New Approaches to the Study of Surface Palaeolithic Artefacts: A pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 9781407308449, 9781407338286

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
FOREWORD
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PRELIMINARIES
SECTION 1: THE LANDSCAPE
SECTION 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
SECTION 3: THE ANALYTICAL METHODS
SECTION 4: THE FIELDWORK STUDIES
SECTION 5: INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDS
SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS
Appendix 1 Recorded Artefacts: Inventory
Appendix 2: GRIDS
Appendix 3: Edge test results
Appendix 4: Assessing the accuracy of Edge Testing on small artefact numbers
REFERENCES

Citation preview

BAR S2270 2011

New Approaches to the Study of Surface Palaeolithic Artefacts

HARDAKER

A pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Terry Hardaker

NEW APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SURFACE PALAEOLITHIC ARTEFACTS

B A R

BAR International Series 2270 2011

New Approaches to the Study of Surface Palaeolithic Artefacts A pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Terry Hardaker

BAR International Series 2270 2011

ISBN 9781407308449 paperback ISBN 9781407338286 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407308449 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

FOREWORD Derek Roe Emeritus Professor of Palaeolithic Archaeology, University of Oxford It is a pleasure to contribute a Foreword to this remarkable report by Terry Hardaker, and just as pleasing to see in print the first substantial account of his dedicated work in western Namibia over the past ten years. To his passion for archaeology and his many years of field experience working on Palaeolithic sites, Hardaker was able to add his training as a geographer and his professional skills as a cartographer and draughtsman. As the reader will discover, these things proved an ideal combination when he came to tackle the special challenges and opportunities which the Palaeolithic archaeology of the Zebra River area offered. I first met Terry Hardaker more than 20 years ago, when I was directing the Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre at Oxford University: he was one of our regular welcome visitors for advice and assistance, particularly in connection with his self-imposed, spare-time task of watching the working gravel pits of the Upper Thames Valley for Palaeolithic implements, Pleistocene fauna and useful stratigraphic information. In this he first worked with, and later took over from, the late R.J. MacRae: between them, they completely revolutionised our knowledge of the Palaeolithic Period in Oxfordshire, and brought into prominence the very interesting relationship during that time between the Upper Thames Valley and the regions south and north of it. Some excellent published accounts of their work exist. The help that we at the Centre could provide was freely and willingly given, in days when it was perhaps easier than now for such projects to thrive and to share our facilities with few formalities. It seemed to me that the time was well spent and the quantity and quality of the information gathered was outstanding: uncomplicated productivity, of which over-regulation seems to have become the enemy. I think it is fair to say that this was the time when Terry Hardaker really learned to understand Palaeolithic stone artefacts, and what information they do, and do not, offer to the student. He began to ask, what is the relationship between the circumstances in which each of them is found or collected, and the situation in which it was abandoned by its maker or last user? Is there any such thing as an assemblage of Lower Palaeolithic stone artefacts genuinely in situ, or truly in ‘primary context’? Can useful information still be extracted from a site where the implements are clearly derived? He also came to understand that one cannot hope to answer questions about the Palaeolithic settlement of the Upper Thames Valley without opening one’s eyes to the rest of the Lower Palaeolithic world, or at least to a very large part of it. I suppose it was predictable - anyhow, it certainly happened - that Hardaker, without in the least abandoning his Upper Thames Valley work, would make his way to Africa, first joining important expeditions that were already working there, one in Kenya and then one in South Africa, and that in due course he would direct an African field project of his own, in a country where little work on the Lower Palaeolithic had been done, Namibia. I am extremely fortunate that my own professional career, beginning in the early 1960s, coincided with the real emergence of Africa as the vital key to any understanding of earlier Palaeolithic Archaeology. That status is so well known and so obvious today, that it is hard to remember a time when it was merely suspected by some, and had barely begun to be demonstrated. Back in 1960 it was still just a matter of guesswork when the Palaeolithic period itself might have begun, and the conventional guess was ‘a million years ago’. Fortunately, the essential advances in chronometric dating, and in Archaeological Science and Quaternary Studies generally, were only just round the corner, and the great African sites were waiting, with no shortage of talented workers to discover and explore them. Progress thereafter was at a breathless pace. I was able to watch, and try to absorb into my teaching, the extraordinary succession of fundamental discoveries in different parts of Africa which clarified and indeed dated for us the first emergence, evolution and expansion of humankind, early technological, social and economic progress, the first long distance human migrations that would lead to the peopling of the whole Old World, and the extraordinary importance, long unsuspected, of the humans who stayed behind, as it were, in the southern part of the African continent, to play so significant a part in the emergence of modern humanity and modern behaviour patterns. If many of the first discoveries were in East Africa - Kenya and Tanzania, with Ethiopia soon joining in - the last quarter of the 20th century saw recognition of the enormous importance of South Africa and adjacent countries. Yet when all of that has been said, there are still parts of Africa of whose early prehistory we know little, and Namibia is one of them. Where does the Namibian Palaeolithic fit into the African archaeological background just outlined? The land lies in the far southwest of the Continent and the routes of access to it are relatively few and difficult.

i

Within Namibia, too, it was not always easy to reach the Zebra River area, or indeed to remain there for long periods as a viable population, yet early humans achieved it. It does not seem that the very earliest stages of the sub-Saharan Palaeolithic are represented here, but if the occupation is mainly later ESA and earlier MSA, then it belongs to a time that was of great significance in South Africa not so far away to the east, when the first signs of modern humanity were beginning to appear. A little LSA material is also present. These things form one part of the interest Hardaker’s report will hold for its readers, and another is the nature of the Zebra River Palaeolithic sites, and of the methods devised to study them. Hardaker quite deliberately chose this arid area, where huge numbers of artefacts are lying in discrete clusters on the surface, at sites which are flat, with little or no depth of soil, meaning that there is no stratigraphy and no preservation of contemporary faunal or floral evidence. Such a situation would be enough to put off most career archaeologists, with access to multi-disciplinary research teams and the wizardry of all kinds of archaeological science laboratories; it is also enough to deter all but the most visionary funding bodies. How can you get worthwhile information out of mere surface finds? Why waste time trying? Hardaker, while fully accepting that certain kinds of evidence will simply not be available, takes a more positive view, making the point that in the Zebra River Valley one has the priceless opportunity to view a substantial landscape where virtually no topographic change has taken place since Palaeolithic times, and to study within it the undisturbed traces of occupation, with the stone artefacts lying where they were abandoned, in large quantities at those places which were particularly significant to the early humans for various activities, and thinly scattered over the intervening areas, where the hunting grounds and the routes of movement were. Raw material for tool manufacture, in the form of clasts of quartzitic sandstone, was readily available, and so its distribution tends not to shape the overall settlement pattern, as was the matter of obtaining supplies of water, in a landscape whose principal components are the main Zebra River gorge proper, the gentler slopes where it meets the plateau, and the plateau itself, with its various mesa-like features. In short, one is granted an overview of the life of the Palaeolithic population of a region, in a way which is simply not available to someone carrying out minutely accurate excavation of trenches of restricted size on a single site, however intact and well preserved it may be. Hardaker makes the further point that there are many other vast arid areas in the world where abundant artefacts are to be found, in comparable situations: accordingly, a very large amount of the surviving evidence for the earliest occupation of the Old World will consist of surface material, whether we like it or not. He for one is not prepared to see such evidence simply left unstudied, and he hopes that the results he has obtained in Namibia, and the working methods he has devised, will be directly useful to those who are prepared to take on the challenge of arid regions elsewhere in the world. Clearly, in the Zebra River project, much depended on demonstrating that the sites are indeed genuinely undisturbed, and also on a really comprehensive ground survey to locate the scatters in the first place, within a selected research area of about 110 x 80 km. The text explains how these problems were tackled. In his study of the artefacts, Hardaker has introduced various innovations, most notably his Edge Test, which seeks to identify sets of implements whose ages are different, where sites have been occupied for long periods or on more than one occasion, by measuring the amount of natural wear on their edges, since they have indeed lain undisturbed, all subject to the same ambient conditions. He makes no claim that this is anything more than an exercise in relative dating, and is well aware that no chronometric dating method is really available to him. For this reason he gives full attention to the typology and technology of his artefacts, as the best hope of establishing links with other southern African sites. It is not the business of a Foreword writer to spell out everything the volume contains, but just to give the flavour of it. The reader will find full explanations of all the methods employed, and full details of the key sites studied. At the end, Hardaker has gleaned enough solid archaeological information to write an attractive speculative summary of how he believes the Palaeolithic populations lived in this region and moved through it, and he takes a brief look at how the !Kung (Bushmen) communities of much more recent times, whose territory included the Zebra River Area, coped with comparable social and economic problems in similar physical conditions. This volume is a remarkable achievement, the more so because it is the work of someone who is happy to class himself as an amateur archaeologist - which is indeed the case, if that means having no formal qualification in archaeology and no Departmental post, though the standard of research is thoroughly professional. The lack of Departmental backing makes the task of fund-raising harder than ever, and means that technical support is not easily obtained, but for someone with Hardaker’s vision, energy and organising skills, perhaps there are compensations, particularly the freedom to choose the project on which ii

you wish to work, and to pursue the task using the methods in which you believe, following the paths you wish to follow. This publication is a very fair reward for all his hard work, and it contains a mass of useful new information and some good guidance for others to use. In an age where too many ‘professional’ archaeologists seem better at citing the work of others than actually reading it, I very much hope that students of the Palaeolithic will indeed read this book. The final comment is simply to note that this is in fact just an interim report: only a very small part of the whole Zebra River Valley has yet been fully explored, and Hardaker identifies many points requiring further work at the sites he describes here. Clearly, many opportunities remain: good luck to him and his small, valiant team. Fordwells,Oxfordshire

January 2011

iii

CONTENTS PRELIMINARIES 1. Preamble ............................................................................................................................................1 2. General Introduction and Summary......................................................................................................1 3. Presentation of data in this book...........................................................................................................4 4. History of the NAMPAL study.............................................................................................................5 5. Nomenclature of sites...........................................................................................................................5 6. Artefact illustration...............................................................................................................................5 SECTION 1: THE LANDSCAPE 1.1 Geographic setting of the Zebra River Region...................................................................................6 1.2 Landscape evolution of the Great Escarpment...................................................................................7 1.3 Geology...............................................................................................................................................10 1.4 Climate history....................................................................................................................................12 SECTION 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................15 2.2 The Archaeological context of the Zebra River region ......................................................................16 2.3 Previous ESA/MSA work in Namibia................................................................................................17 2.4 Previous work in the Study Area........................................................................................................18 2.5 Hominin remains in South Africa and implications for Namibia.......................................................18 2.6 Lithic terminology..............................................................................................................................18 2.7 The ‘in situ’ question...........................................................................................................................20 2.8 Box: Home Base or living space?.......................................................................................................20 2.9 Summary of the lithic finds.................................................................................................................21 2.10 The Greater Study Area: some general trends .................................................................................22 SECTION 3: THE ANALYTICAL METHODS 3.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................24 3.1.1. Satellite Imagery.......................................................................................................................24 3.1.2. Fieldwalking and GPS Mapping...............................................................................................25 3.1.3. Recording data...........................................................................................................................26 3.1.4. The Edge Test............................................................................................................................28 3.1.5. The necessary preconditions for Edge Testing..........................................................................30 3.1.6. Evaluating Edge Test results: Spotting anomalies....................................................................33 3.1.7. Raw material analysis................................................................................................................33 3.1.8. Surface analysis of artefacts for climatic and dating evidence.................................................33 3.1.9. The role of Slope.......................................................................................................................34 3.1.10. Other methods that were considered ......................................................................................34 3.1.10.1. Cosmogenic dating.........................................................................................................34 3.1.10.2. The Flip Test...................................................................................................................34 SECTION 4: THE FIELDWORK STUDIES 4.1. General field procedures: Major and Other sites...............................................................................35 4.2. Major Plateau Sites............................................................................................................................35 4.2.1 Nudaus 4 ...................................................................................................................................35 4.2.1.1. Fieldwork at ND4 ............................................................................................................40 4.2.1.2. Artefact summary for ND4...............................................................................................41 4.2.2. Nudaus 8 ...................................................................................................................................41 4.2.2.1. Fieldwork at ND8 ............................................................................................................41 4.2.2.2. Artefact summary for ND8...............................................................................................48 4.2.3 Ou Kamkas 1..............................................................................................................................48 4.2.3.1 Fieldwork at OK1..............................................................................................................49

iv

4.2.4 Harughas 1, 3 and 4 ..................................................................................................................49 4.2.3.1 Fieldwork at HG sites..................................................................................................51 4.2.4.2 Artefact summary for HG3 and HG4...........................................................................51 4.3 Other Plateau Sites (a) near the Gorge................................................................................................51 4.3.1 Nudaus 0...............................................................................................................................51 4.3.2 Nudaus 1...............................................................................................................................54 4.3.3 Nudaus 2...............................................................................................................................54 4.3.4 Nudaus 3...............................................................................................................................54 4.3.5 Nudaus 5...............................................................................................................................55 4.3.6 Nudaus 6...............................................................................................................................55 4.3.7 Nudaus 7...............................................................................................................................56 4.3.8 Nudaus 9...............................................................................................................................57 4.4 (b) East of the Gorge...........................................................................................................................57 4.4.1 Ou Kamkas 2........................................................................................................................57 4.4.2 Lahnstein 1............................................................................................................................57 4.4.3 Lahnstein 2............................................................................................................................57 4.4.4 Kamkas 1..............................................................................................................................57 4.4.5 Kamkas 2..............................................................................................................................57 4.4.6 Kamkas 3..............................................................................................................................57 4.4.7 Karab 1..................................................................................................................................57 4.5 (c) Plateau Sites in the Fish River geological subgroup.....................................................................57 4.5.1 Karab 2..................................................................................................................................57 4.5.2 Marion Reitz 1......................................................................................................................57 4.5.3 Glukhauf 1............................................................................................................................57 4.5.4 Glukhauf 2............................................................................................................................58 4.5.5 Glukhauf 3............................................................................................................................58 4.5.6 Kabib 2..................................................................................................................................58 4.5.7 Kabib 3..................................................................................................................................58 4.5.8 Nomtsas 1.............................................................................................................................58 4.5.9 Nomtsas 2.............................................................................................................................59 4.5.10 Nomtsas 3...........................................................................................................................59 4.5.11 Nomtsas 4 .........................................................................................................................59 4.6 (d) North of the Gorge........................................................................................................................59 4.6.1 Gamis sites............................................................................................................................59 4.6.2 Gamis 1.................................................................................................................................59 4.6.3 Gamis 2.................................................................................................................................59 4.6.4 Gamis 3.................................................................................................................................59 4.6.5 Ouinos 1................................................................................................................................59 4.6.6 Ouinios 2...............................................................................................................................59 4.6.7 Harughas 2............................................................................................................................59 4.6.8 Kambes 1..............................................................................................................................59 4.6.9 Kambes 2............................................................................................................................59 4.6.10 Kambes 3............................................................................................................................60 4.6.11 Spitskop ‘Lake’...................................................................................................................60 4.7 (e) Southwest of the Gorge.................................................................................................................60 4.7.1 Mooi Rivier 1 and 2..............................................................................................................60 4.8 Major Gorge Sites...............................................................................................................................62 4.8.1 Zebra River 1 (ZR1)...................................................................................................................62 4.8.1.1 Fieldwork at ZR1...............................................................................................................62 4.8.1.2 Artefact summary for ZR1.................................................................................................64 4.8.2 Zebra River 2 (ZR2)...................................................................................................................64 4.8.2.1 Fieldwork at ZR2...............................................................................................................64 4.8.2.2 Artefact summary for ZR2.................................................................................................65 4.8.3 Zebra River 3 (Gail’s Cave) (ZR3)...........................................................................................68 4.8.4 Zebra River 4 (ZR4)...................................................................................................................68 4.8.4.1 Fieldwork at ZR4...............................................................................................................69 4.8.4.2 Artefact summary for ZR4.................................................................................................69 4.8.5 Kyffhauser 3 and Zebra River 5 (KH3/ZR5).............................................................................75

