Download pdf - Reassessment of Selected Middle Stone Age Artefacts from Rhino Cave and from White Paintings Rock Shelter, Tsodilo Hills, Botswana

South African Archaeological Society

Reassessment of Selected Middle Stone Age Artefacts from Rhino Cave and from WhitePaintings Rock Shelter, Tsodilo Hills, BotswanaAuthor(s): Laurel PhillipsonSource: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 62, No. 185 (Jun., 2007), pp. 19-30Published by: South African Archaeological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20474943 .

Accessed: 16/08/2013 14:05

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].

.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.3.102.242 on Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:05:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20474943?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (185): 19-30, 2007 19

Research Article

REASSESSMENT OF SELECTED MIDDLE STONE AGE ARTEFACTS FROM RHINO CAVE AND FROM WHITE

PAINTINGS ROCK SHELTER, TSODILO HILLS, BOTSWANA

LAUREL PHILLIPSON 11 Brooklyn, Threshfield, North Yorkshire, BD23 5ER, U.K.

E-mail: [email protected]

(Received April 2006. Revised February 2007)

ABSTRACT This paper takes the resultsfrom the morphological analysis of Middle Stone Age material from Rhino Cave and White Paintings Rock Shelter, Botswana, by L.H. Robbins and his associates and compares them with the results of a new attribute cluster analysis. The extent to which the method of analysis may affect the conclusions drawn is demonstrated. The reanalysis of selected artefacts provides new evidence that Middle Stone Age points from these sites were serrated and it identifies the tools that were used to retouch these points. It is argued that the points were used as components of hand-held stabbing spears.

Keywords: Middle Stone Age, lithics, lithic analysis, Rhino Cave, White Paintings Rock Shelter.

INTRODUCTION In a number of papers published in the 1970s, D. Cahen,

E Van Noten, L. Keeley and P. Martin presented the method of attribute cluster analysis as an alternative to ideal typologies as a tool for the assessment and description of lithic assemblages. Attribute cluster analysis is founded on a primary concern with lithic artefacts as tools rather than as abstract, topologically described objects. In defining artefact groups or categories, this approach attempts to give equal attention to all attributes, including working edge characteristics, rather than concen trate on the gross morphological features of overall shape and size. Even more fundamentally, instead of starting with the imposition of an a priori, extrinsically defined set of ideal artefact types, it begins each classification exercise anew and looks for actual clusters of artefact attributes inherent within the particular assemblage being considered:

l'analyse de groupe n'est pas une classification automatique: la partition definit des classes dont les proprietes ne se justifient que par rapport a l'ensemble envisage. Des lors, chaque groupe n'est definissable que vis-a-vis de l'ensemble des elements pour determiner une classification qui se modifiera a chaque adjonction.... Les classes ne peuvent etre definies en dehors des elements qui les composent (Cahen &

Martin 1972: 12).

While the attribute cluster analysis approach has been used as a basis for the description and study of comparatively recent lithic material from Aksum, Ethiopia, this study of some Middle Stone Age points and associated lithics from Rhino Cave and from White Paintings Rock Shelter in northern Botswana is the first comparison of the results of such an analysis with the results of an independently undertaken standard typological assessment of the same material.

Lithic artefacts have numerous characteristics that may be used to determine their typological classification. The possibilities are not exhausted by listing general and localized plan, profile and cross-section shapes, dimensions, colour, weight, material,

cortex retention, flake scar configurations and micro-scarring. For the most part, African lithics are described according to standard typological criteria originally defined and adapted by Francois Bordes, Jacques Tixier, Desmond Clark and their students and associates. These place most emphasis on the gross morphological features of size and shape. For example, a typological boundary is imposed between bifacial points and handaxes which may resemble one another in all aspects other than their size. Similarly, there is a question of whether all crescents are necessarily microlithic. Terms such as 'concave sidescraper', 'convex endscraper', and 'denticulate' are based on an assessment of the artefact's plan shape, which is matched more or less closely to various of the mental templates which many of us acquired as student archaeologists. While not entirely disregarding their gross morphology, the present study recognizes that lithic tools are first and foremost tools designed to execute particular tasks and that the most reveal ing question we can ask of them is 'What evidence is there of how they were used?'. Such evidence will be found primarily on the tool's edges and working surfaces and can be identified as the areas of greatest modification, both by deliberate retouch and by utilization scarring. Therefore, detailed characteristics of the areas of greatest modification, retouch or utilization are treated as significant when assigning artifacts to particular classes. For example, whether an apparently deliberately modified flake may be classed as a point or as a scraper will depend more upon details of its edge and tip configurations than upon its overall shape.

The second innovation of attribute cluster analysis concerns the way the typological framework is defined. The problem,

which is not exclusive to archaeology, is how to conceptualize the patterning of a non-random complex of variables. If one imagines ink spots on a sheet of paper, we can either construct a predetermined grid and count how many spots fall within each square, or we can draw circles around each cluster of spots. Neither procedure is better than the other; each has its benefits and its difficulties. Standard or ideal typologies use the former approach. They take the data set and impose upon it an abstract, externally generated, a priori set of definitions. It is what we all do when we look at an object, match it to a mental template and say 'burin' or 'thumbnail scraper' or 'Sangoan'. Such an approach tells us something about the mindset and classificatory skills of the observer, but it is not at all clear that it gives any insight into the intentions of the artefact's producers and users. The construction and some of the limitations of standard lithic typology are discussed particularly in chapter four of Lithics: "this morphological typology is universal and general, and can therefore be used for all lithic artifacts.... [it] is based upon the recognition of standardized attributes that produce mutually exclusive types based upon shape" (Andrefsky 2005: 246).



