeta-cognition, ed. P. Carruthers and A. Chamberlain,93–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bullington, J., and S. R. Leigh. 2002. Rock art revisited. Science296(5567):468.

Cain, C. R. 2004. Notched, flaked, and ground bone artifactsfrom Middle Stone Age and Iron Age layers of Sibudu Cave,KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South African Journal of Sci-ence 100:195–97.

Chase, P. G. 1991. Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style,standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:193–214.

Chase, P. G., and H. L. Dibble. 1987. Middle Paleolithic sym-bolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:263–96.

Clark, G. A. 2002. Neandertal archaeology: Implications forour origins. American Anthropologist 104:50–67.

Conkey, M. W. 1987. New approaches in the search for mean-ing? A review of research in “Paleolithic art.” Journal ofField Archaeology 14:413–30.

———. 1996. A history of the interpretation of European“Paleolithic art”: Magic, mythogram, and metaphors formodernity. In Handbook of human symbolic evolution, ed.A. Lock and C. R. Peters, 287–349. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Deacon, H. J. 1992. Southern Africa and modern human

origins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Lon-don B 337:177–83.

———. 1995. Two Late Pleistocene-Holocene archaeologicaldepositories from the southern Cape, South Africa. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 50:121–31.

Deacon, J. 1966. An annotated list of radio-carbon dates forSub-Saharan Africa. Annals of the Cape Provincial Museums5:5–84.

———. 1984. The Later Stone Age of southernmost Africa.British Archaeological Reports International Series.

d’Errico, F. 1989. Paleolithic lunar calendars: A case of wishfulthinking? Current Anthropology 30:117–18.

———. 1991. Microscopic and statistical criteria for the iden-tification of prehistoric systems of notation. Rock Art Re-search 8:83–93.

———. 1995. A new model and its implications for the or-igins of writing: The La Marche antler revisited. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 5:163–206.

———. 1998. Palaeolithic origins of artificial memory sys-tems: An evolutionary perpective. In Cognition and materialculture: The archaeology of symbolic storage, ed. C. Renfrewand C. Scarre, 19–50. Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research.

d’Errico, F., and C. Cacho. 1994. Notation versus decorationin the Upper Paleolithic. A case-study from Tossal de laRoca, Alicante, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:185–200.

d’Errico, C. Henshilwood, and P. Nilssen. 2001. An engravedbone fragment from c. 70,000-year-old Middle Stone Agelevels at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for theorigin of symbolism and language. Antiquity 75:309–18.

Donald, M. 1998. Hominid enculturation and cognition evo-lution. In Cognition and material culture: The archaeologyof symbolic storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 7–17.Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch.

Duff, A. G., G. Clark, and T. Chadderdon. 1992. Symbolismin the early Palaeolithic: A conceptual odyssey. CambridgeArchaeological Journal 2:211–29.

Dunbar, R. 2000. On the origin of the human mind. In Evo-lution and the human mind: Modularity, language, andmeta-cognition, ed. P. Carruthers and A. Chamberlain,238–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Earle, T. 1990. Style and iconography as legitimation in com-plex chiefdoms. In The uses of style in archaeology, ed. M.Conkey and C. Hastorf, 73–81. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gamble, C. 1983. Culture and society in the Upper Palaeo-lithic of Europe. In Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory:A European perspective, ed. G. Bailey, 201–11. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

———. 1999. The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Gilman, A. 1984. Explaining the Upper Palaeolithic revolu-tion. In Marxist perspectives in archaeology: New directions



681

in archaeology, ed. M. Spriggs, 115–26. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, R. Yates, Z. Jacobs, C. Tribolo,G. A. T. Duller, N. Mercier, J. S. Sealy, H. Valladas, I. Watts,and A. G. Wintle. 2002. Emergence of modern humanbehavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa.Science 295:1278–80.

Henshilwood, C. S., and C. W. Marean. 2003. The origin ofmodern human behavior: Critique of the models and theirtest implications. Current Anthropology 44:627–51.

Henshilwood, C., and J. Sealy. 1997. Bone artifacts from theMiddle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, southern Cave, SouthAfrica. Current Anthropology 38:890–95.

Henshilwood, C. S., J. C. Sealy, R. Yates, K. Cruz-Uribe, P.Goldberg, F. E. Grine, R. G. Klein, C. Poggenpoel, K. VanNiekerk, and I. Watts. 2001. Blombos Cave, southern Cape,South Africa: Preliminary report on the 1992–1999 exca-vations of the Middle Stone Age levels. Journal of Archae-ological Science 28:421–48.