v

4.8.5.1 Fieldwork at KH3/ZR5......................................................................................................75 4.8.5.2 Artefact summary for KH3/ZR5........................................................................................76 4.8.6 Zebra River 10 (ZR 10)..............................................................................................................78 4.9 Other Gorge Sites: The Upper and Lower Zebra River area..............................................................78 4.9.1 ZR7, 8 & 9..................................................................................................................................78 4.9.2 ZR 11..........................................................................................................................................78 4.9.3 Zebra River Springs...................................................................................................................78 4.9.4 Zebra River 13............................................................................................................................80 4.9.5 Zebra River 14............................................................................................................................80 4.9.6 Zebra River 15............................................................................................................................80 4.10 Major Sites intermediate between the Plateau and the Gorge..........................................................80 4.10.1.1 Zebra River 6 (ZR6)........................................................................................................80 4.10.1.2 Fieldwork at ZR6.............................................................................................................80 4.10.2 Kyffhauser 4 (KH4).................................................................................................................81 4.10.2.1 Fieldwork at KH4..................................................................................................................81 4.10.2.2 Artefact summary for KH4..............................................................................................81 4.10.3 Kyffhauser 6 (KH6)..................................................................................................................84 4.10.3.1 Fieldwork at KH6..................................................................................................................84 4.10.3.2 Artefact summary for KH6..............................................................................................84 4.10.4 Kyffhauser 7 (KH7)..................................................................................................................88 4.10.5 Neuras sites (NR1-5)...............................................................................................................88 4.10.5.1 Fieldwork at NR sites......................................................................................................89 4.10.5.2 NR1..................................................................................................................................89 4.10.5.3 NR2..................................................................................................................................89 4.10.5.4 NR3..................................................................................................................................89 4.10.5.5 NR4..................................................................................................................................89 4.10.5.6 NR5..................................................................................................................................89 4.10.5.7 Artefacts summary for NR sites.......................................................................................89 4.11 Other Sites intermediate between the Plateau and the Gorge...........................................................91 4.11.1 Kyffhauser 5............................................................................................................................91 4.11.2 Kyffhauser 1 and 2 ..................................................................................................................91 4.12 Major and other sites in other locations............................................................................................91 4.12.1 Urikos 1....................................................................................................................................91 4.12.2 Urikos 2...................................................................................................................................92 4.12.2.1 Fieldwork at UR 2...........................................................................................................92 4.12.2.2 Artefact summary for UR 2.............................................................................................93 4.12.3 Zebra River 12..........................................................................................................................94 SECTION 5: INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDS 5.1 Overview: the role of environmental change in shaping Palaeolithic life patterns............................95 5.2 Application of the analytical methods.................................................................................................96 5.2.1 Hardness tests.............................................................................................................................96 5.2.2 Raw material and surface analysis of artefacts..........................................................................98 5.2.3 Edge Tests: display of the data...................................................................................................99 5.2.3.1 Average Rounding graphs..................................................................................................99 5.2.3.2 Relative Frequency graphs................................................................................................101 5.3 Interpreting the fieldwork...................................................................................................................101 5.3.1 The Plateau: The MSA sites of ND4 and ND8..........................................................................101 5.3.1.1 Evaluation of the Edge Test results....................................................................................102 5.3.1.2 Flakes and non-Levallois cores at ND4.............................................................................104 5.3.1.3 Range of rounding within artefacts....................................................................................104 5.3.1.4 The influence of topographic position: comparison of ND4 and ND8 Edge Tests...........104 5.3.1.5 Calculating length of occupation at the ND4 site..............................................................105 5.3.1.6 BOX Curation, caches and containers...............................................................................108 5.3.1.7 BOX Where have all the small flakes gone?.....................................................................110 5.3.1.8 Excavated items at ND4....................................................................................................110 5.3.2 The Plateau: Other sites..............................................................................................................110

vi

5.3.3 The Gorge 1. ZR5/KH3.............................................................................................................110.. 5.3.3.1 Testing the validity of cross-site comparisons at ZR5 and KH3, and some consequent questions...........................................................................................................................113 5.3.3.2 Explaining excessive rounding .........................................................................................114 5.3.3.3 Adding in LCT morphology .............................................................................................114 5.3.3.4 The Levallois at ZR5/KH3................................................................................................115 5.3.3.5 Comparison of ESA and MSA scatters at ZR5/KH3.........................................................115 5.3.3.6 BOX Hammerstones .........................................................................................................122 5.3.3.7 Clast movement: The two grid samples at ZR5.................................................................122 5.3.3.8 LSA at ZR5 and KH3........................................................................................................123 5.3.3.9 KH3/ZR5 Conclusions.......................................................................................................123 5.3.4 The Gorge 2. ZR4.......................................................................................................................124. 5.3.4.1 Spatial distributions...........................................................................................................124 5.3.4.2 Edge Test results................................................................................................................125 5.3.4.3 Stylistic variation of handaxes...........................................................................................125 5.3.4.4 Climatic evidence from the scatters? ................................................................................126 5.3.5 The influence of standing and flowing water: UR2 and ZR2....................................................128 5.3.5.1 UR2...................................................................................................................................128 5.3.5.2 ZR2....................................................................................................................................130 5.4 Sites intermediate between the Plateau and the Gorge.......................................................................131 5.4.1 KH4 ............................................................................................................................................131 5.4.2 KH6 and KH7.............................................................................................................................134 5.5 Acheulian variations............................................................................................................................137 5.6 Factors pertaining to the whole Study Area........................................................................................137 5.6.1 Environmental Influences..........................................................................................................137 5.6.1.1 The archaeologist’s contribution to palaeoclimatology at Zebra River.............................137 5.6.1.2 Association of sites with water sources/courses................................................................138 5.6.1.3 Clast movement in arid environments...............................................................................139 5.6.1.4 The role of slope in clast movement: a runoff experiment................................................141 5.6.2 The artefacts...............................................................................................................................142 5.6.2.1 The palimpsest problem.....................................................................................................142 5.6.2.2 Lithic resources – plenty more where that came from?....................................................142 5.6.2.3 Elongated core handaxes (ECHs) .....................................................................................144 5.6.2.4 Purpose of elongated core handaxes..................................................................................150 5.6.2.5 Variation in ESA large tools...............................................................................................151 5.6.2.6 Why was the handaxe replaced with prepared core technology at ZR? ...........................153 5.6.2.7 The extra large and exotically-shaped artefacts of ZR......................................................155 5.6.2.8 Some implications of new tool types and local variants ...................................................158 5.6.2.9 Hybrids from ND4?...........................................................................................................165 5.6.2.10 The anthropological implications of MSA hybrids and other ‘transitional’ tool types ..167 5.6.2.11 Purpose of Levallois cores and flakes..............................................................................169 5.6.2.12 Victoria West at ZR and its links to the Levallois technique...........................................169 5.6.2.13 Blades and Blade cores – some general problems...........................................................170 5.6.2.14 Flakes as tools..................................................................................................................172 5.6.3 Some aspects of dating...............................................................................................................173 5.6.3.1 Occupation continuity and the ESA/MSA overlap............................................................173 5.6.3.2 Absolute and Relative dating.............................................................................................174 5.6.4 Towards an understanding of ESA/MSA lifestyles....................................................................177 5.6.4.1 Clusters and spaces and their implications for Palaeolithic lifestyles...............................177 5.6.4.2 Getting up close: drawing parallels from !Kung lifestyles .............................................179 5.6.4.3 Reconstructing an ESA scenario........................................................................................180 5.6.5 The LSA at Zebra River.............................................................................................................184 SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................186 6.2 What does Zebra River tell us that is new? A summary.....................................................................188 6.2.1 The surface concept....................................................................................................................188 6.2.2 New techniques..........................................................................................................................188

vii

6.2.3 New relative dates......................................................................................................................188. 6.2.4 Palaeolithic Lifestyles................................................................................................................188 6.2.5 Contribution of ethnographic evidence......................................................................................189 6.2.6 Contribution to other disciplines................................................................................................189 6.3 What next?..........................................................................................................................................189 6.4 It’s only a matter of Time....................................................................................................................189 Appendix 1 List of artefacts by site..........................................................................................................191 Appendix 2 Table of grid samples & notes on them.................................................................................210 Appendix 3 Edge test results.....................................................................................................................211 Appendix 4 Experiment to assess the sample size needed to obtain representative values for variables in an artefact scatter .................................................................................................219 Appendix 5 Data collected for raw material and surface analysis of artefacts By Dr. David Waters, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford).....................................................222 Appendix 6 The Edge test program.........................................................................................................233 References ............................................................................................................................................235 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................240 Index ............................................................................................................................................243

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS The front cover photograph shows a view of the main Zebra River Gorge in the middle distance and the tributary valley looking north towards the sites of ZR6, KH6, and KH4 1.1 Arid regions of the world........................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 NAMPAL 2002 route and study areas.................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Conventions used in drawing quartzitic sandstone artefacts.................................................................. 5 1.4 The late John Wymer drawing artefacts during the 2002 expedition..................................................... 5 1.5 General map of the Study Area .............................................................................................................. 6 1.6 Escarpments and terraces in the Zebra River Gorge............................................................................... 8 1.7 Raised pediplain surfaces above the present Plateau area ..................................................................... 8 1.8 The main geological divisions in the Study Area. ................................................................................. 9 1.9 Extent of the quartzitic sandstone-bearing rocks of the Nama group in Namibia................................ 10 1.10 Schematic section through the Plateau-Gorge at Zebra River............................................................ 10 1.11 Pre 2006 Google Map......................................................................................................................... 11 1.12 Rock outcrops formed in more resistant strata (A) can be distinguished from more gentle slopes formed during uplift (B) ..................................................................................................................... 12 1.13 Section through fluvial terrace in the main Zebra River Gorge.......................................................... 13 1.14 Remnants of a dissected quartzitic sandstone stratum (red) lying on shale bedrock on the Plateau................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.1 Distribution of sites, with site name abbreviations. ............................................................................. 15 2.2 Distribution of sites (excluding long traverses) in the focal area......................................................... 16 2.3 Google Southern Africa........................................................................................................................ 16 2.4 Different terminologies used in Africa for the Palaeolithic.................................................................. 18 2.5 Map of sites in their geological context................................................................................................ 23 3.1 and 3.2 Google Earth image on part of the Plateau (left) before 2006 and (right) after 2006 ............. 24 3.3a Raw Google imagery of sites KH4 and 5............................................................................................ 25 3.3b Enhanced imagery of the same area ................................................................................................... 25 3.4 Schematic diagram of point-to-point GPS tracking on a site............................................................... 25 3.5 Site traverse form.................................................................................................................................. 26 3.6 Laying out grid squares......................................................................................................................... 26 3.7 Micro-site form used to record finds in grid squares............................................................................ 27 3.8 Micro-gridding in 10cm squares recording the positions of all artefacts, KH6.................................... 27 3.9 Edge weathering as a key to relative age.............................................................................................. 28 3.10 Principle of the Edge Test................................................................................................................... 28 3.11 Finding clean flake scars..................................................................................................................... 28 3.12 Taking casts for the Edge Test............................................................................................................ 28 3.13 Edge cast and artefact label ready for photography............................................................................ 29 3.14a Edge test on screen – initial display.................................................................................................. 29 3.14b Measuring the 10mm length............................................................................................................. 29 3.15 The program finds the apex................................................................................................................ 29 3.16 The program finds the appropriate edges............................................................................................ 29 3.17 The program produces the edges ....................................................................................................... 29 3.18 Fluvially rolled handaxe from ZR1 streambed................................................................................... 31 3.19 Edge cast showing clear, straight flaking scar profiles....................................................................... 31 3.20 Edge cast showing retouch scar on the left side. ............................................................................... 32 3.21 Colour contrast on a plano-convex artefact ....................................................................................... 33 4.1 Distribution of sites (excluding long traverses) in the focal area......................................................... 35 4.2 Summary of sites................................................................................................................................... 36 4.3 Location of ND4 and ND8.................................................................................................................... 38 4.4 The mesa-top site of ND4..................................................................................................................... 38 4.5 ND4 map............................................................................................................................................... 39 4.6 Typical surface on the ND4 Plateau top................................................................................................ 39

ix

4.7 Excavation at ND4................................................................................................................................ 40 4.8 Buried artefacts from the ND4 excavation........................................................................................... 40 4.9 Recorded artefacts from ND4............................................................................................................... 41 4.10A Levallois artefacts from ND4........................................................................................................... 42 4.10B Cleaver and blade from ND4........................................................................................................... 43 4.11a b & c Elongated Core handaxes from ND4...................................................................................... 44 4.12 a Artefacts from ND8.......................................................................................................................... 47 4.12b Unstruck Levallois core.................................................................................................................... 48 4.13 Recorded artefacts from ND8............................................................................................................. 48 4.14 Location of OK1................................................................................................................................. 49 4.15 Ou Kamkas farm from the air............................................................................................................. 49 4.16 Selected artefacts from OK1............................................................................................................... 50 4.17 Location of HG1-4.............................................................................................................................. 51 4.18 The Harughas sites.............................................................................................................................. 51 4.19 Artefacts from HG3 and HG4............................................................................................................. 52 4.20 Recorded artefacts from HG3/4.......................................................................................................... 51 4.21 Location of ND0,1,2,& 3.................................................................................................................... 52 4.22 Acheulian artefacts from the Plateau edge site at ND0....................................................................... 53 4.23 Nudaus I from the air.......................................................................................................................... 54 4.24a ND2 Traverse ................................................................................................................................... 55 4.24b ND3 Traverse ................................................................................................................................... 55 4.26a ND6 Traverse.................................................................................................................................... 55 4.26b ND7-9 Traverses............................................................................................................................... 56 4.27 Artefacts from Kabib 1........................................................................................................................ 58 4.28 Kambes 3............................................................................................................................................ 60 4.29 LSA blind on the edge of the escarpment at Mooi Rivier................................................................... 60 4.30 Location of ZR1.................................................................................................................................. 60 4.31 View of ZR1 site................................................................................................................................. 61 4.32 ZR1 transect results............................................................................................................................. 62 4.33 Artefacts from ZR1............................................................................................................................. 64 4.34 Transects at ZR1................................................................................................................................. 61 4.35 Summary of Artefacts from ZR1 transects......................................................................................... 64 4.36 Location of ZR2.................................................................................................................................. 64 4.37 View of ZR2 site................................................................................................................................. 64 4.38 Surface scatter at ZR2......................................................................................................................... 65 4.39 Table of ZR2 artefacts in grid surveys................................................................................................ 65 4.40a Blades from ZR2............................................................................................................................... 65 4.40b Other artefacts from ZR2.................................................................................................................. 66 4.41 Numbered artefacts from ZR2............................................................................................................ 66 4.42 Location of ZR3 (Gail’s cave)............................................................................................................ 66 4.43 Gail’s cave........................................................................................................................................... 66 4.44 Artefacts from Gail’s cave ................................................................................................................. 67 4.45 Location of ZR4.................................................................................................................................. 68 4.46 GPS locations of diagnostic artefacts at ZR4..................................................................................... 68 4.47 GPS tracks at ZR4............................................................................................................................... 69 4.48 Artefact summary of recorded artefacts for ZR4................................................................................ 69 4.49a Examples of pointed and ovate handaxes from ZR4........................................................................ 70 4.49b Handaxes and cleavers from ZR4..................................................................................................... 71 4.49c Two finely made handaxes from ZR4............................................................................................... 72 4.50 Item 100, the ‘Mandolin’.................................................................................................................... 73 4.51 Location of KH3 and ZR5.................................................................................................................. 75 4.52 General view of KH3/ZR5.................................................................................................................. 75 4.53 Sample GPS tracks at KH3................................................................................................................. 75 4.54 Grid squares at ZR5............................................................................................................................ 76 4.55 Table of recorded artefacts from KH3 and ZR 5................................................................................ 76 4.56 LSA knapping site at KH3.................................................................................................................. 77 4.57 General view of ZR10......................................................................................................................... 77 4.58 Blade samples from ZR10.................................................................................................................. 78 4.59 ZR10 5x5 metre grid results............................................................................................................... 78