20 South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (185): 19-30, 2007

In order to interrogate the lithics more directly, with fewer imposed assumptions, the search for natural or inherent attribute clusters entails a readiness to transgress generally accepted, observer-imposed boundaries. In some instances, what a standard typological assessment would identify as a single classificatory group may be seen to constitute parts of more than one attribute cluster; conversely, members of more than one standard typological group may be recognized on the basis of their edge or other characteristics as belonging to a single artefact type or group. Attribute cluster analysis does not try to match actual material to predefined ideal types. In this respect, the difference between a standard typological study and a cluster analysis is analogous to the difference between an excavation conducted according to artificial spits and one con ducted according to the natural soil stratigraphy. While each has its uses, they will not necessarily give the same results. The divergence in classification results is particularly apparent when considering the catch-all categories of 'scrapers' and 'miscellaneous retouched pieces'. Standard typologies tend to designate a wide variety of artefacts with unifacial edge modifi cation as 'scrapers' with subdivisions of the class dependent on the placement and gross configuration of the modified edge. The present study would apply the term scraper only to pieces which show plausible evidence of having been used as scrap ing tools or, if unused, which closely resemble other pieces in the same assemblage that have been so used; in fact, no such pieces were found.

THE ARTEFACTS FROM RHINO CAVE AND WHITE PAINTINGS ROCK SHELTER

With the generous permission of L.H. Robbins, the assistance of A. Segobye and of the staff at the National Museum of Botswana in Gaborone, I closely examined and photographed a selection of 43 Middle Stone Age points and retouched artefacts excavated in the mid 1990s from Rhino Cave and from

White Paintings Rock Shelter, both in the Tsodilo Hills of Northern Botswana, by L.H. Robbins of the University of Michigan and his associates. Information on the sites' strati graphies, excavation techniques, and dating evidence is contained in the excavators' published reports (Donahue et al. 2004; Robbins et al. 1996, 2005; Robbins & Brook et al. 2000). They record that White Paintings Rock Shelter had approxi mately seven metres of undisturbed deposits, for which they obtained a series of age determinations, with three Middle Stone Age stratigraphic units dated from 65 000 to more than 95 000 years ago. Rhino Cave yielded more abundant finds of lithics from shallower undisturbed deposits, but without reli able dating evidence. I concur with the excavators that the Mid dle Stone Age lithics from these adjacent sites appear so similar that it seems reasonable to assume that they were made by the same people and that the series of age determinations from the

White Paintings Shelter can also be applied to the material from Rhino Cave. The excavators sorted the material into standard lithic types and, conveniently for subsequent researchers such as myself, the tools were separately bagged and labelled. The tools included bifacial, unifacial and broken points, concave, convex, notched and straight scrapers, burins, denticulates and miscellaneous retouched and utilized pieces. These have been tabulated and reported in the excavators' publications cited above. Except in a study by Donahue, Murphy and Robbins that included just eight Middle Stone Age pieces, little account was taken of artefact condition or of evidence of utilization or edge wear.

Upon inspection of the lithics from the Middle Stone Age levels - as identified by the excavators of the two sites, while

TABLE 1. Summary of the artefacts selected for analysis.

Rhino Cave White Paintings Rock Shelter

Complete points 14 sil 4 qtz 7 sil 1 qtz

Point distal ends 1 qtz

Point butts 2 sil 5 qtz 2 sil

Fabricators 1 sil 4 qtz 1 qtz

Burnisher 1 specularite

sil = silicified sandstone, silcrete or chert; qtz = quartz.

selecting the individual artefacts for closer study, it was noted that almost all of the lithic material appeared to be in pristine, unworn and unweathered condition. A very major exception was that every one of the bifacial and unifacial points was heavily worn, blunted and/or broken. The only other exception was a unique, chipped and polished specularite artefact which is described below. I also found that, when subjected to a non-mathematical, or intuitive, attribute cluster analysis, the assemblages contained no scrapers. None of the pieces labelled scrapers according to the standard typology used in the original description had the minute, unifacial, scaled edge retouch characteristic of a new-made scraper, nor the abraded arrises and hinged micro-fractures found on utilized scrapers. Some of the pieces, labelled as scrapers on account of their gross morphology, were in fact the proximal or butt ends of unifacial flake points (Fig. 1, RC k, n, o, q). Once they were recognized for what they were, it was found that, contrary to the tabulations in the original reports, the broken bases of points greatly outnum bered the broken tips. The few pieces designated as burins all appeared to me to be fortuitous. The tabulated artefact classifi cations given in Table 1, above, result from my reassessment of pieces selected for the purpose of the present study.

It may be seen from Table 1 that the ratio of crystalline quartz to silicified raw materials is 3:2 for broken points and 4:1 for fabricators, but just under 1:4 for whole points. While quartz is locally available at Tsodilo, the specific sources of other lithic raw materials, principally various grades of silicified sandstone, sandy and homogenous chert, are uncertain (L.H. Robbins, pers. comm. 2005). The difference in material propor tions between the whole and broken points will reflect the brit tleness of quartz; it may also reflect the users' preferences for points made of silicified materials on account of their greater durability. Had the very limited time available for this study permitted, comparison of the proportions of raw materials among the cores and debitage might have allowed more infer ences to be drawn about this material. As these figures are based on the examination of selected artefacts, not on a study of the entire assemblages from particular excavation units, they

must be understood to be suggestive, not descriptive. This same comment applies to the way in which artefacts from the two sites and various spits have not been distinguished in the analysis. The purpose of this study is not to provide a complete description of the excavated material, but to explore what new information might be derived from the cluster analysis of some

Middle Stone Age points and associated lithics. Most of the 36 whole and broken points chosen for this

study derived from square 3 of Rhino Cave. The original inves tigators reported that, "It was possible to classify 67 of the MSA points found in square 3 [of Rhino Cave] into the following groups. Finished points: 33; Point tips: 12; Point bases: 2; Unretouched point preforms or blanks: 5; Points in manufac ture: 8; Failed or rejected points: 5,' (Robbins, Brook et al. 2000: 21). Comparison of these figures with those in Table 1 well




RCa RCf RCg RCh

RCi RCj RCk

RCm

RCn RCo R

RCr~ ~ ~ ~ Rs RCu ( :

RCv

RCv RCqa

FI. . elctd rtfatsro Rin Cve(se abe2fr rtfat esritins. cae n ilimtrs

illustrates the extent of the differences that may be expected between an analysis based on the imposition of an externally generated standard typology and an internally defined attribute cluster analysis.