Hovers, E., S. Ilani, O. Bar-Yosef, and B. Vandermeersch. 2003.An early case of color symbolism: Ochre use by modernhumans in Qafzeh Cave. Current Anthropology 44:491–522.

Klein, R. G. 2001. Southern African and modern human or-igins. Journal of Anthropological Research 57:1–16.

Knight, C., C. Power, and I. Watts. 1995. The human symbolicrevolution: A Darwinian account. Cambridge ArchaeologicalJournal 5:75–114.

McBrearty, S., and A. S. Brooks. 2000. The revolution thatwasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern hu-man behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39:453–563.

Marshack, A. 1991. The Taı̈ plaque and calendrical notationin the Upper Palaeolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal1:25–61.

Marshall, F. 1993. Food sharing and the faunal record. InFrom bones to behavior, ed. J. Hudson, 228–46. Carbondale:Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern IllinoisUniversity.

Marshall, L. 1976. Sharing, talking, and giving: Relief of socialtensions among the !Kung. In Kalahari hunter-gatherers:Studies of the !Kung San and their neighbors, ed. R. B. Leeand I. DeVore, 349-71. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

Mellars, P. 1989. Major issues in the emergence of modernhumans. Current Anthropology 30:349–85.

Miller, G. H., P. B. Beaumont, A. J. T. Jull, and B. Johnson.1992. Pleistocene geochronology and paleothermometryfrom protein diagenesis in ostrich eggshells: Implicationsfor the evolution of modern humans. Philosophical Trans-actions of the Royal Society, London B 337:149–57.

Milo, R. G. 1998. Evidence for hominid predation at KlasiesRiver Mouth, South Africa, and its implications for thebehaviour of early modern humans. Journal of Archaeolog-ical Science 25:99–133.

Mitchell, P. 2002. The archaeology of southern Africa. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mithen, S. 1998. A creative explosion? Theory of mind, lan-guage, and the disembodied mind of the Upper Paleolithic.In Creativity in human evolution and prehistory, ed. S.Mithen, 165–91. London: Routledge.

———. 2000. Mind, brain, and material culture: An archae-ological perspective. In Evolution and the human mind:Modularity, language, and meta-cognition, ed. P. Carruthersand A. Chamberlain, 207–17. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Parkington, J. 1999. Western Cape landscapes. Proceedings ofthe British Academy 99:25–35.

Renfrew, C., and C. Scarre, eds. 1998. Cognition and materialculture: The archaeology of symbolic storage. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Singer, R., and J. Wymer. 1982. The Middle Stone Age at KlasiesRiver Mouth in South Africa. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Tamers, M. A., and F. J. Pearson. 1965. Validity of radiocarbondates on bone. Nature 5015:1053–55.

Wadley, L. 1998. The invisible meat providers: Woman in theStone Age of South Africa. In Gender in African prehistory,ed. S. Kent, 69–81. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

———. 2001a. Preliminary report on excavations at SibuduCave, KwaZulu-Natal. Southern African Humanities 13:1–17.

———. 2001b. What is cultural modernity? A general viewand a South African perspective from Rose Cottage Cave.Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:201–21.

———. 2003. How some archaeologists recognize culturallymodern behavior. South African Journal of Science 99:247–50.

Wadley, L., and Z. Jacobs. 2004. Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal:Background to the excavations of Middle Stone Age andIron Age occupations. South African Journal of Science 100:145–51.

Wendt, W. E. 1972. Preliminary report on an archaeologicalresearch program in South West Africa. Cimbebasia SeriesB 2:1–61.

———. 1976. “Art mobilier” from the Apollo 11 Cave, SouthWest Africa: Africa’s oldest dated works of art. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 31:5–11.

Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and social information in KalahariSan projectile points. American Antiquity 48:253–76.

———. 1986. !Kung San networks in a generational per-spective. In The past and future of !Kung ethnography: Crit-ical reflections and symbolic perspectives, ed. M. Biesele, R.Gordon, and R. Lee, 103–36. Hamburg: Helmut BuskeVerlag.

Wynn, T. 2000. Symmetry and the evolution of the modularlinguistic mind. In Evolution and the human mind: Mod-ularity, language, and meta-cognition, ed. P. Carruthers andA. Chamberlain, 113–39. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.



Documents

Implications of the Marked Artifacts of the Middle Stone Age of Africa