x

4.60 Location of ZR7-11............................................................................................................................. 78 4.61 View of the Upper Zebra River valley showing ZR7 in the foreground with ZR8 beyond................ 79 4.62 Sketch of the ZR Springs area............................................................................................................ 79 4.63 Tufa photo at ZR springs.................................................................................................................... 80 4.64 Location of ZR6.................................................................................................................................. 80 4.65 ZR6 Site 1........................................................................................................................................... 81 4.66 Location of KH4................................................................................................................................. 81 4.67 KH4-5 map.......................................................................................................................................... 81 4.68A Selected artefacts from KH4............................................................................................................ 82 4.68B Artefacts from KH4.......................................................................................................................... 83 4.69 Recorded artefacts from KH4............................................................................................................. 84 4.70 Location of KH6 and KH7.................................................................................................................. 84 4.71a Three ‘difficult’ artefacts from KH6................................................................................................. 85 4.71b Three of the refined handaxes from KH6......................................................................................... 86 4.71c Drawing of the ficron-cleaver from KH6.......................................................................................... 87 4.72 Recorded artefacts from KH6............................................................................................................. 88 4.73 Location of Neuras sites...................................................................................................................... 88 4.74 Map of East Neuras sites..................................................................................................................... 88 4.75a Section below the archaeological surface in the gully at the junction of NR 1 and 2...................... 89 4.75b Section at NR4 ............................................................................................................................... 89 4.76 Large demi-ficron handaxe from north of NR3.................................................................................. 90 4.77 Recorded/numbered artefacts from Neuras sites ............................................................................... 90 4.78 Location of KH5................................................................................................................................. 91 4.79 Location of KH1................................................................................................................................. 91 4.80 Location of UR 1 and 2....................................................................................................................... 91 4.81 River terraces alongside the bank of the Tsauchab River................................................................... 92 4.82 Sketch of the environs of the UR2 pond............................................................................................. 92 4.83 Sketch map of the UR2 pond area...................................................................................................... 93 4.84 Sampling in progress at UR2 4.85 Surface artefacts in Grid 1 at UR2...................................................................................................... 93 4.86 LSA scatter near the UR2 pond area................................................................................................... 93 4.87 UR2 Artefacts from three grids........................................................................................................... 93 4.88 Small struck Levallois core from UR2............................................................................................... 94 4.89 Looking NE from above ZR12 5.1 Graph of artefact hardness on 15 samples on the Leeb scale............................................................................................................................................ 94 5.1 Graph of artefact hardness.................................................................................................................... 96 5.2 Artefacts used in the hardness tests....................................................................................................... 97 5.3 Average Rounding: sample graphs...................................................................................................... 100 5.4 Typical Average Rounding graph showing four diagnostic types from one site................................. 100 5.5 Average Rounding graph variant ....................................................................................................... 100 5.6 Sample Relative frequency graph....................................................................................................... 101 5.7 Map of ND4 & 8................................................................................................................................. 102 5.8 Relative Frequency and Average Rounding graphs for ND4 and ND8.............................................. 103 5.9 Grid square counts at ND4.................................................................................................................. 106 5.10 Rate of tool manufacture at ND4 in the Levallois period................................................................. 108 5.11 Composite Average Rounding graphs for four key sites................................................................... 109 5.12 Artefact 200 from ............................................................................................................................. 109 5.13 ND4 Average Rounding graph for artefacts showing the excavated items.......................................111 5.14 Overview of ESA and MSA diagnostic artefacts from ZR5/KH3 ....................................................111 5.15 Average Rounding graph for ZR5 artefacts...................................................................................... 112 5.16 Average Rounding results for KH3 artefacts.................................................................................... 112 5.17a Average Rounding graph for ZR5/KH3 non-Levallois flakes and cores........................................ 113 5.17b Relative Frequency graph for ZR5/KH3 non-Levallois flakes and cores....................................... 113 5.18 Table of loss of section mass of Acheulian artefacts from ZR5 ....................................................... 114 5.19 Acheulian handaxe 162 from ZR5 ................................................................................................... 115 5.20 ZR5: 40 artefacts edge tested arranged in order of sharpness.......................................................... 116 5.21 a,b,& c ZR5 Acheulian artefacts 162, 192 and 381.......................................................................... 118 5.22 Levallois items from KH3................................................................................................................ 119

xi

5.23 Levallois artefacts from KH3/ZR5, see text for explanation............................................................ 120 5.24 ZR5: map of distribution of typologies............................................................................................. 121 5.25 KH3: map of distribution of typologies............................................................................................ 122 5.26 KH3: map of distribution of typologies. Inset shows KH3 in relation to ZR5................................. 123 5.27 LSA scatter at KH3........................................................................................................................... 123 5.28 KH3 refit in LSA scatter................................................................................................................... 123 5.29 a-d ZR4 scatter maps ....................................................................................................................... 124 5.30 ZR4 distribution of handaxes............................................................................................................ 125 5.31a ZR4 Average Rounding graph......................................................................................................... 126 5.31b ZR4 Relative Frequency graph....................................................................................................... 126 5.32 ZR4 Acheulian artefacts listed in rank order of sharpness............................................................... 127 5.33 ZR4 oblique view on Google Earth database................................................................................... 127 5.34 The main Zebra River bank immediately opposite the densest part of the ZR4 scatter................... 128 5.35 UR2 artefacts in the three grids classified by size............................................................................ 128 5.36 UR2 Relative Frequency graph......................................................................................................... 129 5.37 UR2 Average Rounding graph ......................................................................................................... 129 5.38UR2 Average Rounding data ............................................................................................................ 130 5.39a ZR2 Average Rounding graph......................................................................................................... 130 5.39b ZR2 Relative Frequency graph....................................................................................................... 131 5.40 KH4 Artefact scatter map.................................................................................................................. 131 5.41 KH4 spatial differences in patination............................................................................................... 132 5.42a & b KH4 Average Rounding graphs............................................................................................... 132 5.43 KH4 Handaxes.................................................................................................................................. 133 5.44a View from the south of the tributary valley containing the site of KH6......................................... 134 5.44b KH6 site ......................................................................................................................................... 134 5.45 KH7 Levallois flake ......................................................................................................................... 134 5.46 KH6 prepared cores with large sidestruck flakes similar to Victoria West technology.................... 135 5.47 KH6/7 showing waypoints representing diagnostic artefact positions............................................. 136 5.48 KH6 natural gully on the south side of the site................................................................................. 137 5.49 Wind polish on a quartzite artefact from near Homeb, Namib Sand Sea......................................... 138 5.50a Frost heave on a gravel path with soil below.................................................................................. 139 5.50b In situ bedrock split into three parts ............................................................................................... 139 5.51a Animal tracks ................................................................................................................................. 140 5.51b Bare patches of ground in stony areas............................................................................................ 140 5.52 Ground disturbed by warthog digging in the soil ............................................................................ 140 5.53 Surface runoff after heavy rain in an Oxfordshire ploughed field.................................................... 141 5.54 Schematic diagram to illustrate the relationship of stream velocity, slope and clast size on the speed at which clasts will move in flowing water............................................................................ 142 5.55 Profiles of two typical elongated core handaxes............................................................................... 143 5.56 A range of elongated core handaxes and borderline items................................................................ 144 5.57 Distribution of elongated core handaxes in the Study Area.............................................................. 144 5.58 An elongated core handaxe from the Waterberg............................................................................... 145 5.59a Comparison of flake removal sizes on ECH’s and classic Acheulian ............................................ 146 5.59b Lengths of flake removals from Acheulian and Elongated Core Handaxes................................... 146 5.60 Length ÷ width ratios on Elongated Core handaxes and Levallois cores......................................... 147 5.61 Typical profiles of unstruck Levallois core (above) and Elongated Core Handaxe (below)............ 147 5.62 Application of Boëda’s Volumetric Conception to ZR EHC’s.......................................................... 147 5.63 Morphological test against Acheulian characteristics on ZR4 ECH’s.............................................. 148 5.64 A selection of Lupemban tools ......................................................................................................... 148 5.65 Average Rounding graphs for ECH’s at KH4, ZR4 and ND4 compared to other diagnostic types.................................................................................................................................................. 149 5.66 ZR4 Average Rounding graph showing overlaps between ECH’s and other types.......................... 150 5.67 Typical edges of ECH’s..................................................................................................................... 151 5.68 ZR5 ESA large cutting tools assessed according to rounding and quality ...................................... 152 5.69 Distribution of very large artefacts in the Study Area ..................................................................... 153 5.70 Six examples of very large artefacts from ZR.................................................................................. 154 5.71 Artefacts 100 (the ‘mandolin’ , left) and 1326 (right) scaled so that their height is equal................ 155 5.72 Artefacts 100 and 1326 in profile...................................................................................................... 156 5.73 The position of artefact 100 in the Edge Test sequence.................................................................... 157

xii

5.74 Step fractures on one edge of the waisted part of artefacts 100 and 1326........................................ 157 5.75 One of the large handaxes from Makgadikgadi Pans in Botswana (a) and an exceptionally wellmade ficron from Cuxton in the UK (b) .......................................................................................... 157 5.76 Flat topped Levallois core from Kambes 2 ...................................................................................... 159 5.77a & b Typical examples of Rough Bifaces......................................................................................... 160 5.78a Artefacts 75 (a) & 30 (b) from ND5 and 4...................................................................................... 162 5.78b Artefacts 133,149 & 153 from ND4............................................................................................... 163 5.78c Artefacts 1717, 1723 and 1744 from ND4...................................................................................... 164 5.79 Characteristics of ‘hybrid Acheulian/MSA’ artefacts from ND4/5................................................... 165 5.80 Artefact 1315, retouched Levallois flake, from KH6....................................................................... 166 5.81 Illustrating hafting of a cleaver from KH3....................................................................................... 167 5.82 How it might have been? Some shapes that could have become prevalent in the ESA or MSA..... 168 5.83 The position of blades and blade cores in the Edge Tests at five sites.............................................. 170 5.84 Artefact 1021, a large blade from KH4............................................................................................. 171 5.85 Average Rounding data for Acheulian (red) and MSA (black) in the Gorge sites............................ 176 5.86 Illustrating absolute dating hypothesis from the Average Rounding graphs.................................... 176 5.87 Hypothetical resolution of absolute date from Edge Test data......................................................... 176 5.88 Hypothetical reconstruction of an ESA group based at ZR4............................................................ 181 5.89 LSA scatter (light greenish clasts) at Gamis 3 on a bluff above the Narob River............................ 184 6.1 Three models of population group linkage......................................................................................... 187 6.2 Timeline graph. Schematic diagram of proposed occupation phases at Zebra River......................... 187 Appendix 4 Fig 1 Cumulative sampling graph............................................................................................................. 220 Fig 2 Cumulative sampling graph............................................................................................................. 220 Fig 3 Cumulative sampling graph............................................................................................................. 221 Appendix 5 Fig 1 Representative views of the four specimens.................................................................................... 223 Fig 2a Backscattered electron image of Sample A, artefact 53................................................................ 223 Fig 2b Sample A Silica cement (C)........................................................................................................... 223 Fig 3 Sample B Gail’s Cave backscatter .................................................................................................. 224 Fig 4 Sample C ........................................................................................................................................ 224 Fig 5 Sample D ........................................................................................................................................ 224 Fig 6 Mineral analyses, as weight percent oxide ..................................................................................... 224 Fig 7 Electron and X-ray image maps of a selected area (width 0.35 mm) from Sample B.................... 226 Fig 8 Electron and X-ray image maps of a selected area (width 0.35 mm) from Sample A.................... 227 Fig 9a Sections through Specimens C (Fig 9a) and D (Fig 9b) from ZR1 and ZR2 ............................... 229 Fig 9b Sample D backscattered electron image........................................................................................ 229 Fig 10 Spot analyses of rock varnish from samples C and D................................................................... 230 Fig 11 Location of the line profile in sample ZR-2.................................................................................. 229 Fig 12 Composition profiles across Mn-rich rock varnish from Sample C.............................................. 231 Fig 13 Composition profiles across Mn-rich rock varnish from Sample D.............................................. 232 Appendix 6 The Edge Test Program Fig 1 Edge test manual method of drawing flake scars on screen............................................................ 233

xiii

xiv

PRELIMINARIES ───── Who he was That piled these stones… William Wordsworth: Lines left upon a seat in a yew tree, Lyrical Ballads, 1798.

Preamble

McBrearty (2003) in Ethiopia, Sampson (2006) in South Africa, Mirazon Lahr et al (2010) in Libya, and Chiotti et al (2007) in Egypt. K. Paddayya (see for example Paddayya et al (2006) has also been working on these lines for some years in India.

My interest in surface artefacts of Palaeolithic age was awakened in 1996 while working at the pre-Oldowan site of Lokakalei in West Turkana, Kenya. It happened by way of a chance comment by the expedition leader Dr. Hélène Roche. During a lunch break I had wandered into the wilderness and picked up some very ancient-looking stone artefacts which I excitedly brought back to the camp. I was met with total disinterest. Hélène explained that surface material was neither in situ nor datable, and could contribute nothing to their studies. In the context of the spectacular discoveries we were then excavating, finding for the first time evidence of advanced cognition in hominins 2.34 million years ago, this was no doubt true.

As an amateur archaeologist myself, I hope this study will be intelligible to readers whose knowledge of African Palaeolithic archaeology is peripheral. I therefore apologise to those professionals who may have hoped for a more esoteric approach. Jargon, which might be construed by the novice as erudition or by the expert as an attempt to disguise flimsy scholarship, is as much as possible avoided, but in an innovative study some new terms are inevitable. “Surface enrichment” has been coined to describe the process of progressive concentration of larger clasts on deflated land surfaces. It can be applied to many arid rock surfaces in Africa and elsewhere. ‘Elongated core’ is a term already used in connection with the Victoria West technique (Barham & Mitchell 2008,) but here a new term – elongated core handaxe (abbreviated to ECH) - has been used to describe a peculiar type of biface occurring at Zebra River. The term “ficron-cleaver” has never been used before; it speaks for itself and relates to two truly spectacular bifaces discovered in the course of fieldwalking. The term ‘Rough biface’ has been adopted for a group of artefacts not close enough to the classic Acheulian forms to be sure they belong with them. Finally, we invented the term ‘Drive and Search’ to describe our technique of covering large distances in a vehicle while simultaneously spotting potential artefact scatters – something probably only achievable with a lot of practice in a semi-desert landscape such as Namibia’s.

However, I kept the idea in mind that surface artefacts ought somehow, in the right circumstances, to be capable of contributing something to our understanding of the Palaeolithic. It was not until I worked with the University of Liverpool’s team at Makapansgat in northern Transvaal in 2000 that I saw how this idea could be applied. Here, they were searching the landscape outside the Cave of Hearths and systematically plotting the occurrence of all artefacts, with a view to understanding the strategies employed by the cave dwellers in the surrounding territory. This was by no means an ideal place to carry out such a study, because it was covered with vegetation and on sloping terrain, so artefacts could be covered over or could have moved. Nevertheless it provided an inspiration, and when I visited Namibia in 2001, I discovered a much more suitable place to work on surface material, at Zebra River. What happened afterwards is the subject of this book. The Namibia Palaeolithic Field Research Project (NAMPAL) began in 2002, initially to locate areas of surface material suitable for more detailed study in a wide area of central Namibia. The Zebra River region proved to offer the greatest potential and subsequent work has been focussed here. It is a pioneering project, which in the fullness of time may seem rather tentative, but new approaches often begin this way. The techniques developed here should have application in other arid regions of the world, and so may hopefully be of some assistance in developing surface studies over a much wider area.

General Introduction and Summary Arid regions cover about a quarter of the earth’s surface (Fig 1.1), and significant parts of them, in the Sahara, the Arabian peninsula, Southern Africa (here defined as Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa) and Australia, contain ancient, flat palaeosurfaces similar to those in Namibia. Most of these regions have been occupied by Palaeolithic man, but the existence of large numbers of stone artefacts, many of them of Early and Middle Stone Age, has gone largely unnoticed by archaeologists. Standing on one of the great mesa-like hamadas of the Sahara, with rocky desert stretching to the horizon on all sides, and then looking directly downward where perhaps

In the meantime, others have already been carrying out surface fieldwork on Palaeolithic sites in Africa, notably

1

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1.1 Arid regions of the world 30 or more artefacts are visible, the incalculable size of this treasure becomes apparent. The number of Palaeolithic artefacts lying unstudied on all such surfaces simply goes off the scale of human imagination, but merely from the author’s limited experience in the Sahara and Southern Africa it must be counted in hundreds of thousands of millions. The NAMPAL project begins with the premise that this vast resource must not be ignored in the study of the Palaeolithic.

environments – which are here termed the Plateau and the Gorge. The differing human responses to these two topographies from ESA to LSA time are elucidated from study of the surface artefact scatters, supported by two cave excavations and some open-air test pits. Artefacts found in a surface context are alleged to suffer from three major disadvantages: doubtful primary context, lack of supporting context (such as flora and fauna) and undatability. These shortcomings are not of course confined to surface material but also affect many excavated sites. The present study attempts to break down these barriers by introducing new quantitative methods to yield some of the rich harvest of information from the surface.