FABRICATORS Excluding those that were reclassified as broken point

butts, almost all of the artefacts labelled by the excavators as scrapers, retouched, or utilized pieces were flakes or fragments with a notched or concave edge. Six of these were examined in detail. All appeared to be variants of a single artefact class, with out inherent clustering in their features, that ranged from flakes with a deep, narrow primary notch and distinct secondary notches to others with more diffuse edge modification. While




their plan shapes resembled those of somewhat irregular scrapers, their edges were very different. A scraper is usually trimmed by the imposition of numerous shallow minute flake scars extending a short ways onto the artefact's dorsal face, and is intended in use to shave small amounts of material from a flat or convex surface, such as a stretched hide or a wooden shaft. A consequence of such use tends to be the removal of irregulari ties from the scraper edge by the rubbing away of protuber ances and by the superposition of many smaller flake scars and hinged fractures. However, the notches and concavities on these pieces were characteristically made by a few relatively narrow and deep flake scars oriented tangentially to the flakes' edge. On pieces where the edge modification scars were more numerous, they tended to create a broader, relatively shallower notch, sometimes with a slightly denticulate configuration, but never with sufficient regularity relative to the size of the notch to allow them to serve as efficient scraping tools (Fig. 1, RCu, aa).

Except that they were not scrapers, it was not clear at first what kind of artefacts these pieces with their very distinct primary and secondary notches were. Since it is unlikely that numerous tools would have been deliberately fashioned and then immediately abandoned, logic suggested that their edge

modification was not the result of deliberate trimming, but was incidental to their use as fabricators for trimming other flakes. Only firm pressure at right angles against something hard and narrow, such as the edge of another flake, could have produced the observed scar patterns. The nature of the resultant utiliza tion scars would depend on such factors as the relative steep ness of the two edge angles and whether the motion involved was static pressure, twisting or sawing. It would seem probable that if, as is implied by the quantities of lithic debitage present in the deposits, points were being knapped and trimmed in the shelters, some hard material would have been required to execute their final trimming. The hard material with which the knappers would be most familiar and which would have come most readily to hand would have been a flake or fragment of the stone that was being knapped. It is easy to imagine that from a collection of freshly knapped flakes two would be selected: a triangular flake to be trimmed into a point and an unmodified piece to be used only very briefly as a fabricator for trimming the point and then discarded back onto the pile of unselected flakes and debitage before it had had time to acquire any signs of use wear other than the notched or concave edge modification. Unlike the points, which were taken from the sites to be used elsewhere and only brought back to be discarded and replaced once they were worn out or broken, the fabricators were not curated pieces.

The existence of these fabricators as a distinct tool type had not been evident when the same material was subjected to a standard lithic analysis. Their recognition depended upon the construction of a new artefact category defined by the clustering of artefact edge attributes within the particular assemblage being considered. The previously applied standard typological assessment had dispersed these same artefacts amongst several categories, such as concave and notched scrapers and utilized flakes.

As a check on the plausibility of fabricators as an artefact type, a series of replication experiments was undertaken (Phillipson 2007). Pairs of a triangular and an irregular flake freshly struck from a large flint nodule were used to produce minimally trimmed points, each irregular flake or fragment being used to retouch only a single point. It was found to take only a few minutes' work, usually less than ten, to fashion a somewhat irregular triangular flake into a usable point with a

sharpened edge and tip and to create a basal notch or shoulder. The easiest way to sharpen the points' edges was found to be by the imposition of a row of almost razor-sharp serrations, and it

was exactly this action which produced edge modification on the replica fabricators that closely duplicated what was found on the apparently similar artefacts from Rhino Cave and from

White Paintings Rock Shelter.

POINTS Thirty-two whole and broken points plus one other

utilized artefact from Rhino Cave and 10 from White paintings Rock Shelter were examined at x 10 and x 15 magnification, drawn and photographed. In their interesting report, Donahue et al. (2004) report finding edge damage which may be attributable to binding stress, and tip impact fractures on some points. Both of these features were clearly visible on some of the specimens which I examined. Several other features were also apparent, of which the most significant was that, unlike the pristine debitage and the minimally utilized fabrica tors, all of the points were either broken or so heavily use-worn that they would no longer have been serviceable as hunting tools or weapons. None showed signs of having been resharpened subsequent to their initial trimming and use. Point use wear consisted primarily of dorsal, ventral, and edge abrasion of prominent areas of their distal halves, such as might have resulted from repeatedly stabbing an animal carcass, which in every case severely blunted the point's lateral edges and dulled facial arrises. Several lines of evidence, detailed below for individual specimens, indicate that these points were almost certainly used as hafted spear heads. The pattern of transverse, slightly twisted breakage on many examples is perhaps the clearest evidence of such use. Only a use which resulted in the tip being firmly embedded, perhaps in the flank of a moderately large animal, while sideways leverage with a slight torque was applied by means of a shaft (to which the point had been firmly bound) could have resulted in such cleanly snapped breaks. That the points were so used and/or broken is an indication of what I interpret to be the chief, and perhaps the sole activity carried out by the Middle Stone Age users of these two sites. They were places where useless spears were brought to have their old tips replaced with new-made points, most probably on an ad hoc basis, the old points being discarded onto the spoil heaps together with the newly-struck waste flakes and fragments and the fabricator which had been used to trim the new point. With one notable exception, the absence of close uniformity in the points' plan shapes suggests that they were not the work of a few specialist knappers, but that each individual made his or her own as they were needed.