Set in an environment in Western Namibia ideal for archaeology in terms of geology, arid climatic history, thin vegetation cover, and never having been ploughed, the Zebra River Study Area (here referred to the ‘Study Area’, ‘Zebra River’ or ‘ZR’) offers an outstanding opportunity for Palaeolithic surface studies. Within this Study Area geological formations have been stable, landscape evolution slow (e.g. Matmon et al, 2002), and climate predominantly dry throughout prehistoric time. This has allowed the Palaeolithic artefacts that accumulated on flat palaeosurfaces to remain virtually undisturbed. These flat surfaces, which in geomorphological terms form a suite of terraces, spell out the chronological story of the many periods of stasis in the slow uplift of the African shield. Surface archaeology, climate history and geomorphological history accordingly become closely interwoven in this study.

One advantage of surface studies stands above all others – if artefacts can be shown to lie still in the positions where their users abandoned them, the size of the Palaeolithic canvas is immediately transformed from the square metre holes of excavated sites, to tens or hundreds of square kilometres in artefact-rich regions. In turn this offers an opportunity to unravel the Palaeolithic response to environment – raw material, surface features, water and food, on a scale denied to the keyhole archaeologist. There are, of course, pitfalls and limitations, but this study demonstrates how artefacts can be shown to lie in situ in many circumstances, and also to some extent to be dated relative to one another. By comparing their typologies with similar ones from datable excavated sites, a semblance of absolute dating can be obtained. The maps of their clustered or spread-out patterns, when plotted against a topographic backdrop, offer evidence of ancient lifestyles in surprisingly sharp focus over extended terrains.

The terrain investigated so far is only a small fraction of the total Study Area, a zone of about 110 x 80km defined mainly by the geological extent of the quartzitic sandstone chosen by the early inhabitants for stone tool manufacture (Fig. 1.5). The terrain sits astride the edge of the Great Escarpment, offering two contrasting geomorphological 2

Preliminaries Furthermore, when sampling depends on the expanse of terrain which can be walked over, rather than dug, the full range of perspectives from the micro- to the macro-scale is revealed. On the micro-scale, scatters of individual artefacts over a few square metres can describe a single event lasting only minutes or a few hours; in the medium scale local variations in artefact concentration and style, over distances of hundreds of metres to tens of kilometres, offer us glimpses of an intricate lattice of temporally and spatially separated communities; on the macro-scale we see wider patterns of human presence and absence and their relation to the broader topography and the dynamics of climate change.

inundation, such as in a pond, become rounded at a faster rate. Artefacts have been tested for hardness and surface chemical composition; all Zebra River artefacts fall within a small hardness range, thus ruling out variations in hardness as an explanation of significant weathering differences. Edge Test data are displayed using two types of graph, one showing the relative frequency of rounding of artefacts in nine categories and the other, more often employed, showing average rounding of artefacts in sequence from sharpest to most rounded.

The quartzitic sandstones are interbedded with shales on the Plateau and lie upon limestones in the Gorge area. Stone tools are fashioned solely on loose surface clasts; there are no known Palaeolithic quarry sites. The lithic scatters form dense concentrations (‘sites’) in between which artefacts are either few or absent. The correlation between sites and surface lithic raw material is almost 100% positive. All sites lie on flat or only gently sloping ground.

The artefacts at Zebra River include Acheulian handaxes, cleavers and ovates, the new type of ‘ficron-cleaver’, the newly identified ‘elongated core handaxe’, or ECH, and classic Levallois flakes and cores. Blades and blade cores sometimes form a separate industry; Levallois points are rare. The dominant artefacts, outnumbering all diagnostics by up to 30 to one, are simple flakes, most of which appear to have been used as tools, whether retouched or not. 29 different classes of tool have been recognised. There appears to be no Oldowan presence, and after the earlymid MSA there is no trace of human presence until the occupation of the caves, which have revealed material perhaps dating from c. 48,000 years BP (but possibly more recent). None of the specialised MSA or early LSA forms seen at Apollo 11 cave in Southern Namibia or in Southern Africa is represented here.

Of 77 locations/traverses visited, 30 contained dense artefact scatters indicative of concentrated human activity, 37 contained thin scatters or stray artefacts, and ten had no artefacts at all. 16 sites have merited in-depth study. A technique has been developed to enhance satellite imagery to locate artefact scatters prior to fieldwork; subsequent fieldwalking demonstrates that these techniques are about 90% accurate, thus saving much search time. GPS technology has enabled the rapid plotting of spatial data of individual artefact locations within the main archaeological sites, resulting in scatter maps that reveal localised events.

While the Acheulian is located mainly in the Gorge area below the edge of the Great Escarpment, the MSA is more widely distributed on the Plateau and in the Gorge. Open air LSA scatters are frequent but devoid of diagnostic tools. Analysis of site scatters together with Edge Test results show many sites being revisited on numerous occasions over many thousands of years, yet an attempt to calculate the length of occupation of a complete mesatop site from an extrapolated artefact count gives a range of possible results all falling far short of the potential timespan available for ESA/MSA occupation in other parts of Southern Africa. Various options are examined which might explain why these calculations might have underestimated the true length of time, including seasonal movement between several living spaces, but finally the evidence still points to a relatively limited duration of occupation in the ESA/MSA period. Probably only a couple of sites (or at most three) within the Study Area would have been occupied at any one time because the arid climate prevented greater population densities. But the Edge Test results also suggest that ESA/MSA peoples once having arrived, stayed for a more or less continuous stretch of time, perhaps interspersed with relatively brief absences. The data is suggestive rather than conclusive, but accepting it for what it is, then occupation here began relatively late and ended relatively early in the ESA/MSA periods. The onset of MIS Stage 6 around 190,000 BP, or possibly one of the colder periods in MIS Stage 5 and/or

It is demonstrated with the help of field experiments that on flat or nearly flat land, most clasts of (diagnostic) artefact size cannot be moved by runoff unless they fall into stream courses. The range of other forces with the potential capacity to move them only produces localised dynamics. Even though the artefacts at surface sites may thus be in situ, in the sense of being essentially undisturbed since deposition, they are difficult to date, having lost any organic or stratigraphic context. To mitigate the dating problem, a digital technique has been developed called the Edge Test. It assumes non-fluvial weathering is a near-constant over long periods in this arid environment, and therefore the greater the weathering the older the artefact. It measures loss of sectional mass from the oncesharp edges of artefacts to assess their age relative to one another. Application of Edge Tests to a large number of samples in the field has shown that although direct intersite comparisons are complex to interpret, comparisons of typologically different artefacts within sites give robust results. It is also shown that clasts subjected to prolonged

3

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia the eruption of Mount Toba about 74,000 BP, may have caused an increased aridity, driving humans away.

or to more than one site. There are also new approaches (such as the Edge Test) which need to be described to the reader before they are invoked in discussion. There is no seamless way of ordering these complementary narratives.

Each site at ZR has its unique signature – an individual palimpsest representing multiple occupations of communities, often with its own special variant, such as Victoria West cores, different styles of handaxes, or long blades, within a traditional industry. At the important Levallois site of ND4 on the Plateau, eight curious ‘hybrid’ artefacts are discussed which seem to represent Levallois people trying to make Acheulian style handaxes. This prompts a discussion on the degree to which different human groups were imbued with a tool-making tradition similar to an instinct, outside of which they had difficulty in thinking.

Therefore, after the Introductory Sections (1 to 3), a complete list of all sites is given in Section 4, but presenting only the raw information gathered in the fieldwork, with minimal comment. The interpretation of these data is then discussed on a site-by-site basis in Section 5. Here, specific topics which relate to more than one site are considered when they first arise, while other more general topics are discussed subsequently under separate headings. Cross-references are liberally provided in the text. Finally Section 6 draws the threads together and offers a wider comment on the way forward for surface studies for earlier Palaeolithic archaeology.

Edge Test results show the ESA and MSA substantially overlapping at Zebra River and there is some evidence for a late Acheulian post-dating the final Levallois occupation. The two spectacular ‘ficron-cleavers’, found 6 km apart but in shape and profile almost identical even down to step fracture removals on the narrow neck, pose an interesting question: do they represent an element of social purpose – rather than practical function - in one of the late Acheulian occupations?

Artefacts deemed worthy of further study, which were usually photographed, measured and given GPS locations, were given sequential numbers and are fully listed in Appendix 1. In the field, some additional items belonging to diagnostic classes were recorded in the field notebook, without numbers. At certain sites non-diagnostic artefacts (such as flakes and undiagnostic cores) were sometimes noted but not always given numbers, unless a specific study was being made of non-diagnostics in a grid. Nondiagnostic artefacts are so numerous that recording all of them would have been impractical. Appendix 1 is thus not a complete list of all the artefacts we encountered.

In the final section, the recorded customs of the !Kung (‘Bushmen’) hunter-gatherers, who occupied Namibia in the recent prehistoric period, are reviewed. Combining this information with the archaeology, a reconstruction of a hypothetical ESA occupation in the Zebra River valley is attempted. Environmental opportunities and impediments are seen to be the overriding factors in moulding Palaeolithic lifestyles. Occupation sites were consistently determined by lithic raw material, but because this was available in abundance on the surface, it did not unduly constrain occupation patterns. More important was the influence of seasonal variations and the need for proximity to food and water resources, which defined the territory of the group and movement within it.

A summary table of artefacts for each major site collected or recorded during fieldwork is given in Section 4, including a table of the ‘numbered’ artefacts, by type, to which other recorded artefacts are sometimes added, as noted in the individual tables. These tables are useful as an overview of the relative proportions of different classes of artefact at any site but they do not necessarily represent a controlled or complete record. A description of the terminology used in is report is given below (page 21). History of the NAMPAL Study

Palaeolithic archaeologists, traditionally focussed on sampling from small-scale excavation, tend to find pieces of the archaeological jigsaw but have difficulty fitting them into their correct places because there is no ‘picture on the box’. At Zebra River, we have a different perspective. The full picture of the jigsaw (the landscape) is displayed, but only one type of piece is present (artefacts), and the message on each piece is sometimes blurred. Such a scenario invites the intuitive placing of the pieces and even some sketching-in of the gaps. A delicate balance is required between imagination and evidence. Only further work in the region will reveal how well we managed our jigsaw.

The initial expedition of 2002 used a ‘drive and search’ method to locate surface scatters in four study areas of Central Namibia plus the routes taken in between them (Hardaker, 2005). This study traversed over 1600km within an area 450x450km. The four Study Areas comprised the Paresis Mountains, an almost pristine upland near Outjo, the Namib dunes near Gobabeb, the Omatako/Eiseb Rivers on the Kalahari margins and the adjacent Waterburg Plateau, the Great Escarpment at Zebra River (Fig 1.2).

Presentation of data in this book

Although surface artefacts were found at all of these sites except the Omatako-Eiseb rivers, large variations in the intensity of scatters were observed, with an almost total absence of artefacts across some tracts of land. Zebra

This study describes a large number of sites, some of greater significance than others. Archaeological issues arising from the fieldwork may relate to a single site only,

4

Preliminaries

1.2 NAMPAL 2002 route and study areas 1.3 Conventions used in drawing quartzitic sandstone artefacts: (A) knapped surfaces (B) natural surfaces River seemed to offer the best potential and in 2005 a small team returned here to begin detailed mapping of its archaeology. A team has returned annually since then and work is ongoing: the present report covers work done up to 2010.

In drawing, cortical surfaces are distinguished from worked ones using a simple convention (Fig 1.3). The dots are drawn in roughly parallel lines to signify cortex and randomly on worked surfaces. The results should be visually self-explanatory. The late John Wymer was present on the 2002 expedition, and he drew four artefacts in the field (Fig 1.4). As a tribute to him, these are reproduced exactly as he drew them, using his own technique of irregular cusp-shaped lines, which gives an effect not dissimilar to dotting.

Nomenclature of sites The name ‘Zebra River’ refers to the farm of that name located in the Zebra River Gorge which is one of the focal areas of this study. The term ‘Zebra River’ (or ZR) is used here in two different contexts: as a general term for the whole Study Area, and also, when used with a numerical appendage, to denote individual sites within the Zebra River Farm itself. Thus ‘Zebra River 1’ or ‘ZR1’ relates to a site on the farmstead. All the archaeological sites in the Study are named according to the farm on which they are located, together with a numerical appendage, and all are given two-letter abbreviated codes, e.g. ZR1, ZR2, for Zebra River or KH1, KH2, for Kyffhauser. (The definition of Zebra River Farm includes the small farm of Lichtenburg which is owned by Zebra River. However, archaeological sites on the part of Kyffhauser Farm recently acquired by Zebra River remain with KH codes because the current 1:50,000 Survey maps do not show this change. Artefact illustration All the artefacts are made of quartzitic sandstone, which is easier to photograph than flint, so it is seldom necessary to include artefact drawings. When drawings are included, for extra clarity, the method adopted is by using dots rather than the continuous lines traditionally used for flint. This gives a more grainy texture, which matches the coarse grain of the raw material, and it follows the rules laid down by Inizan et al. (1999, 117).

1.4 The late John Wymer drawing artefacts during the 2002 expedition

5

SECTION 1: THE LANDSCAPE

1.1 The Geographic setting of the Zebra River region

Tsaris Mountains. They are not really mountains in the sense of peaks rising above a plain, but rather the slightly upturned western edge of an uplifted pediplain from which protrude a few mesa-like remnants of even more ancient and dissected relief surfaces. The Gorge to the southwest is but a small segment of the Escarpment, which runs parallel to the coast along the whole of the western side of Namibia. It marks the headwaters of numerous steepsided rivers that drop over 1000 metres towards the Namib

The Study Area is located in western Namibia (Fig 1.5) astride a section of the Great African Escarpment, immediately south of the Naukluft Mountains. Its size is roughly 110 x 80km. It separates into two sharply contrasting geographic zones, termed here the Plateau, extending to the edge of the Escarpment, and the Gorge, comprising all below this edge. The Plateau is locally known as the

1.5 General map of the Study Area showing drainage and main geographic features against an enhanced Google Earth background 6

Section 1: The Landscape Sand Sea, forming complex finger-like tributaries whose waters are ultimately lost in the sands. The Zebra River is one of these tributaries, joining the Tsauchab River to flow westward from the Great Escarpment.

continents split apart and the South Atlantic Ocean was created (Ward, Seely & Lancaster 1983; Partridge & Maud, 2000; Goudie & Eckardt 2003). Whereas these authors see the greatest period of uplift and erosion of the Escarpment during the Cretaceous and contemporary with the formation of a parallel rift and associated volcanics to its west, Burke (1996, 364-9) and Burke & Gunnell (2008) have put forward a case for greater activity in the last 30 million years, following the Plume-induced Plate Pinning Episode arising in Ethiopia at that time. Either way, the African Surface now forms the African Shield, a raised plateau in Southern Africa lying between 1500 and 2000 metres above sea level in South Africa, Botwsana, and Namibia.

The defining line between the Plateau and the Gorge is extremely crenulated and in places hard to define, giving rise to an intermediate zone that is neither one nor the other, but which plays a significant part in the archaeological story. Today the vegetation of the region is officially classified as Nama Karoo, or dwarf shrub savannah (Mendelsohn et al, 2003). The density of vegetation varies from year to year depending on the rains, which range from 0-250mm. Dwarf shrubs (chaemaphytes) and grasses (hemicryptophytes) dominate the current vegetation, their relative abundances being dictated mainly by rainfall and soil. As a rule, shrubs increase and grasses decrease with increasing aridity. Some of the more abundant shrubs include species of Drosanthemum, Eriocephalus, Galenia, Pentzia, Pteronia, and Ruschia, while the principal perennial grasses are Aristida, Digitaria, Enneapogon, and Stipagrostis spp. Trees and taller woody shrubs are mostly restricted to watercourses, and include Acacia karroo, Diospyros lycioides, Grewia robusta, Rhus lancea, and Tamarix usneoides (McGinley 2008). There is an important contrast between the largely treeless high Plateau surfaces and the larger watercourses that if replicated in Palaeolithic time would have had an important influence on occupation patterns.

The pace of erosion and uplift of the Great Escarpment has been slow (Matmon et al, 2002), with greater uplift and geological disturbance focussed on regions to the east of Namibia (Moore, 1999). Warping and volcanic activity have been less towards the west, leaving the pre-Cambrian sedimentary layers more intact and, in the Study Area, near to horizontal. Partridge & Maud (2000) estimated the escarpment face had retreated about 20km in the last 65 million years. The most recent and most definitive work on landscape stability in Namibia (Biermann & Caffee 2001) employs cosmogenic dating and fission track analysis to measure the residence times of near- surface rocks. Their study has relevance for archaeology in the following ways: 1. It shows the rate of erosion has not been constant since the time, c. 135 million years ago, when the Great Escarpment began to form. Rather, it has slowed significantly towards a ‘steady state’ condition, which has been maintained over the last 36myr, with bedrock erosion presently ranging from about 1 to 4 metres per million years. (As would be expected, the rate for erosion in rivers and streams is greater.) The erosion rates along the Escarpment itself are somewhat greater than on the plateau. 2. Lithic type has little influence on erosion rates. 3. Erosion rates do not seem to vary with (present) rainfall amounts which vary from 20cm at the coast to 450mm on the Plateau. 4. Erosion histories are generally simple, comprising continuous exposure and lacking reburial events. 5. Clasts reveal long surface exposure times, which can approach 3myr in some places.

Enclosure for cattle farming occurred from the early 20th century, and together with the virtual elimination of the natural fauna this altered the vegetation out of all recognition, turning it from true Karoo to open grassland. A drought over the last 20 years has gradually rendered cattle farming unviable but in turn has exposed tracts of bare ground, which has enabled artefact scatters to be spotted with greater ease. Since 2006 greater rainfall has again increased the vegetation cover. 1.2 Landscape evolution of the Great Escarpment For this study, the history of the geomorphology and climate is crucial in establishing whether the spatial context of the archaeology remains undisturbed.

In addition, Cockburn et al (1999) have carried out cosmogenic analysis of inselbergs north of the Kuiseb River which point to summit lowering of 5.07 ± 1.1 m/myr over the past ±105yr.

King (1951) coined the phrase “The African Surface” to describe the pediplanatic duricrust formed in Southern Africa during the Cretaceous. This comprised a land surface eroded to near sea level and sealed by calcretic and silcretic crusts, occasionally penetrated by more ancient mountain remnants of previous land surfaces. Subsequent uplift caused the formation of the Great Escarpment at the junction between the old African Surface and a newly-formed coastal zone (now occupied by the Namib Sand Sea). The escarpment may have originated from about 135 million years ago at the time of the breakup of Gondwanaland, when the African and South American

If surface erosion had been rapid, ESA artefact scatters should not be present immediately beneath the steepest parts of the escarpment, because those parts would not have been there in the ESA. In fact ESA handaxes do occur close to the foot of some of the steep escarpments, (see for example at the site of KH4 (Fig 3.3) or Fig. 5.24 on the south side of ZR5, where they are parts of genuine scatters, not tumbled from the cliff. These observations corroborate 7

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1.6 Escarpments and terraces in the Zebra River Gorge

1.7 Raised pediplain surfaces above the present Plateau area are remnants of extremely ancient base levels

8

Section 1: The Landscape the gemorpholologists’ conclusions that escarpment retreat has not proceeded significantly since they were dropped. Certainly in the last half million or so years, the climate has mostly been too dry to effect rapid erosion.

cycle when uplift was slow or absent, allowing the streams to wear the landscape down to a base level. On the Plateau, ‘base level’ has often been equivalent to the escarpment edge, which has acted as a ‘false base level’, as opposed to true sea level. The lateral extent of these pediments to some extent reflects the length of stasis before the next period of uplift. In the Gorge, the pediments are narrow, reflecting the greater energy of downcutting. On the Plateau, the pediments are of much greater extent but have been gently incised by the dendritic fingers of the Fish River catchment, which flows generally southward from the Naukluft Mountain block to the Orange River some 400km to the south.

Both the Plateau and the Gorge show evidence of multiple alternations of uplift and planation, in the discreet pediment formations, or ‘suites of terraces’ (Figs 1.6 & 1.7) which are an unmistakable feature of these landscapes. At Zebra River these can be seen starting just above the base level of the river in the Gorge at an elevation of 1350 metres, where they form small flat or gently sloping pediments adjacent to the main streams. A sequence of higher terraces, at intermediate levels on the escarpment itself and then on the Plateau up to 1900 metres, embodies the history of uplift and stasis during progressively earlier periods. Each pediment represents that part of an erosional

The significance of flat pediments in the archaeological interpretation is discussed at length below (pages 142 & 186).

1.8 The main geological divisions in the Study Area. Based on Google Earth imagery © Europa Technologies © 2010 Google © Cnes/Spot Image Image © 2010 DigitalGlobe

9

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1.10 Schematic section through the Plateau-Gorge at Zebra River

The slow rates of erosion in this region of Namibia, as demonstrated by Biermann & Kaffee (op. cit.) have led to today’s landscape being little different from the one known to prehistoric inhabitants half a million or more years ago. This is corroborated by the artefact scatters. On flatter surfaces they show clustering which, when considered in conjunction with other evidence, indicates little movement since the time of occupation (page 142). Artefacts often lie at the foot of the escarpment slopes, in places that might still have been buried in the ESA if the slope erosion had been rapid.

Subgroup of the Nama Group, comprising sandstones and shales which occupy the plateau adjacent to, and eastwards of, the Great Escarpment (Fig 1.8). This geological formation yields a rock which we have termed quartzitic sandstone, not strictly metamorphosed but sufficiently diagenous to provide knappable raw material from which virtually all the artefacts in the area have been fashioned. (A detailed analysis of samples of the rock is provided in Appendix 5. In the course of the retreat of the escarpment, large quantities of these rocks have also found their way as clasts into the vast network of canyons which make up the upper reaches of the Zebra River, where they lie on the intermediate flattish pediments described above. The Study Area embraces these escarpment margins as well, thus allowing comparison of early prehistoric lifestyles in two very different physiographic environments, the Plateau and the Gorge. As will be seen, the contrast in physiography is matched by a corresponding contrast in the archaeology of these two divisions. To the east of the Kuibis and Schwarzrand Subgroup is the Fish River subgroup, comprising reddish shales and sandstones. These rocks are not so suitable for artefact manufacture, but a small segment of the Fish River Group was sampled (see Fig. 1.8) in order to test whether artefact scatters are fewer where suitable raw material is absent.

In western Namibia, unlike less arid parts of the world, rivers have played a restricted role in shaping the landscape. Away from the streambeds themselves, the action of flowing water has been confined to runoff during rare, but intense, rainstorms. Yet a high proportion of desert rainfall today comprises gentle showers that are absorbed into the ground and produce no runoff at all (Parsons & Abrahams 2009, 77). More change has been wrought in these areas by the other processes of weathering (see below under Climate History). In archaeological terms this means the possibility of fluvial disturbance of surface material is greatly reduced.

The Kuibis and Schwarzrand rocks of the Nama Group run for about 300km in a north-south belt in west-central Namibia. (Fig. 1.9) Their age ranges from 600 to 543 million years. In the Study Area the sequence is as shown schematically in Fig 1.10), with limestones outcropping in the Zebra River gorge and sandstones/shales on the Plateau. The sandstones and shales outcrop in north-south trending bands as can be seen from satellite imagery taken during the drought period in 2006 (Fig 1.11). Even in the Kuibis and Schwarzrand Subgroup, not all the sandstones are diagenised sufficiently for artefact manufacture, and in the Fish River Subgroup virtually none are.

1.3 Geology (Fig. 1.8)

The thin quartzitic sandstone clast layers resting upon the limestone pediments of the Gorge were laid down over several million years in the distant past. Subsequent uplift-driven incision into these pediments has left them

1.9 Extent of the quartzitic sandstone-bearing rocks of the Nama group in Namibia

The greater Study Area is defined primarily by the extent of the sedimentary capping of Kuibis and Schwarzrand

10

Section 1: The Landscape

1.11 Pre 2006 Google Map Enhanced Google Imagery (2006) showing strong geological colouring of the Plateau (sandstones, light brown) and the Gorge (limestones, bluish white). Red arrows indicate potential artefact scatters on quartzitic sandstone debris in the valleys of the Gorge. Based on Google Earth imagery © 2006 TerraMetrics proud forming rocky outcrops with vertical sides. This should not be confused with the stepped profiles created by periods of uplift and stasis, which form less steep cliffs and broader terrace pediments (Fig 1.12). Limestone was not ordinarily used for artefact manufacture by ESA and MSA people. One possible limestone artefact has been recovered from the stream bed in the Zebra River Gorge, and at Urikos on the Tsauchab River we found traces of limestone quarrying with flakes comparable in sharpness to the artefacts found in the excavation at Gail’s Cave and probably of very recent date (see below page 91) They lay close to what appeared to be limestone quarries.

‘high and dry’ above the reach of fluvial erosion. It is testimony to the prolonged aridity of the region that no force, whether wind, water, or chemical attack, has been able to displace the larger clasts from these detrital patches in recent geological time. That is important, because it lends weight not only to the case for the presence of raw material resources for prehistoric tool makers in the Gorge predating any sign of human activity, but it also shows that since man’s entry on the scene they have not been displaced. Over the same long timespan, these superficial quartzitic deposits have become more concentrated by the progressive removal of smaller particles of soil, dust, grit and smaller stones, mainly through deflation. This process is here termed ‘surface enrichment’, because to the Palaeolithic eye it would manifest itself as a concentration of abundant knappable quartzitic rock over small areas within the Gorge in what was otherwise in a primarily limestone environment.

Caves have occasionally been developed in the limestone and some of them were occupied by human groups. The inaccessibility of much of the sub-escarpment terrain means there are probably more caves or rock shelters undiscovered, but in the region of the Zebra River farm only three caves large enough to admit occupation have been found, of which two have been excavated, one by Wendt (Wendt 1972) and the other by ourselves (Winton forthcoming).

The limestone, which begins to outcrop on the upper slopes of the tributary rivers running into the Gorge, is of jointed tabular form. This has an influence on the nature of the walls of the Gorge, where the more resistant strata stand 11

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1.12 Rock outcrops formed in more resistant strata (A) can be distinguished from more gentle slopes formed during uplift (B) 1.4 Climate history

about 180km from the coast. The onset of the very cold MIS 6 about 180,000 BP seems likely to have caused increased aridity in many parts of Africa, (cf Marean & Assefa, 2003, 103) and this is suggested to have played a significant part in a major extinction/exit of humans from Zebra River at this time. However, as pointed out by Maslin & Christensen (2007), orbital forcing (the 11,500year cyclical change in the earth’s orbit round the sun) may have more effect on the African climate than the great glacial epochs. The uncertainty is reflected by Hughes et al (2007), who looked at human dispersal patterns as they might have been influenced by changes in world vegetation. For southern Africa, their model envisages a greater extent of grassland and warm temperate forest during glacial epochs than during warm periods.

Hand-in-hand with the slow rate of erosion of the Plateau and Gorge goes the belief (inferred through the morphology of the landscape itself and studies done in adjacent regions) that the area has been predominantly arid since the Cretaceous. Many studies in the climatic history of Southern Africa have been published, and a sizeable literature exists on the climates of the Namib Dunes which begin only 55km from Zebra River Gorge. In the broader picture, the climate of Southern Africa in the last million years, along with the rest of the world, has been influenced by precessional cycles – the varying positions of the planets and sun in the solar system. These cycles give rise to the cold and warm periods of the Pleistocene. In general the oscillations of climate have become more pronounced with time, and prior to MIS Stage 6 (beginning c. 180,000 BP) Namibia’s arid climate was not interrupted by more than minor fluctuations (Tyson & Partridge 2000). As summarised by Deacon & Lancaster (1987, 50) “Throughout the Quaternary, climatic fluctuations (in Namibia) appear to have been of low amplitude and superimposed on an arid to hyperarid mean”. Partridge et al (2004, 45-68) have documented the changes in climate in Southern Africa from MIS Stage 7 (c. 300,000 BP) using the Tswaing Crater near Pretoria and marine cores, but for Namibia they express uncertainty whether glacial periods produced increases or decreases in aridity: extension of the Antarctic ice sheet may have given rise to greater winter rainfall along the coastal zone of south-western Africa, although this may have had less influence at Zebra River which is

Globally there is strong evidence for a very warm interglacial c.130-116 kya during MIS Stage 5e (Barham & Mitchell 2008, 239), which may have provided a relatively brief interval for increased population density in south-western Africa. Support for greater moisture in MIS 5 in Southern Africa comes from Drotsky’s Cave and Bone Cave in Botswana (Brook et al 1996, 1998), and also from evidence of high lake shores in the Makgadikgadi Pans (Burrough et al 2009). However, as recent studies have begun to put more meat on the bones for this period (Stone, Thomas & Viles 2010), a more varied picture has emerged. There is evidence that the Tsondab River flowed as far west as Narabeb, only 150km northwest of the Study Area, in the northern Namib Sand Sea c. 128-75ka (op. cit. 36), thus suggesting greater rainfall than today. Pinchevin et al (2005) also

12

Section 1: The Landscape found evidence of greater humidity in MIS Stage 5 from a marine core proxy, but Chase & Meadows (2007) thought MIS5 was increasingly arid on the Namib coast. One of the recurring conclusions from recent studies of past climates in the last 300,000 years is that within general trends there was often significant local variation in rainfall amounts. Most of the available evidence for detailed climatic fluctuation in south-western Africa is confined to the period after c. 73,000 BP. There is a general trend towards cooler weather from c. 115,000 until 20,000 BP. (Tyson & Partridge op. cit.), but studies in different parts of Southern Africa suggest again that climates were not uniform throughout the area. Stokes et al (1998) have described the formation of the ‘Mega-Kalahari’ from Stage 5b. By the time of the MSA/ LSA transition (roughly from 40,000 to 23,000 BP) more detailed studies in the Namib dunes indicate cooling (40,000-20,000), cold and dry (24,000 to 16,000) and wetter (16,000 to 10,000 BP) (Deacon & Lancaster 1987). Zebra River is located within 100km of the places where these studies were made; thus they probably have some relevance to the Study Area.

1.13 Section Section through fluvial terrace in the main Zebra River Gorge. The arrow shows the middle deposit and is 80cm in depth. in the main stream of the Zebra River (see for example on the floor in Fig 1.13), and the mostly angular shapes of the stones away from the stream floor. Limestone becomes rounded quite quickly in a raging torrent. The absence of rounding on the bankside quartzitic and limestone clasts is a sign that in the Pleistocene, fluvial action has not been intense for any length of time outside the confines of its present banks, even though these are only incised about a metre (rarely 2-3 metres) into the floodplain/bedrock. Whereas clasts away from the streams do not move very much, once they get into the main stream, they remain in it and move quickly downstream. Nevertheless the quartzitic clasts now seen on the pediments of the Gorge must in the distant past have been transported from the Plateau, because there is no quartzitic bedrock in the Gorge. The general absence of intense rounding and predominance of angular edges on these quartzitic clasts suggests any fluvial transport has been of short distance. (The distances from the nearest quartzitic bedrock can be measured, of course, and they seldom extend more than 2-3km from the present Plateau edge.) It can hardly be possible for rolled clasts to have been so modified by subsequent subaerial erosion as to eliminate all trace of fluvial smoothing. In combination with short fluvially assisted transport, some clasts may also have moved by tumbling from the Plateau edge as it retreated.

In summary, the recent increase in data on climate change in Africa in the Pleistocene has served mainly to highlight the complexity of the subject and to warn against inferring specific local trends from generalised data. Our focus can however be sharpened from local observations in landscape of the Study Area. One indicator of wetter climate very close to Zebra River comes from the Springs site in the Zebra River valley (pp 77-79, Figs 4.62 and 4.63) and also in the Naukluft Mountains which border the northwest edge of the Study Area. Here, the presence of tufa deposits attests to considerably greater precipitation during the Holocene. The dating of these deposits would be a desideratum in future studies. The morphology and distribution of surface clasts, as well as the morphology of the terrain on which they lie, act as a proxy for the climatic history of the local area. The general aridity has clearly been tempered with shortlived but ferocious stream flows, as seen from sections of river terrace in the main Zebra River valley (Fig 1.13). In this section, which has itself been exposed by a relatively recent flood event, three separate episodes can be discerned. The lowest comprises rounded boulders in a gritty/stony matrix. The middle layer is similar but with a greater proportion of matrix, and the upper layer contains less matrix and has a slightly greyer colour. The largest boulders are about 1 metre in diameter. The section is suggestive of three massive flash floods. MSA artefacts are seen on the surface on top of this section, indicating that these flood events predate all hominin occupation of the area. A regime of very rare but very intense flood events would be not unlike today’s climate at Zebra River, although the intensity of floods as evidenced from Fig. 1.13 has not been matched in historic time.