The absence of any artefacts with evidence of having been used as knives, scrapers or other woodworking tools shows that spear shafts were not being made at the same sites. Most probably it took much longer to produce a good shaft than to strike a few flakes and trim a point. Wood of sufficient strength, balance and straightness to produce a good spear shaft may not have been readily obtainable and, quite likely, the shafts were more valued and carefully curated than were the stone points. It may also be inferred from the predominant way in which

many of the points were broken, that they were attached to held, thrusting spears, not to thrown spears. An animal running away with a spear in its side might cause a stone point to snap when the spear shaft banged against or became wedged in a tree or bush; however, it is the wrenching motion as someone tried to recover a thrust spear that would most likely have imparted a twist to the fracture.

Before describing details of the features of some individual




points, some more general observations can be made. Many of the points are sufficiently irregular in plan and profile shape that an attempt to classify them according to their gross

morphology was not successful. Points had bases that were predominantly convex, flat, concave, or approximated the angle of an irregular trapezoid; others had one or two basal corner notches, two had proximal side notches. There was equally great variety in their edge plans and in their profiles, and no correlation could be discovered between the variations in these gross features. What most of the tool makers seemed to have in mind was the production of a usefully sharp piece of stone to put at the end of a spear, rather than the necessity to make a point of a particular shape. However, a few of the points, including two quartz point bases (RCx, RCy) belie this general observation. The regular symmetry of a few points suggests that their artificers were capable of investing care in the manufacturing process and that whether or not they did so

was a matter of deliberate choice. Another general feature is that many of the points have

relatively steep profile edge angles. It seems that almost any triangular or sub-triangular flake might be selected to be mini

mally trimmed for use as a spear point. I did not, unfortunately, have time to examine the untrimmed debitage to see whether all such flakes were made into points or whether some were discarded. Most probably very thin flakes and those with very shallow edge angles would have been too fragile to use. Some of the flakes that were selected and used were so steep or irreg ular in profile that it is hard to imagine their penetrating an animal's hide, no matter how strong and practised the arm that wielded the spear, unless one accepts that these pieces had been much sharper before they were discarded.

The clue as to how such steeply edged flakes were made into successful spear heads is to be found in an important, but seemingly very minor edge feature found on many of the points. This is a pattern of slightly scalloped or minutely nibbled indentations or denticulations along portions of one or both long edges, especially near the tip (Fig. 1, RC g, i, j, m, p, r, s, v, w; Fig. 2, WP b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, k) . It was mentioned above that replication experiments demonstrated that the use of flakes as tools to create razor sharp serrations on other flakes produced the same edge modification as is found on the fabricators recov ered as components of the Rhino Cave and White Paintings Rock Shelter Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages. A further stage in the same replication experiments was to place all the experimental debitage and the retouched and utilized flint pieces in a box of sandy peat and to shake it vigorously for an hour in order to give them a discernible amount of random damage and abrasion that would approximately duplicate actual processes of artefact degradation. One result of this process was that the replica points which had had sharp denticulations to begin with were left with very minor, worn-down nibbling which closely matched that found on many of the Middle Stone Age points. From this, it may be concluded that at least some, and perhaps most, of the Rhino Cave and White Paintings Rock Shelter points had had simi larly sharpened edges and that once their serrations were effaced by repeated use, the spearheads were discarded and replaced. The presence of such edge modification, which can be created very easily and rapidly, explains both how other wise unpromising flakes could be made into useful points and the significance of the notched pieces found in the same assem blages. The recoguition of this previously unobserved feature was made possible by the primacy that functional analysis gives to the observation of edge details rather than to gross morphological features on retouched and utilized artefacts.

SOME PARTICULAR ARTEFACTS Dimensions and excavation units of all the artefacts

examined for this study are given in Tables 2 and 3. They are identified in what follows and in the plates and in Figs 2 and 3 by RC for Rhino Cave and WP for White Paintings Rock Shelter followed by the letter designation given in Tables 2 and 3. Not all the artefacts listed in Tables 2 and 3 are described here.

WPa is a sub rectangular flake of translucent quartz with a notch approximately 2 mm deep and 2 mm broad, itself consist ing of and apparently made by several smaller secondary notches, adjacent to an area about 5 mm long characterized by shallower notching, on one long edge. The opposing long edge has an area about 17 mm long and 2 mm deep of small adjacent and superimposed notches. The scars of these notches, as on all of the fabricators, do not have the characteristic scaled or stepped retouch such as is found on most genuine scrapers. Close inspection shows that the edge modification is primarily tangential and at right angles to the fabricator's edge and that it consists of crushed rather than flaked damage scars. The narrowness of the individual scars, particularly of the secondary scars within the deep notch, could only have been made by pressure against an even narrower hard edge.

RCaa is a broken quartz fabricator with opposed notches, one of which is about 3 mm broad and 2 mm deep; the other is about 6 mm long and 3 mm deep and is composed of a number of minute secondary notches. Because the notches are close to the end of what must have been an elongated flake, the piece

might be described as a nosed scraper if precedence is given to plan shape rather than to edge configuration.

RCu is a very silicified silcrete or quartzite fabricator with a notch about 3 mm wide and 2 mm deep with clearly defined secondary notches. Apart from the one deep notch and a possible area of slight edge modification, the piece appears to be other wise unworn and unutilized.

WPb is a unifacial chert point with an approximately convex base modified by a deep corner notch. The point's edges, which retain evidence of worn-down denticulations at the tip and on the distal portion of one long edge, are blunt.

Abrasive wear particularly on the dorsal arrises of the distal end contrasts with the much less worn retouch at the proximal end.

WPc is of silcrete or sandy chert with a stepped or thinned base that does not interfere with its convex plan shape. Although heavily worn, particularly on its distal half, clear traces remain of the deliberate modification of both long edges. A small portion of the tip has been removed by impact damage.

WPd is of chert, has a shouldered butt created by ventral trimming, and has had its tip removed by a slightly twisted snapped fracture. Evidence of possibly denticulate retouch remains on both long edges.