A further clue to climate history is the widespread occurrence of ‘surface enrichment’ of large clasts upon flat surfaces, both on the Plateau and, as already noted, in the Gorge. This phenomenon has been widely described on desert pavements throughout arid zones (Ouade, 2001). It is the product of long-term deflation, where smaller particles are winnowed out through the agencies of wind or saturation flooding during intense rainfall. The larger the stones, the less they can be moved by these agencies. Therefore over prolonged periods an accumulation of larger clasts gradually builds up on the surface. In some places on the Plateau one can observe quartzitic detritus lying on a

Another pointer to the climatic history is the contrast between the heavily rolled nature of the limestone boulders 13

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia shale bedrock. When this occurs on flat high level ground, where there is no trace of fluvial transport, it suggests that a complete (perhaps thin) stratum of quartzitic sandstone has broken up leaving only a few residual clasts. (Fig 1.14) The length of time it would take to complete such a process is not easy to calculate but in an arid environment, with the slow erosion processes demonstrated by Biermann & Caffee (op. cit.) it must surely be measured in millions of years. This surface enrichment has great significance for the archaeology. Also of relevance to the archaeology is the question whether the present land surfaces have been covered by blown sand or soil formation at any time in the prehistoric period. Proximity to the Namib Sand Sea (only 55km from the Gorge) would make sand cover theoretically possible. This is discussed in more detail below (pages 137) but in summary a combination of climatic history and present surface conditions suggest this has not been so. Here again analysis of the archaeological material itself also contributes to this discussion.

1.14 Remnants of a dissected quartzitic sandstone Plateau.

stratum (red) lying on shale bedrock on the

The history of soil cover is more difficult to establish, although it seems safe to speculate that climate has been insufficiently wet to allow the spread of dense vegetation. No buried fossil plant remains have so far been discovered. Currently soils are not absent, but thin and patchy, and it is believed this would have been the norm during most of prehistoric time. (See also pages 137-8)

14

SECTION 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

2.1 Introduction

on Zebra River farm and its immediate neighbours. Fig 2.1 is a generalised summary of the main characteristics of sites or areas sampled. All sites containing artefacts have undiagnostic material, often in vast quantities, comprising flakes and cores that cannot, from their typology alone, be dated. The surface colour and condition of the artefacts can be helpful: when such material is greenish in colour and fresh in appearance, often in discreet scatters with refits, it is here classified as ‘LSA’. It is obviously of more

Since much of the Study Area lies on large farms with limited vehicular access, it would take a lifetime to explore on foot. The archaeological study has therefore taken two forms, roadside sampling and occasional detailed site study in the greater Study Area (Fig 2.1) and a more exhaustive fieldwalking program in the focal area (Fig 2.2). The latter is located at a junction zone of the Plateau and the Gorge

2.1 Distribution of sites, with site name abbreviations. Farm boundaries and names shown where relevant

15

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

2.2 Distribution of sites (excluding long traverses) in the focal area, with site name abbreviations

recent date than the red or blackish weathered flakes, and its similarity with the material excavated in Gail’s Cave (page 68) suggests a date range extending into the last 2000 years. 2.2 The Archaeological context of the Zebra River region Despite the crucial role of southern African human populations in the evolution of humankind, the Stone Age of Namibia remains under-researched (Phillipson, 2005:104). Until recently the country appeared to offer little of excitement for the Palaeolithic archaeologist. Although stray finds, mostly reported by farmers from the surface, provide a clear indication that the potential is there, this has not yet been systematically harnessed. The continued absence of a Faculty of Archaeology in the University of Namibia is certainly a contributory factor to this situation.

2.3 Google Sn Africa Google Earth satellite map of Southern Africa shows current aridity zone in brown. Based on Google Earth imagery © Europa Technologies © 2010 Google © Cnes/Spot Image Image © 2010 DigitalGlobe

Through much of the Palaeolithic, Namibia, as we have already seen, maintained an arid climate. It was also separated from the more fertile regions to the south and east by the great swathe of the Kalahari (Fig 2.3) which may have created a barrier to human expansion at least during the more arid phases of the Pleistocene. That may be a part of the reason for the apparent paucity of Palaeolithic sites in Namibia.

with Pleistocene human fossil finds and archaeological discoveries in sub-Saharan Africa, have augmented the hypothesis that the transition from archaic Homo sapiens to modern humans occurred in these regions of the world. Ongoing work at sites such as Rose Cottage Cave, Blombos Cave and Klasies River in South Africa show the complex nature of the transition to modern humans during the Middle and Later Pleistocene (Soriano, Villa & Wadley, 2007). The cave site of Apollo 11 in the far south

Yet a rich archaeological tapestry is unfolding close by in South Africa. Recent research in genetics, together

16

Section 2: Archaeological Overview (Wendt 1976, Vogelsang 2008), is the only Namibian site so far to have contributed to this story.

but it had very little of the classic Levallois and none of the Acheulian material so common at Zebra River.

Where we do find evidence of ESA and MSA occupation, as at Zebra River, it has to be asked whether these peoples were attracted by temporary amelioration of climate, or whether they were forced to move into an inclement backwater by population pressure from richer environments. Alternatively we may envisage early humans actually being well able to cope with the challenges of arid lands, and this approach is supported by studies of the most recent ethnic groups such as the !Kung and Nama peoples.

Another excavated Namibian site is Pockenbank, on the edge of the Great Escarpment southeast of Luderitz (Scherz 1970, Vogelsang 1998). This comprised a shelter, to the rear of which were excavated six complete and five partial metre-square sections, yielding scrapers and retouched Levallois points but no large tools . Other excavations such as Aar, Haalenberg and Bremen (Vogelsang 1998) have all be of similar cave sites that have yielded similar small retouched points and blades. Pepperkorrel, a surface site 125 km southeast of Windhoek, is one of the few Namibian sites to contain a lanceolate point and substantial proportion (25%) of core axes linking it to the Lupemban industry (MacCalman & Viereck 1967). The MSA site of Otjinungwa on the Angolan border was excavated by MacCalman (MacCalman 1972). He found a fluvially transported accumulation of over 7000 artefacts, mostly flakes, close to the Kunene River. The majority appeared to be of MSA date although the quality of workmanship was poor. The author does not distinguish Levallois, whether struck or not, preferring the term ‘prepared cores’, and only illustrating one struck Levallois core. There was a high proportion of retouched flakes many of which were described as scrapers, and a number of points. The assemblage also contained one fine ovate handaxe, a crude pointed handaxe and a crude cleaver, indicating an ESA presence.

It is too early to judge as yet whether Namibia will eventually yield a more robust archaeological heritage. The surface finds at Zebra River point in this direction, and the scarcity of fieldwork to date means that the existence of more buried/cave sites cannot be ruled out. People presently active in Namibia with an eye for stone artefacts such as Bruno Nebe in Swakopmund or John Kinahan working in central Namibia (pers comm.) confirm that surface scatters are frequent but patchy, as we found in our initial traverse in 2002. Zebra River may have offered particularly attractive conditions for Palaeolithic occupation when ESA and MSA technologies were current: abundant lithic raw material, access to yearround water in the Gorge, a variety of plant foods, and topographic funnels between Plateau and Gorge through which game would predictably move. Because Palaeolithic communities cannot survive in isolation, it is likely that while Zebra River was occupied, there was a tangential network of other sites, but how far they extended, and in which directions, remain to be discovered.

Two purely MSA site were described by Viereck (1957) and by MacCalman (1963) at Neuhof-Kowas 128 km southeast of Windhoek, where material was found in a streambed and also on a hillside near by. The author noted an increase in the percentage of points between sites he judged to be earlier and later MSA epochs.

2.3 Previous ESA/MSA work in Namibia

MacCalman (1962) and Corvinus (1984) also reported on the surface site at Gungams 180km southeast of Windhoek where handaxes, Levallois cores, choppers and scrapers were collected, suggesting a mixture of ESA and MSA industries. MacCalman thought he could detect Sangoan influence here.

The work of early researchers such as Viereck (1957, 1966), MacCalman (1962, 1963, 1972), MacCalman & Viereck (1967), Wendt (1972, 1976) and Shackley (1985), was followed by a lacuna until the more recent surveys conducted by Vogelsang (1998) in central Namibia. Both Corvinus (1984) and Vogelsang (1998) have reviewed the Palaeolithic archaeological work carried out up to the respective dates of their publications. An archaeological traverse in Central Namibia (Hardaker 2005) identified further ESA and MSA sites. But none of these endeavours, including the present publication, has revealed evidence to equal the late MSA/LSA material seen at the Apollo 11 Cave. This cave, in the far south of Namibia in the gorge of the Fish River, not only yielded an early example of ‘Art mobilier’ (Wendt 1976, Vogelsang 1998, Vogelsang 2008) but also the most complete chronological sequence of late MSA/LSA material in south-western Africa (Wendt 1972; Vogelsang, 1996, 1998: 50-95, Vogelsang 2008). Although Apollo 11 is located some 400km south of Zebra River, it is nevertheless worth noting the profound contrast between the assemblages of the two sites. Apollo 11 contained an abundance of small convergent points, rare at Zebra River,

Several instances of Acheulian material within the Namib Sand Sea are worthy of note: Corvinus (1985) reported on handaxes occurring within a raised beach north of the Orange River at Gemsbok in the far south of the country, and Shackley (1985) found Acheulian and MSA material at Namib IV and several other locations in the northern part of the Namib Sand Sea. These important discoveries imply that the sands were not always as arid as they are now, and indeed the abundance of fossil lakeshores there attest to a higher water table in ESA and MSA time. Our own brief foray into the dunes (Hardaker 2005) verified crude stone tools along one of these shorelines. Desmond Clark’s Atlas of African Prehistory (Clark 1967) shows a scatter of artefact finds throughout Namibia away from the Kalahari margins, but the data came mainly

17

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia from reports of single surface finds and attributions are often tentative. Clark noted 17 sites deemed ‘ESA’, 12 ‘Fauresmith’, 46 MSA, and three ‘Magosian’. In addition there were over 300 records of LSA material. The National Museum in Windhoek at one time made an attempt to augment Clark’s distribution by adding more recent finds, and their map, unpublished but available in the National Museum, Windhoek, remains a valuable tool.

Avery (1982/3-1983/4) analysed the micromammals from the cave and pointed out that it comprised two separate phases, the MSA with the earliest date of >48,200 BP and the LSA at 11,900 BP. Between these two phases there was no evidence of occupation. Vogelsang reported the surface finds of Viereck from the vicinity of our ZR1 site (Viereck 1966), where he found 14 artefacts including a handaxe and what is described as a Victoria West flake, both heavily patinated. At Kyffhauser Farm, Wendt reported artefacts near our site KH2, including a thick, crudely made handaxe. KH2 is in a tributary of the Gorge near the Escarpment, and in the absence of more information it is not possible to be sure if this is a Plateau or Gorge Margins find.

More recently Kinahan, in a map published in the Atlas of Namibia (Mendelsohn et al, 2002, 128) has summarised the spread of ESA and MSA finds throughout Namibia by arbitrary quarter degree squares. His map confirms the greater number of sites in the south and west, while also drawing attention to the close fit of the distribution of all finds with the exposure of bare rock and the scarcity or absence of finds in areas of Kalahari and Namib sands.

2.5 Hominin remains in South Africa and implications for Namibia

In his analysis of the MSA in Namibia, Vogelsang (1998:228ff) recognised five chronological phases:

The discovery of Miocene hominoid teeth c.13 myr at Berg Aukas, in Northern Namibia in 1992 (Conroy et al, 1992) is too early to deduce an early hominin presence in the country. No early hominin fossils are reported from Namibia, and this is no place to attempt a full review of hominid fossil finds in the southern parts of the African continent, even if the author felt competent to do so. A useful summary is provided by Klein (2000). In overview, South Africa has yielded many finds of Australopithecines dating from c.3myr, which are not associated with artefacts, and from c.2 myr finds of Homo have been made in South Africa associated with Oldowan tools (Kuman & Clarke 2000). From c. 1.7myr the Acheulian tradition appears, and it continues to about 200kyr. Perhaps the richest site is the Sterkfontein Valley (Mitchell 2002, 53). As this is some 1300 km from Zebra River, no inference can be made about the arrival of Homo in western Namibia from these finds, and the Namibian artefacts cannot therefore be attributed to any particular hominin species. The nature of the terrain at Zebra River makes it rather unlikely that stratified sites will be discovered to alter this situation, although other parts of Namibia may well yield them.

Early MSA (phase 1 and 2 from assemblage 1 of Apollo 11) Developed MSA (assemblage 2 of Apollo 11) Unmodified MSA (assemblage of Pockenbank) Howieson’s Poort (assemblage 3 of Apollo 11) Youngest MSA (assemblage 4 of Apollo 11) The almost total absence of any similar sequences from Zebra River, despite cave excavation, illustrates the stark contrast in the evidence between central and south Namibia. 2.4 Previous work in the Study Area Previous work in the area has been recorded by Wendt (1972) and Vogelsang (1998). Wendt excavated a cave at Zebra River, close to our site ‘ZR1’, and found short blades (maximum 45mm in length) amongst much undiagnostic material. Wendt’s C14 dates ranged from 37,200 ± 1400 BP to 48,200 minimum age. These dates were at (or perhaps beyond) the limits of C14 dating at the time. ESA Early Stone Age Undiagnostic Mode 1

MSA Middle Stone Age

LSA Later Stone Age

Undiagnostic Mode 1 Undiagnostic Mode 1 Mode 2 Acheulian handaxes (Late Mode 2?) & cleavers Mode 3, Elongated core handaxes (ECHs) Victoria West cores Levallois (Prepared cores & flakes) Lupemban, Sangoan, etc.

Mode 4-5 (Specialist tools)

2.4 Different terminologies used in Africa for the Palaeolithic. Names in bold are used in this study and names in italics are not represented at Zebra River.

18

Section 2: Archaeological Overview 2.6 Lithic Terminology

and long blades, large flakes, and retouched flakes, are referred to as ‘MSA-like’.

There are several systems in use to describe African Palaeolithic artefacts. (Fig 2.4) The terms ESA, MSA and LSA are widely understood. They have traditionally been looked upon as chronological, but it has become clear that their start and end dates vary considerably in different parts of the continent, and that the dividing lines between them are not as sharp as was once believed. A parallel terminology of Modes (1 to 5), invented by Graham Clark, (Clark 1969) which relate to technique rather than strict chronology, is also in use. Additionally some European terms, notably Acheulian and Levallois, have been imported to describe typologies occurring both in Africa and Europe. This is a useful as a reminder of the ubiquity of certain tool forms in the wider Palaeolithic world. The term LCT (Large Cutting Tool) is used sparingly here in favour of ‘large tools’. In this study there is often a need to refer collectively to all tools of large size, including Levallois cores and flakes, whereas ‘LCTs’ has more often been applied to ESA tools alone.

While the term ‘Mode 1’ is used here (without chronological implications) when referring to simple core and flake tools, we use ‘Acheulian’ rather than Mode 2 to describe artefacts fitting this definition. ‘Acheulian’ refers here to handaxes showing careful flaking of the tips, which are almost always pointed, frequently with unworked butts (except ovates which are worked round the butt), with straight edges usually obtained by extensive small flake removals after roughout stage, and a tendency for weighting towards the butt. ‘Acheulian’ is also used for cleavers sharing all these characteristics except for the chisel tip and invariably worked butts. The terms ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Levallois’ are both used here to denote ‘classic Levallois’ prepared cores of more or less pyramid or tortoise form, frequently with a large flake removed from the ventral side. These terms also refer to the flakes themselves when they show facetted platforms and some or all of their dorsal scars have their points of origin beyond the edge of the artefact.

The different terms may all be appropriate in different situations. That artefact repertoires vary pronouncedly in different parts of Africa is surely to be expected, and is nowhere more clearly manifest than in the classification proposed by Kleindeinst (1962) for two sites in East Africa, Olorgesailie and Isimila. Such a classification would have very limited application at Zebra River, where the tool kit is notably different.

Appropriate terminology for artefacts is important if we are to understand the people of the ESA and MSA. Would our terminology of stone tools be verified if it could be presented to their makers? An example is the so-called ‘handaxe roughout’, a ‘dustbin’ term often used by archaeologists. About 30 such forms have been identified, coming mainly from the Gorge environs. As mentioned above they are given the term ‘rough biface’ here. They are not numerous at any site, but it seems odd for so many ‘roughouts’ to be left incomplete. Examples are shown in Fig 5.77 a and b.

For reasons explained below, no single system of terminology is entirely suitable for the unique assemblage at Zebra River. Therefore, no apology is made for using an eclectic range of terms appropriate to individual sites.

Our synthesis of Palaeolithic behaviour suggests there was seldom time for ‘messing about’. Almost all of what we see in the formal tool repertoire is structured to a series of specific templates – variable, yes, but ring-fenced within the mindset. The ‘roughouts’ fit uncomfortably in this picture. As fieldwalking covered more sites, we found these forms could not with certainty be assigned exclusively to the Acheulian group. Many of them are so crude they might be roughouts for anything – elongated core handaxes, Levallois, or Acheulian - or just finished tools made in a hurry. To avoid erroneously merging them with any of diagnostic class, these items have been termed Rough Bifaces and left out of the typological analysis. They are discussed below in more detail (page 159).

The terms ‘diagnostic’ and ‘undiagnostic’ are used here to differentiate between artefacts that can be confidently placed into the ESA, MSA or LSA on typological and technological grounds, and those that cannot. Thus flakes, debitage and most forms of core are undiagnostic unless they have contextual affiliation with diagnostic tools. Large tools, most long blades, pyramid cores and prepared points are diagnostic tools. A list of artefact types found at Zebra River is given below (Summary of Lithic Finds (see Appendix 1). In Namibia artefacts of Mode 1, in the form of simple flake and cores, are by far the commonest Palaeolithic artefacts, yet none can for certain be attributed to the preAcheulian ESA. The ESA is represented by bifaces and cleavers of Acheulian style. The term ‘handaxe’ always means ‘pointed Acheulian handaxe’ but the word ‘biface’ is used when Acheulian affinity is uncertain. The earliest MSA may be represented by the elongated core handaxe, followed by classic MSA Levallois flakes and cores, and occasional Levallois points, which are widely scattered. The relevance of the term ‘MSA’ to these artefacts will be discussed below (pages 137 &188). Other tools commonly associated with the MSA here, such as long blade cores

The term ‘Victoria West’ has been applied to cores prepared for the removal of large side-struck flakes found in South Africa (Jansen 1926, Goodwin 1929, Goodwin 1934, Sharon & Beaumont 2006). At Zebra River the presence of apparent Victoria West shaped cores and flakes had been noted from previous work (Vogelsang 1998, 161 and 210) and the current fieldwork has also turned up a number of examples (e.g. Nos 51, 1218). Several of these are from the same site, KH6. These items are discussed further on pages 169-70.

19

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Throughout the NAMPAL project, artefacts are referred to as ‘LSA’ if their sharpness, colour and disposition indicate they are more recent than the Levallois or Acheulian elements, or the vast majority of flakes. That may look like an unsound means of definition, and so it may be, but in the field these greenish fresh scatters stand out unmistakably from the rest of the lithic material. If weathering has any bearing on age, they are the latest in the lithic palimpsest, and their relatively compact distributions and occasional refits indicate that they belong to single events such as cannot be identified amongst the rest of the lithic material. They are also invariably undiagnostic, comprising large, medium and small flakes, seldom retouched, together with debitage and cores in various states of exhaustion. The presence of very small pieces of debitage also suggests they are relatively recent, since those tend to be removed by natural forces over a long period of time. The only incontrovertible evidence for their LSA date is their conformity, in shape, size and amount of weathering, with the artefacts found at ZR in the excavations at Gail’s cave and Wendt’s cave, which have been securely dated.

have realised we were imparting, and missing the signals we wanted to convey. It stretches the imagination to think what the response might have been and how we might interpret it. Artefact terminology is an imperfect but necessary reflection of past reality, but at least we should try to ensure there is no ambiguity in it amongst ourselves. The question of terminology becomes particularly relevant in the discussion on hybrids (see pages 165-7). 2.7 The ‘in situ’ question Whether artefacts can be shown to lie in situ is important to resolve if the NAMPAL study is to have relevance. Slope plays a key role in this question: obviously the steeper the slope the easier it will be for material to move, whether propelled by runoff or by gravity. Dynamics increase in direct proportion to slope, both in rate and in clast size. But movement of surface material also occurs under other stimuli, including plant growth, animal kicking and digging, or frost heave. The observations and experiments conducted on this subject are discussed on page 141. Some compelling arguments are put forward in favour of a large part of the archaeology lying essentially in situ, although this term does not mean precisely in the spot dropped by humans, but rather within a distance not significantly affecting the interpretation of assemblages.

The later MSA and LSA at Zebra River thus lack the specialised typologies present in many other parts of Africa. This anomaly is more fully discussed below (page 113, 173 and 175). In history and prehistory it is the custom to try to bring clarity to our subject by drawing boundaries as sharply as possible in our minds or on paper, whether to identify concepts, artefacts, or indeed physical and cultural areas on maps. This does not always fit with the natural way of things, which is often more complex, more subtle, and more liable to ‘grey areas’. The patterns and terminologies resulting from putting everything in into boxes may actually be detracting from our understanding of the true nature of the subject.

2.8 Home base or living space? The term ‘home base’ as applied to Palaeolithic archaeology was championed by Isaac (1976, 1978), and has been augmented by studies of the !Kung (Lee & Devore 1976) and other tribal societies which provided ample evidence for latter-day desert dwellers using communal sites most accurately described as home bases. Subsequent criticism of the term, led by Binford (1981) focussed on the need to prove a relationship between artefact accumulations and other contextual finds in excavated sites, and the evidence, at Koobi Fora and Olduvai, turned out to be complex.

In this vein, archaeologists have spent a lot of time, some of it in argument, on the nomenclature of stone tools. Names matter, because they commit a rigidity to our concepts. But humans before the LSA seem likely to have possessed at best only rudimentary ‘language’ (see for example Aiello 1996), probably having little in the way of words for their tools. Today, it is very hard to think without the use of words, even though everyone has experienced this condition in the first year of their lives. One of the techniques of ‘getting into the Palaeolithic mind’ is to try to revisit this stage. In applying words to stone tools, we may be categorising them in a way that would make little sense to our Palaeolithic ancestors, and thus we cut ourselves adrift from their conceptual repertoire.

Archaeologists have been unsure whether ESA (and even MSA) humans were capable of conceptualising the idea of ‘home’ in the modern sense, meaning a place where humans routinely slept, carried out domestic and social tasks, made, used and discarded tools, and brought and ate some of their food resources including meat. Therefore alternative terms to explain artefact clustering have been proposed, included kill sites, stone caches, or routeways. Two less evocative terms, ‘favoured places’, Schick (1987), and ‘Resource defence sites’ (Rose & Marshall 1996) emphasised particular aspects of the observed clustering of material without using the word ‘home’. A good summary of this subject is given by Plummer (2005, 73-76).

The point can be illustrated by a hypothetical encounter. If we were to meet a Palaeolithic human, we might speak some words of cautious friendship. What the hominin would receive would not be words but intonation, pitch, volume, body language, hand signals, and smell. Because we used an unintelligible sound medium to express our greeting, the human was reading signals we may not even

Zebra River presents an exceptionally broad archaeological canvas on which to judge the veracity 20

Section 2: Archaeological Overview MSA-Levallois 10 Unstruck Levallois Core 11 Struck Levallois Core 12 Levallois Flake 13 Levallois Flake retouched 14 Blade, sometimes called Long Blade (defined as a flake more than twice as long as it is wide) 15 Bifacial Core Tool or Chopping Tool 16 Unifacial Core(279) 17 Blade Core 18 Levallois Point (convergent Flake) 19 Levallois Convergent core (equal to Levallois point core)

of the home base concept in the ESA/MSA human mind. The artefact scatters are clearly the dominant surviving feature of the Palaeolithic archaeology, and as such must represent places that humans occupied for substantial parts of their time. As explained elsewhere, short lifespans and the necessity of becoming closely familiar with the local landscape imposed spatial limits on territorial ranges: wandering aimlessly through the landscape was probably not a good plan. Comfort and security were gained from simple routines, and the return to established, safe places could be a central part of this. However, whether they were ‘home bases’, or whether they were something rather less, is difficult to tell. Resolution of the question may hinge on the degree of development of the human mind at different points in time, or on simple practical considerations, such as the presence of trees that would offer safe sleeping. But at ZR today, and probably for much of the past, trees are mainly located in the narrow floodplains, whereas artefact clusters are found predominantly on areas raised up above the floodplains.

LSA (distinguished by freshness rather than typology) 20 Core 21 Flake (subdivided into small, medium and large with cut-offs at 20 and 50mm). 22 Blade (as above) Undiagnostic (not of fresh appearance) 23 Chopper 24 Chopper-core 25 Pyramid core 26 Core or Discoidal Core (in this study not always separated) 27 Flake (sometimes subdivided into small, medium and large with cut-offs at 20 and 50mm). 28 Retouched flake 29 Debitage (any broken fragment that appears to be human struck, including flakes missing a platform)

The evidence from ZR shows very clearly that organised living spaces did indeed exist, but the word ‘home’ is perhaps too evocative of a sapiens concept to be applied to the ESA and MSA. It may be that semantics interferes with the Palaeolithic reality here. The artefact clusters certainly point to places where humans did a lot of things; maybe that is all we can safely say. For convenience we refer to them here as ‘living spaces’. 2.9 Summary of the lithic finds

A list of numbered artefacts is given in Appendix 1.

As mentioned above, the raw material available for artefact manufacture at Zebra River is a very fine sandstone, which we refer to as quartzitic sandstone in the text, to distinguish it from the more coarse-grained sandstones of the Fish River Group to the east. Examples of other raw materials are exceedingly rare: a single possible limestone chopper from the ZR Gorge, a fine-grained flake in an exotic rock from ZR2, and some late LSA items from Gail’s Cave (quartz) and Urikos 1 (limestone) sites.

Mode 1 material (flakes and cores of undiagnostic form) is ubiquitous throughout the Study Area, but none can be assigned to a very early (pre-Acheulian) date. The best examples of pre-Acheulian industries in Southern Africa include those from Sterkfontein Member 5 (Kuman & Clarke 2000, Kuman, Field & Thackeray 1997, Kuman 1994) and Wonderwerk Cave (Chazan et al 2008). The Sterkfontein strata are tentatively dated to 2.0-1.7 mya and the Wonderwerk site has a cosmogenically dated base level of 2.0myr and an Oldowan industry from 1.96 -0.78myr. The Oldowan at Sterkfontein includes unprepared cores, spheroids and unretouched flakes that would be unlikely to stand out from the palimpsests of surface artefacts at Zebra River. Certainly there is no sign of anything at ZR resembling the battered spheroids and discoids described by Kuman (1994) from the Oldowan of Sterkfontein. From the paucity of Oldowan finds in southern Africa generally and the lack of any at all in south-western Africa, we can conclude that humans evidently did not live here at a very early date.

At Zebra River we recognised the different typological categories listed below. ESA-Acheulian 1 Pointed Acheulian handaxe 2 Ovate Acheulian handaxe 3 Cleaver 4 Ficron 5 Ficron-ended Cleaver 6 (Not Used) ESA/MSA 7 Elongated core handaxe (probably early MSA) 8 Rough biface 9 Victoria West Core

Classic Acheulian industries are well represented at ZR, evidently belonging to several different phases, and embracing a range of styles from crude weathered pointed bifaces often substantially weathered, to finely finished

21

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia slim handaxes and cleavers, some showing less weathering. A clear pattern of distribution is seen, with the majority of Acheulian finds in the Gorge area and strays from near the edge of the Plateau. To date no Acheulian items have been noted further than about 10km from the Escarpment edge, although they appear again within the Narob valley, one of the major streams on the Plateau.

carried out mainly in 2002, ascertained whether artefact scatters occur throughout the zone of quartzitic sandstone outcrops and beyond, and so includes unproductive ‘sites’. Individual site maps are given when discussing the main sites. Throughout the surveyed region, the presence of artefacts coincides closely with the presence of suitable raw material. In the zone of the Fish River sandstones and shales, which are generally less suitable for knapping, the density of artefacts is noticeably less, although some Levallois sites were recorded. In areas where the raw material cannot be utilised, the few artefacts present are often of LSA appearance. Enough of the Study Area has been walked over to suggest this circumstance prevails throughout. In the few cases where ESA and MSA artefact scatters are seen in areas lacking raw material, it has always been present in close proximity.

In the MSA, the density of occupation clearly increases and scatters are found almost wherever quartzitic sandstone outcrops on the surface. Levallois cores and flakes are common, and as with the Acheulian they vary in quality, from perfect tortoise cores of extraordinary size, to smaller items barely recognisable as Levallois. Other traces of prepared core technology are present too: convergent points (very scarce), large and medium sized blades, and retouched flakes. Local variants at certain sites are seen. The abundance of Levallois-dominated scatters along the zone straddling the Escarpment tells a story of repeated use of sites, not always exactly in the same spot. Curiously, there follows a typological lacuna between some time in the middle of the MSA until the very recent past. The specialised forms of later MSA and characteristic early modern technology (Modes 4 and 5) are totally absent from ZR. After the Levallois we see only artefacts of fresh appearance and morphological similarity to the dated cave artefacts, which belong to the last few thousand years. Away from the cave excavations, as noted above (page 21) only a single artefact of exotic material has been recorded (at site ZR2), and no microlithic material at all has been recovered in fieldwalking.

The ratio of diagnostic to undiagnostic artefacts varies from 1:4.6 in dense Levallois sites such as site ND4 to 1:30 in other areas such as the predominantly flake-based industry at ZR1 (pages 60-63). The overall impression is of successive communities throughout prehistoric time consistently making use of flake tools in their daily activities and much less frequently making formal tools. A summary map of the main sites in their geological context is shown in Fig 2.5. Here, the detail shown in Fig 2.1 is eliminated allowing the relationship of ESA, MSA and LSA with the three main geological divisions to show. Also on this map, the areas explored on foot or by vehicle traverse are shown in white. That does not of course include the areas examined from the air (several low level flights were taken over parts of the Study Area), nor does it show the regions studied in detail on Google Earth satellite imagery, which fill all the gaps within the Core Area seen in Fig 2.2 as well as large parts of the rest of the Study Area.

Such negative evidence points to an absence of human occupation here from some time in the MSA until relatively recent time. One of the purposes of excavating a cave site (Gail’s Cave, site ZR3) was to try to link the surface finds with cave occupation. The cave artefacts are all undiagnostic flakes and cores similar to the sharper flakes and cores found occasionally on the surface throughout the region, but no specialised LSA was seen either in Gail’s Cave or in the cave excavated by Wendt (Wendt 1972). Moreover the cave artefacts are not made of exotic materials but of the same quartzitic sandstone as the surface scatters. From the cave excavations of Wendt and ourselves, and the surface scatters of similar type, it is clear that in the period from c. 48,000 BP (or possibly much later), the only evidence of human presence comes in the form of crude cores and flakes.

The localisation of Acheulian industries in or close to the Gorge, close to permanent springs or seasonal water courses, contrasts with the distribution of prepared Levallois cores and flakes, and occasionally other tools associated with MSA such as long blades, which are present much more widely both in the Gorge and on the Plateau. This situation is present in other areas not only in Africa but also in Europe. To give just two examples, the ESA at Olorgesailie in Southern Kenya was located close to a lakeshore (Isaac 1977), and the ESA at Kalambo Falls in Zambia was beside the Kalambo River (Clark 2001a). Acheulian industries also tended to flourish close to raw material resources, such as those in the Seacow Valley in South Africa, where Acheulian surface sites are never located further than 1km from the quarry sites (Sampson 2006, 96) whereas in the Middle Palaeolithic raw materials were transported further. In the Dordogne, for example, they were transported up to 80km (Geneste 1988, 488). Within the Study Area the LSA, insofar as it

2.10 The Greater Study Area: some general trends The term ‘Greater Study Area’ is used here to distinguish the total Study Area (Fig 2.1) from the smaller focal area shown in Fig 2.2. These two maps together form a general reference base of all the places visited, with Google Earth imagery backdrop. They include roadside sampling carried out in the greater area of the Plateau. This exercise,

22

Section 2: Archaeological Overview can be identified, is occasional throughout the landscape, including the areas of less suitable sandstones in the east.

in the typologies represented or in the proportion of each typology. Examples of local variants include abundance of weathered blades (ZR2), flat-topped Levallois cores (KB 2), presence of sidestruck ‘Victoria West’ cores (KH6), lack of Acheulian (Plateau sites) or high proportion of convergent points (NR2).

Local variation of typological profiles between different sites is an important factor in interpreting the archaeology. No two sites are the same. They either vary

2.5 Map of sites in their geological context. The black line separating the Limestones from the Quartzitic sandstones and shales represents the generalised line of the Great Escarpment

23

SECTION 3: THE ANALYTICAL METHODS

3.1 Summary

clear (Fig 3.1 & Fig. 3.2 ). After extensive field walking in 2002, it became evident that artefacts were invariably most frequent on these quartzitic sandstone bedrock areas. But in the Gorge area, where the solid geology is limestone, particular colours on the Google Earth imagery were also likely to indicate artefact-rich scatters. Such colours define the quartzitic detritus brought down from the plateau and laid as thin skins on the limestone terraces of the Gorge (Fig. 3.3). On subsequent expeditions, the use of Google Earth imagery combined with field experience gradually improved the accuracy with which we could predict where artefacts would occur in the landscape. The task of locating significant artefact scatters is made easier by eliminating all areas with slopes greater than about 5 degrees, a task which can be achieved using Google Earth 3-D imagery. Not only are Palaeolithic artefacts seldom found on slopes, but if they are, the likelihood of their having been gravitationally moved increases in direct relation to the angle of slope (see page 141). All the sites in the NAMPAL study are located on flat or nearly flat terrain.