WPg is of chert, has a thinned, straight base, and is much worn and dulled near its tip. Both long edges have wavy inden tations which look like worn-down serrations.

WPh is similar to WPg except that it has a concave base and evidence of retouch on only one long edge.

WPj is the broken butt of a silcrete or sandy chert point with the tip removed by a diagonal, slightly twisted fracture. It is not so worn as most of the other points and retains an area of denticulations on one edge.

WPk is a shouldered quartz point with a side notch which may have facilitated hafting. It has deliberate edge modifica tion near the tip and also, perhaps, on its long edges.

RCa is a sandy chert point with two adjacent basal notches, each made by a distinct flake removal. The distal portions of its long edges are particularly worn and rounded.




WPb WPc WPd

WPe WPf WPg

'"It. - /ti - I

WPb h WPc WPd

VVPk~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

FI.2 eece reacsrmWit anWPsRcseteseTbe WPfoarectdsipon)Salinmlmte.

RCd is a sub-triangular, coarse chert unifacial point with a much blunted tip, and a prominent corner spur. Clear remains of worn down serrated retouch remain on one long edge and suggestions of similar retouch on the other.

RCe is a bifacially trimmed, sub triangular, crystalline quartz point with a fracture line radiating downwards from an

area of impact damage at its tip. It is not apparent whether the point is otherwise intact or whether it is also broken at the base. It retains some worn traces of probably deliberate edge trimming.

RCf is a small triangular flake with a blunted tip and edges, and some abrasion on the flake surfaces. A single flake removed to make a slightly concave base is the only discernible retouch.




TABLE 2. Artefacts examined from Rhino Cave.

All from square 3 Artefact description and dimensions Material spit (depth in cm) (length; breadth; thickness in mm)

a 45-50 Unifacial point, sub triang, basal notches [43.8; 33.5; 10.2] sil

b 45-50 Unifacial point, sub triang [29.8; 27.0; 7.5] sil

c 45-50 Unifacial point, triang [23.0; 17.7; 4.7] qtz

d 50-55 Unifacial point, sub triang, corner spur & notch [23.0; 19.7; 6.7] sil

e 50-55 Bifacial point, triang [25.6; 21.8; 8.2] qtz

f 50-55 Unifacial point, triang with concave base [26.1; 18.4; 8.9] sil

g 55-60 Unifacial point, convex butt, side notch [40.3; 23.5; 7.6] sil

h 55-60 Unifacial point, irreg trapezoid [28.7; 18.9; 4.3] sil

i 55-60 Unifacial point, irreg trapezoid [22.9; 28.9; 12.5] sil

j 55-60 Unifacial point, convex base, side notch [32.9; 24.5; 13.0] qtz

k 55-60 Point butt, convex [13.0; 21.3; 4.9] qtz

1 55-60 Unifacial point, irreg trapezoid, shouldered [40.4; 26.1; 8.4] sil

m 55-60 Unifacial point, trapezoid, broken tip & base [28.2; 16.5; 7.6] sil

n 55-60 Bifacial point butt, elongate convex [16.4; 26.0; 4.1] sil

o 55-60 Unifacial point butt, convex [20.0; 22.8; 6.4] qtz

p 60-65 Unifacial point, shouldered, base broken [32.1; 22.5; 5.1] sil

q 60-65 Unifacial point butt, with shoulder spur [24.1; 28.8; 5.2] sil

r 65-70 Unifacial point tip [15.1; 17.7; 5.4] qtz

s 65-70 Unifacial point, shoulder spur & corner notch [32.5; 19.6; 7.1] sil

t 70-75 Bifacial point butt, elongate, stemmed [33.9; 19.7; 5.7] qtz

u 70-75 Fabricator, deep notched [27.0; 16.4; 6.8] qtz

v 70-75 Unifacial point, sub triangular [31.9; 33.7; 10.2] sil

w 70-75 Unifacial point, convex base, broken tip [32.5; 25.0; 9.1] sil

x 70-75 Unifacial point butt, stemmed [31.5; 27.0; 9.4] qtz

y 70-75 Unifacial point butt, stemmed [21.1; 26.1; 8.2] qtz

z 75-80 Broken fabricator, opposed deep notches [31.8; 22.7; 9.3] qtz

aa 75-80 Unifacial point, triang [25.2; 20.7; 5.3] qtz

bb 75-80 Unifacial point, elongate sub rectangular [36.8; 20.2; 4.6] sil

cc 95-100 Fabricator [not measured] qtz

dd 95-100 Fabricator [not measured] qtz

ee 45-50 Trimmed & rubbed specularite piece [not measured]


RCg is a unifacial point of very silicified sandstone with a convex butt and an apparently deliberate notch near the mid point on one side. As the point is longer than other examples, it may be that the notch was used to assist with a hafting that en cased its entire proximal end. In addition to the usual heavy wear at the tip and along the piece's edges, there is an area of heavily rubbed wear near the base, which most probably resulted from chaffing against whatever binding materials were used for the hafting.

RCh - this chert point is irregularly trapezoidal with

distinctly denticulate trimming on one long edge. Impact damage at its tip has created a burin-like scar. Of most interest is an area of what appears to be red ochre staining near its base. L. Wadley (2005) has demonstrated the possible use of powdered ochre as an ingredient of a compound mastic that can be used for hafting points and has interpreted the presence of ochre stains on some Middle Stone Age points as evidence that they were hafted with the aid of such mastic.

RCj is a very worn, sub triangular, crystalline quartz point with a convex base. It has a side notch similar to that on RCg,

TABLE 3. Artefacts examinedfrom White Paintings Rock Shelter.

Square & spit Artefact description and dimensions Material (depth in cm) [length; breadth; thickness in mm]

a 11-12/ 420-80 Fabricator, deep & shallow notches [33.1; 26.5; 5.7] qtz

b 23/ 450-460 Unifacial point, corner notch [30.0; 23.8; 7.7] sil

c 23/ 490-500 Unifacial point, convex base [36.8; 23.6; 7.3] sil

d 23/ 500-510 Bifacial point base [33.5; 28.0; 10.3] sil

e 23/ 520-530 Unifacial point, triang [21.5; 20.4; 6.0] sil

f 23/ 520-530 Unifacial point, convex base [29.7; 21.4; 7.6] sil

g 23/ 520-530 Unifacial point, sub triang [32.3; 29.4; 9.1] sil

h 23/ 520-530 Unifacial point, triang, concave base [31.0; 33.1; 9.6] sil

i23/ 530-540 Unifacial point, triang, slight corner spur [27.5; 18.7; 7.9] sil

j 23/ 560-570 Unifacial point base, convex [31.2; 26.9; 8.7] sil

k 23/670-680 Unifacial point, basal notch [36.3; 24.5; 9.4] qtz





but located closer to the point's base. Like RCe, it has had heavy impact damage at its tip.

RCk is a small portion of the convex base of a unifacially trimmed quartz point. Although its general shape is crescentic, the unretouched edge is broken and there are areas of rubbed

wear most likely to have resulted from chaffing against binding materials.

RCm is a unifacial, somewhat granular chert point of similar material to RCh, which it may have resembled in shape and size. A diagonal break has removed part of its base and a small portion of the tip is also missing. Both long edges have the

worn down remains of what appear to have been pointed denticulations and there are probable red ochre stains near its base.

RCn is the bifacially trimmed butt of a granular chert or very silicified sandstone point which has been transversely snapped. The freshness of the slightly twisted break contrasts

with the rubbed or chaffed surfaces of the piece. It has an area of apparent ochre staining near the base on one face.

RCo is the transversely snapped butt of a well worn unifacial point of crystalline quartz.

RCp is a unifacial silcrete point with a stepped shoulder. Part of the base has been diagonally broken and the proximal end and tip are much worn.

RCq is the butt of a worn, flat based, fine chert, unifacial point with shallow dorsal scars. It has a stepped shoulder and small basal spur.

RCs is a flat based, unifacial chert point with clear remains of denticulate trimming, particularly on one long edge, and a use-blunted tip. It also has an unusual arrangement of a corner notch and prominent basal spur on the same side.

RCt - this butt of a unifacially trimmed quartz point has a trimmed notch at each basal corner, making it into the base of a stemmed point. It resembles RCx and RCy, but not as closely as those two resemble one another.

RCv is a triangular, sandy chert flake worn very blunt. There is a small area of unifacial trimming and impact damage at its tip.

RCw is a unifacial silcrete point with a convex butt. The proximal end of its dorsal surface has been very heavily worn and almost polished by abrasion; other areas are less heavily worn, and a small portion of the tip is missing.

RCx and RCy are two very similar unifacial point butts of transparent, crystalline quartz. Each has a flat base, trimmed on either side to give them short stems.

RCee is a cordate shaped piece of specularite, about 36 mm long, which has acquired smoothly convex, polished surfaces, apparently as a result of much rubbing. What appear to have been deliberate trimming scars underlie the polished surfaces and are visible near the piece's edges.

BEHAVIOURAL RECONSTRUCTION Two concluding discussions arise from this study. One

concerns the reconstruction of probable behavioural patterns and strategies of the Rhino Cave and White Paintings Rock Shelter Middle Stone Age tool makers and users. The other concerns more general questions of how lithic analyses are conducted. Elements of behavioural reconstruction have been indicated in the section describing individual artefacts. The only activity indicated by the lithic artefacts as having taken place at the two sites was the manufacture of stone spear points to replace those which had been broken in use or worn out. It is not unreasonable to assume that the necessary ancillary tasks of preparing mastic and fibre or skin thongs as hafting materials may also have taken place at or near these sites. Possibly the

unique burnishing tool (RCee) was used in this process. The absence of utilized scrapers or other lithic wood working tools indicates that the probably much more time consuming tasks of shaft preparation and ab initio spear manufacture were done elsewhere. The absence of evidence for the conduct of a wider variety of activities suggests that these shelters may have been the sites of repeatedly visited, perhaps seasonal, hunting bases. A lack of standardization in the point shapes and styles suggests that most were made, perhaps only one or two at a time, as they were needed and that they were made by a variety of hands, not by a few specialists. The presence of a few symmetric and more carefully finished points together with a majority of irregular and minimally retouched examples may be understood as evidence that while at least some of the knappers were capable of fine work, it was not considered necessary or economically beneficial to invest much time or effort in the production of these spear heads. This seems to indicate that the artisans were making deliberate choices based on anticipated economic factors. Evidence that the points had been given serrated or denticulated edges and that they were hafted onto stabbing spears has been discussed above.

Two particularly interesting pieces are the transparent quartz examples RCx and RCy. Unlike the other points, each of which is seemingly unique, these so resemble one another in size, shape, material and style of retouch that it is reasonable to surmise that both were made by the same artificer from the same fine block of crystal. Furthermore, since they were found together in the same excavation square and spit, they may well have been brought to Rhino Cave and discarded at the same time after having been broken in the same recent event. Most probably they were made, used, broken and replaced by some one who carried and used two or more spears on a single occa sion. Their presence together with that of a minority of other symmetric points is sufficient to demonstrate the technical skill of these people. Although complete in themselves, the assem blages recovered from these two sites cannot be taken as repre senting any entire Middle Stone Age fithic ensembles. They are in fact representative of a single suite of closely related economic or functional activities. At some other sites, the same people would have been fashioning spear shafts and, almost certainly, making and using a wider range of lithic artefacts, some of which were probably at least as intensively retouched and regularly shaped as the few exceptional pieces from Rhino Cave.

Had time and circumstances permitted, more could have been learned by extending the cluster analysis to include other elements of these assemblages. Only a very cursory glance was given to the sorted debitage and no examination made of the cores. Statistical comparison of the raw materials of the points relative to that of the debitage might have given an insight into strategies of raw material selection. A look at the relative proportions of various shapes of unretouched whole flakes might have given an indication of how selective were the artificers in their choices of flakes to be made into points, and a study of the cores would have allowed some reconstruction of knapping techniques. These and similar investigations would be part of a complete analysis, which ought, ideally, to be applied to entire excavated assemblages and not, as in the present study, limited to the examination of a few selected artefacts. It is my hope that such detailed studies will be applied to others of the recently excavated southern African Middle Stone Age assemblages in the expectation that much new infor mation about early human behaviour may be derived from so doing.




jv4.

I~~~~ N

' fU.!.E,.W *:_

PLATE 1. Rhino Cave square 3; quartz point tipfrom 65-70 cm, quartz point basefrom 55-60 cm. Although not parts of the same artefact, both pieces show a

characteristic twisted, transverse break; the lower part is not a convex scraper.

PLATE 2. Rhino Cave square 3, 65-70 cm; chert point with a heavily worn serrated edge.

PLATE 3. Rhino Cave square 3, 65-70 cm; broken chert point with a relatively unworn serrated edge, traces of red ochre at its base.

PLATE 4. Rhino Cave square 3, 60-65 cm; broken chert point with worn serrations near the tip.




4~.

PLATE 5. Rhino Cave square 3, 45-50 cm; blunted, heavily worn quartz point with traces of serrations on the unbroken long edge.

PLATE 6. White Paintings Shelter square 12, 60-70 cm; heavily worn quartz point with worn serrations near the tip.

PLATE 7. Rhino Cave square 3, 70-75 cm; quartzite notchedfabricator with clear secondary notches.

. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m *- t :~~~m

.- a o=~~~m g r ,.. ~ m

. i_ .,,~~m

_= f.~~~~m +'* b ' ~~m

=~~~~~m

_i;1 _[ '' =m

, .' * *>;m

4:,, 's =~m . w_ '~~~m

, _e $' ~~m 2.,;, . ss _m

! ! r [_~~~m - 5 _~m

* veam_

PLTE8 WitPininsShlerqur21 1017c; uatitfarcao wih rasofntcedad ifue tiiatono opoie onmdgs




PLATE 9. White Paintings Shelter square 11/12,420-430 cm; quartzfabrica tor deeply notched with secondary notches on one edge, shallower utilized area on opposite edge

PRINCIPLES OF LITHIC ANALYSIS Imagine that you are given some lithic artefact and asked to

say what it is and that you respond by identifying it as a microlithic crescent, a finely made handaxe, a bifacially flaked point or other easily recognizable artefact type, or that you express some uncertainty and say that it could be a not very representative example of some other type. What you are doing in either case is matching the artefact more or less closely to one or more of a numerous, observer-held set of pre-existing

mental templates. What we decide to call particular artefacts and, more importantly, how we decide what to call them are fundamental questions of lithic analysis. Nomenclature depends upon typology, and typology depends upon method ology. These are key issues behind every lithic analysis, and a failure to grapple with them directly underlies some of the problems which most bedevil African lithic studies. Many of the problems to which I refer involve the implicit assumption of cultural, temporal or functional conclusions which have not been demonstrated. Such assumptions are involved, for example, in calling certain shapes of cores 'Levallois' even though they may be older than, and have no demonstrable cultural relationship to, material from the eponymous French type site. Even more blatantly, the catch-all label of 'scraper' tends to lump together artefacts which may in fact have served diverse purposes on the undemonstrated basis of their pre sumed function. As the example of so-called African Levallois industries and very many others make clear, morphological similarities cannot be assumed to indicate cultural relation ships. Equally, we must be wary of using any terminology that is based on unproven assumptions of an artefact's use. It has long since been demonstrated that so-called handaxes were not primarily chopping tools, and if everything described as a

PLATE 10. Rhino Cave square 3, 70-75 cm; quartz fabricator notched with secondary notches on one edge, diffuse utilization at distal end.

lithic scraper was in fact used for scraping, their users must have had little time for other activities.

These designations, along with others such as 'Early Stone Age', 'Middle Stone Age', and 'Late Stone Age', were adopted at a time when it was thought that particular artefact morphologies could be treated as if they were type fossils and that, over time, one type gave way to another according to a tidy linear, or perhaps dendritic, model of cultural evolution. Such terms are heavily freighted with assumptions about temporal relationships and about technological and cultural sophistication, and their continued use limits our ability to formulate more complex, reticulated models of human behaviour. The relationships between lithics and culture are frustratingly subtle. The simplest question of all, 'Who made these?', is one that cannot always be answered. The more immediate question of, 'What evidence is there of how this artefact was used?', may be answerable if we do not begin by assuming that we already know the answer. Once again, we come back to the point that the way lithics are described affects what can be learned from them.

We must first of all clarify to ourselves the reasons for any lithics study and what we are trying to learn from it and then select the method of analysis that will be most helpful for our purposes. Are we interested in exploring how artefacts may have been made and used, or only how closely their appear ance matches that of presumed ideal types? Every assemblage and every artefact within each assemblage is characterized by numerous variables, some of which must be given priority over others in any typological or descriptive system. An analysis which pays primary attention to the areas most likely to become or to have been affected by use wear - that is to the areas of most intense edge modification - will provide insights




into how various artefacts may have been used. Greater emphasis on how flakes were struck from their cores and on trimming techniques provides more information on knapping strategies and manual dexterity. Standard typology's emphasis on the most obvious aspects of gross morphology, artefacts' plan shape and size, is particularly useful for making entries in a catalogue or accessions register, but it is limited in its ability to provide new insights into aspects of human behaviour. The guiding principle of attribute cluster analysis, that it is based on the recognition of characteristics inherent in - and exclusive to - each particular assemblage, goes some ways towards reducing observer-imposed biases. Probably no prehistoric artificer ever took up a piece of stone with the intent to make flakes having a pre-determined ratio of length to breadth or cores that conformed to a defined geometric pattern. The intent of lithic manufacture was much more probably goal directed: to produce a tool suitable for a specific task. Cluster analysis is a step in the direction of finding new ways to interro gate lithics more directly, with less imposition of our own a priori assumptions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS What has the attribute cluster analysis of material from

Rhino Cave and White Paintings Rock Shelter Middle Stone Age accomplished that was not done by the previous standard analyses? Perhaps the most obvious new results are the recog nition that many of the flake points had probably been given serrated edges and the identification of the retouching tools used to shape those edges. It is by paying as much attention to minor details as to gross morphologies that the possession and use of sometimes more than one hand-held stabbing spear was reconstructed from observations of the way points had been broken and from the presence in one spit of two very similar points. In these and other ways, the reconstruction of human activities is more detailed than that provided by the previously published studies of the same material using standard typo logical analysis. This observation is not at all intended as a criti cism of the work of the sites' original investigators. In at least one way the application of cluster analysis to a lithic assem blage is inferior to the use of a standard typology. That is in the matter of inter-assemblage comparability. When artefact types are defined anew for each assemblage depending on the inher ent clustering of particular traits, it is most unlikely that the pattern of observed type boundaries within any two or more assemblages will be congruent. Before cluster analysis can be used for meaningful comparisons between assemblages, we will need to learn how to apply new statistical tools and the logic of fuzzy boundaries to our studies. In the meantime, it is clear that the type of analysis used greatly influences and limits the information that can be derived from it. There is thus a need to make deliberate initial choices such as why any lithic study is being made, what it is hoped to learn from it, and what analyti cal approach will be used. It is not sufficient simply to count the frequencies of tool types because it is part of an archaeological tradition to do so. "Cluster analysis should not be considered as a classification method, but as a discovery tool by which the researcher retains all his initiative and liberty of imagination" (Cahen & Martin 1972: 2).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful thanks are offered to Professor L.H. Robbins for

permission and encouragement to re-examine lithics from Rhino Cave and White Paintings Rock Shelter, excavated under his direction, and to Professor A. Segobye and to staff at the National Museum of Botswana for their assistance.

REFERENCES Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis (2nd edn).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cahen, D. & Van Noten, F. 1970. A propos de typologie, une autre

approche des industries lithiques. Africa-Tervuren 16: 33-47.

Cahen, D. & Van Noten, F. 1971. Stone Age typology: another approach. Current Anthropology 12: 211-215.

Cahen, D. & Martin, P. 1972. Classification formelle automatique et

industries lithiques. Mus?e Royale de l'Afrique Centrale, Sciences Humaine 76.

Cahen, D., Keeley, L. & Van Noten, F. 1979. Stone tools, toolkits and human behaviours in prehistory. Current Anthropology 20: 661

683.

Donahue, R.E., Murphy, M.L. & Robbins, L.H. 2004. Lithic microwear

analysis of Middle Stone Age artifacts from White Paintings Rock

Shelter, Botswana. Journal of Field Archaeology 29:155-163.

Gibson, N.E., Wadley, L. & Williamson, B.S. 2004. Microscopic residues as evidence of hafting on backed tools from the 60 000 to 68 000

year-old Howiesons Poort Layers of Rose Cottage Cave, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 16:1-11.

Lombard, M. 2004. Distribution patterns of organic residues on Middle Stone Age points from Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 59: 37-44.

Lombard, M., Parsons, I. & van der Ryst, M.M. 2004. Middle Stone Age lithic point experimentation for macro-fracture and residue analyses: the process and preliminary results with reference to Sibudu Cave

points. South African Journal of Science 100:159-168.

Phillipson, L. 2000a. Aksumite lithic industries. African Archaeological Review 17: 49-63.

Phillipson, L. 2000b. A functional consideration of Gudit scrapers from Aksum, Ethiopia. In: Krzyzanuak, L., Kroeper, K. & Kobusie

wicz, M. (eds), Recent Research on the Stone Age of Northeastern Africa: 259-276. Poznan: Museum Archeologiczne w Poznaniu.

Phillipson, L. 2007. A replication study of Middle Stone Age lithic point production. South African Archaeological Bulletin 62: 31^13.

Phillipson, L. & Sulas, E 2005. Cultural continuity in Aksumite lithic

tool production, the evidence from Mai Agam. Azania 40:1-18.

Robbins, L.H., Brook, G. A., Murphy, M.L., Campbell, A.C., Melear, N. &

Downey, W.S. 2000. Late Quaternary archaeological and palaeo environmental data from sediments at Rhino Cave, Tsodilo Hills, Botswana. Southern African Field Archaeology 9:17-31.

Robbins, L.H., Murphy, M.L., Brook, G. A., Ivester, A.H., Campbell, A.C., Klein, R.G., Milo, R., Stewart, K.M., Downey, W.S. & Stevens, N.J. 2000. Archaeology, palaeoenvironment, and chronology of the Tsodilo Hills White Paintings Rock Shelter, northwest Kalahari

Desert, Botswana. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:1085-1113.

Robbins, L.H., Murphy, M.L., Campbell, A. & Brook, G.A. 1996. Excava tions at the Tsodilo Hills Rhino Cave. Botswana Notes and Records 28: 23-45.

Robbins, L.H., Murphy, M.L., Brook, G.A. & Campbell, A.C. 2005.

Archaeology and changing environments in the Kalahari: the Tsodilo Hills Region. In: Smith, M. & Hesse, P. (eds), 23 Degrees South: Archae

ology and Environmental History of the Southern Deserts: 108-119. Canberra: National Museum of Australia Press.

Wadley, L. 2005. Putting ochre to the test: replication studies of adhesives that may have been used for hafting tools in the Middle

Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution 49: 587-601.