Without verification of their primary context and date, surface artefacts can contribute little to our understanding of the Palaeolithic. Several new techniques have been developed in the Nampal study to address these issues. These and the subjects arising from them are listed here and discussed below. 3.1.1 Satellite Imagery 3.1.2 Fieldwalking and GPS Mapping 3.1.3 Recording data 3.1.4 The Edge Test 3.1.5 The necessary preconditions for Edge Testing 3.1.6 Evaluating Edge Test results: Spotting anomalies 3.1.7 Raw material analysis 3.1.8 Surface analysis of artefacts for climatic and dating evidence 3.1.9 The role of slope 3.1.10. Other methods that were considered

In the Zebra River region, Google Earth imagery was upgraded in 2007, enabling individual buildings and bushes/trees to be seen. Perversely, on this improved imagery, which was evidently taken after the exceptional rains of 2006, a blanket of grasses and thorn scrub partly obscures the geology. Whereas our pre-2007 imagery was coarse but strongly geological (Figs 1.8 and 3.1), the new imagery was fine-grained but with the geology subdued (Fig 3.2). This had to be digitally enhanced to revitalise

3.1.1 Satellite Imagery The increasing quality of satellite imagery in the last few years has enabled detailed analysis of landforms and their geological surfaces in arid lands. From Google Earth imagery of the Zebra River area in the early 2000s, taken after a prolonged drought on landscapes with sparse vegetation, bands of quartzitic sandstone and shale on the Plateau could be discerned, and river terrace deposits were

3.1 and 3.2 Google Earth image on part of the Plateau (left) before 2006 and (right) after 2006 showing the (A) indicates quartzitic sandstone, (B) shales and (C) fluvial terracing. ©2006 TerraMetrics and 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image

earlier, coarser resolution images with no vegetation cover were better indicators of geological differences.

24

Section 3: The Analytical Methods

3.3a Raw Google imagery of sites KH4 and 5. 3.3b Enhanced imagery of the same area showing artefact rich areas of quartzitic sandstone (brown, with artefact scatters in black outline) at the foot of the Great Escarpment. © Europa Technologies © 2010 Google © Cnes/Spot Image Image © 2010 DigitalGlobe the subtle colour changes that defined the potential archaeological sites, but it is still effective. Fig 3.3a shows the raw Google data and 3.3b the same after enhancement. Some of the geological colours normally taken as indicators of artefacts proved to be misleading. Bands of stronger ginger or orange in the satellite imagery of the Plateau often relate to sandstones with a very high iron content, which have been insufficiently diagenised for artefact manufacture. Visits to these places yielded far fewer artefacts. 3.1.2 Fieldwalking and GPS Mapping After satellite imagery has pointed to likely artefact zones, fieldwalking is carried out. This has taken several forms: ‘Point-to-point’ survey. This involves walking with a GPS moving up and down between markers which are progressively shifted across the landscape (Fig 3.4). On reaching the marker at the end of the line, it is moved 3-6 metres onward (depending on the site) which then serves as the point to aim for on the return journey. The method yields a high proportion of the total diagnostic artefacts, enabling a representative map to be made.

3.4 Schematic diagram of point-to-point GPS tracking on a site, generalised from work at the site of ZR4. Background based on Google Earth imagery © Europa Technologies © 2010 Google © Cnes/Spot Image Image © 2010 DigitalGlobe

not present but an overview is needed of the situation, for example on areas of shale bedrock. The fieldwalking follows a series of straight line routes along which a record is taken of artefacts in the immediate vicinity of the path (usually in practical terms about one metre either side of

Sample traverse. This plots a GPS route along a predetermined transect through a chosen piece of terrain, to establish the general nature of the artefact scatters. Such traverses are normally adopted where dense scatters are 25

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

3.5 Site traverse form the trodden path, which is about the maximum that the human eye can take in at slow or normal walking pace). Traverses were recorded on Traverse forms (Fig 3.5). Unstructured walking. This is a term reflecting intuitive feelings about a site and where scatters might be, based on cumulative experience of the Study Area. It may form a sample traverse or a more random walk governed by what one sees on the ground: the flatness of the terrain, the density and suitability of natural clasts, and the presence and density of artefacts. It is a useful technique to gain a rapid assessment of a large area. Periodic GPS points may be recorded and notes made. Grid square. An area (ranging in size between 2x2 and 10x10 metres) is selected, (Fig. 3.6) inside which every artefact is recorded, but their positions within the grid are not always noted. This provides a proxy of the relative frequency of different artefact types and especially the ratios of flakes and other undiagnostic material to formal tools. At such sites Edge Tests (see below) may also be carried out. Latterly we tried to do this on approximately 50 randomly selected flakes from any one site, to act as a yardstick against which to evaluate the formal tools. Formal tools were not always available in 50’s, a limitation over which we had no control. Grids were recorded on Micro-Site forms (Fig 3.7).

3.6 Laying out grid squares returning to a previously marked site. GPS waypoints were transferred to GPS Trackmaker software which forms the basis of the maps of scatters. 3.1.3 Recording data The expedition leader maintained a field notebook throughout all expeditions in which comments were recorded both in the field as events happened, and at the end of the day when thoughts arising from the day’s work were written down. Other expedition members usually had similar notebooks. In addition individual sites

The GPS used was a Garmin E-Trex that plots position to within about 1-2 metres. The accuracy can be tested by

26

Section 3: The Analytical Methods

3.7 Micro-site form used to record finds in grid squares were recorded in the field using standardised forms: Site Traverse and Micro-Site forms were used as described above. All artefacts deemed to be important for study, or that might need to be referred to again, were recorded in a Chronological Artefact List, (reproduced in summary form as a site-based list in Appendix 1) each artefact being given a number as it was found. The master Artefact List records the site, date, description, photo numbers of the artefact both in situ and both faces and sides, photo numbers of the edge casts, and the waypoint. Artefacts were numbered using permanent marker pens in the field and either left in situ or brought to the Zebra River Lodge for further study. Some of the latter were later returned to the field. From 2002 to 2010, 1830 items were recorded from the main sites in the Artefact List. This is a very small proportion of all the artefacts encountered, because most undiagnostic artefacts were not added to this list, unless they were flakes and cores selected for Edge Testing. Also diagnostic artefacts that may have been noted on minor sites were usually not added to this list. The total number of artefacts encountered, if one included every flake, would be several hundred thousand. In a preliminary survey, one could not justify the time that would be required to record them all, but latterly, starting at site KH6, more detailed grid

3.8 Micro-gridding in 10cm squares recording the positions of all artefacts, KH6 maps have indeed been made, where the position of every artefact is recorded. (Fig 3.8). The results of these studies will be available in a future report. GPS locations were recorded for nearly all diagnostic artefacts found in the field at the main study sites from 27

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 2005. This has enabled fairly complete maps of tool scatters to be plotted. Non-diagnostics were noted in generalised terms in the Field Notebook and their general GPS location recorded, but the positions of individual items were not normally recorded. 3.1.4 The Edge Test In areas not affected by fluvial action, subaerial processes are solely responsible for eroding surface clasts. The climatic history and current physiography of the Zebra River region (Section 1) suggest that land surfaces away from the present streambeds and their immediate environs have not been affected by fluvial action at any period in prehistoric time. As subaerial processes act more or less uniformly on all surfaces within areas of climatic uniformity, it follows that the greater the rounding on a clast, the longer the time it has spent on the surface. Few would disagree that in Fig 3.9 the blade on the right appears to be older than the blade on the left, but in order to render this meaningful, quantification of the amount of weathering is required. The ‘eyeball method’ is not able to distinguish reliable results except on the crudest levels of ‘sharp’, ‘weathered’ and ‘very weathered’. 3.11 Finding clean flake scars

To achieve a quantitative evaluation of the amount of weathering that artefacts have undergone, a digital program called the Edge Test was devised. The Edge Test measures the amount of weathering on the artefact edges by assessing the loss of section mass, i.e. the surface area of loss of mass in the artefact profile. This is conventionally

3.12 Taking casts for the Edge Test termed ‘mass’ but it is actually an area measurement and is expressed in sq. mm. (Fig 3.10). The procedure begins by finding at least four places on the artefact where there are undamaged original flake scars (Fig 3.11). Plasticine casts are taken of these edges (Fig 3.12). They are then placed with a label for photography. (Fig 3.13). The photos are brought to a suitable size and fed into the Edge Test digital program (Fig 3.14a). The operator then follows the screen instructions, first measuring a 10mm length to bring all tests to the same scale (Fig.3.14b) and then finding the apex of the weathered curve (Fig 3.15). He then selects sections of the straight edges on the profile of the artefact that represent the original flake scar surfaces below the point where weathering has occurred. This can either be

3.9 Edge weathering as a key to relative age

3.10 Principle of the Edge Test 28

Section 3: The Analytical Methods

3.15 The program finds the apex

3.13 Edge cast and artefact label ready for photography

3.14a Edge test on screen – initial display

3.16 The program finds the appropriate edges

3.14b Measuring the 10mm length

3.17 The program produces the edges to intersect at the point where they would have met when the artefact was freshly knapped and calculates the loss of section mass, here

done manually by drawing lines on the screen along the sections of the edge where the operator judges them to be appropriate, or it can be done automatically by the program as seen in Fig 3.16. When projected, the point at which these lines cross will be the place where the original apex

508 pixels or 2.63 sq mm.

of the edge was (Fig 3.17). The program then proceeds with the automated processes to determine the loss of section mass from sharp to weathered, measured in sq.mm and pixels: finding the edges to determine the loss of mass

29

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia and finally, creating the grid to measure the loss of mass as seen on Fig 3.17.

belong to the earliest phase of the Acheulian. Technical regressions in the Palaeolithic are probably far fewer than periods of stasis or advance. Typological phases may be of very different dates in different parts of the Palaeolithic world, but typologies can still lend support to other evidence in the dating of sites.

A final digital program for the Edge Test was still being worked on at the time of going to print. However, the existing programs, employing both the ‘manual’ and the ‘digital’ selection of the straight edges, give perfectly valid results, but we seek to automate the program as much as possible to eliminate the potential for operator bias and speed up the procedure. The final program will be published when these developments are completed.

In order to establish general trends and detect abnormal preservation or excess weathering on artefacts, a target total of at least 100 artefacts from each major site was set for Edge Testing. In some cases this could still result in rather low numbers in some of the diagnostic classes: we had to make do with whatever was there (but see Appendix 4). Edge testing at each site usually included a sample of up to 50 non-diagnostic artefacts collected randomly. This was done because at every site there is an overwhelming number of flakes of all ages in relation to all other types of artefact. The flakes provide the continuum of time throughout the occupation period.

For the Edge Test to be effective, the edges on freshly knapped artefacts must originally have been sharp not rounded. This is what we see on recent LSA artefacts and modern replicas, and it is what must be so for a tool to perform its intended function. Subaerial processes break down rocks in many different ways. Wind-blown particles, especially grains of sand, bombard the exposed surfaces and wear them down (attrition). Temperature variations exploit the differential coefficient of expansion of the different elements in the rock to weaken their junctures and detach individual crystals. Occasional frosts would have accelerated this process. Rainwater contains trace elements that chemically decompose soluble rock constituents, often producing a surface crust of iron or manganese oxide (see Appendix 5). Biological processes initiated by agents such as lichens will also chemically break down the rock. Salts from the soil can interact with clasts. Finally, grinding by the trampling of animal feet and attrition from tangent rocks abrade the stone. The cumulative progressive action of all these forces produces the rounding we see typically on surface Palaeolithic artefacts. In the fullness of time and in appropriate conditions all these forces will tend to work equally on most artefacts thus rendering them valid for the Edge Test, at least for specimens gathered over small distances on a single site. However, at any site there are usually a few artefacts which for some reason have been subjected to an abnormally heavy weathering regime. These can be easily recognised as ‘odd ones out’ in the display of Edge Test results and can be discarded.

The Edge Test, though expressly designed with surface material in mind, may, in certain circumstances, be applicable to excavated sites. Where we suspect an excavated surface was exposed to the weather for a prolonged period before burial, even though we may not know the length of this period, loss of mass from the edges of artefacts will still record their relative age. At ZR, Edge Tests have been carried out on excavated material from two sites. One theoretical application of the Edge Test to aid relative dating would be to compare them with natural clasts from the surface. However when attempts were made to find material for testing, it became clear that angles on naturals are much more obtuse than on artefacts. As noted above, weathering rates may be affected by angle and thus we restricted our tests to a limited range of angles. It was not possible to match this range when looking at naturals. Natural clasts have very variable edge rounding including a proportion of items with rounding far in excess of anything seen on artefacts. This is to be expected when the land surface and its clasts have been in existence far longer than the artefacts.

The Edge Test provides information about the relative length of time artefacts have been exposed on the surface. It does not provide absolute dates, although a very broad measure of ‘absolute’ dating can sometimes be inferred by linking artefact typologies with their counterparts in dated excavated sites in Southern Africa (see page 174). Although typology does not necessarily provide a clear sequential chronology, it can hardly be denied that, overall, the Palaeolithic does show an underlying broad forward movement in skill and technology. Choppers and cores do start before handaxes, handaxes do start before Levallois, and Levallois does start before Howieson’s Poort. Within this sequence, variations in skill levels within individual communities, together with the influence of local raw materials and custom, blur the picture. Thus a poorly made handaxe (using this term as we would judge it with our 21st century eyes) cannot be guaranteed to be earlier than a well-made one, but a well-made one is less likely to

3.1.5 The necessary preconditions for Edge Testing Prolonged use of the Edge Test on different sites has enabled us to nominate certain preconditions to achieve valid results, eliminating skewed data that would be challenging to rectify. Once a site satisfies these conditions, the results have great potential to yield evidence about the relative age of the artefacts tested. The preconditions to be met and the pitfalls to be avoided are as follows: (A) Amount of edge use wear and damage. Artefact usage produces two kinds of macroscopic edge modification, i.e. clearly visible to the naked eye, and (as opposed to ‘microwear’, which we have not considered). Light usage e.g. for scraping hide or cutting plants produces a blunting or smoothing of the edge. This is usually known as ‘use

30

Section 3: The Analytical Methods wear’. It is difficult to detect when masked by subsequent natural weathering, and at ZR we have only occasionally identified it. However, when an artefact is used for heavy duty work such as butchery, the edge becomes ‘damaged’ more quickly than it becomes ‘worn’. Edge use damage is more easily identified by clusters of small flake scars with step fractures, because heavy duty usage causes splintering of the edge. When these features are seen localised on the straight edge of an artefact but not on the tip or the butt, they probably represent the consequences of heavy duty use. After discard, natural weathering proceeds on all edges whether fresh, worn or damaged. Edge Testing may still be possible on contemporarily retouched edges provided there is sufficient flake scar length in the retouch to enable the angles of the edge to be detected. Minute splinters close to the edge prevent the Test from being done successfully, but minute splinters are not always apparent when casts are being taken under field conditions. In cases where they appear on the photo of a tested edge, the operator makes a judgement whether to exclude the rogue edge value but retain the other results, or whether to discount the whole artefact.

3.18 Fluvially rolled handaxe from ZR1 streambed on the surface. In reading the Edge Test results, artefacts in any category that are markedly sharper than the vast majority in the same category are regarded as potentially ‘buried at some time’ and their values should not be taken as evidence of, say, the late flourishing of an industry.

(B) Lack of fluvial damage. Care must be taken to establish that the material to be analysed has not been affected by stream flow. Although we cannot be certain that the drainage patterns at ZR have remained absolutely constant through the last half million years, evidence of fluvial action in the landscape is very easy to detect, because stream beds contain heavily rounded clasts, whereas clasts not affected by stream flow are angular. We have generally avoided looking for artefacts in river beds in our study, but in any case if the Palaeolithic occupants of ZR ever deposited artefacts within the beds of streams, these would quickly have been washed away. Artefacts once having got into the stream bed cannot easily get out on to the bank again. We have however noted certain sites near stream beds or in hollows that have been affected by periodic inundation, at UR2 and ZR2, and, while these sites are extraordinarily informative in augmenting our chronological data, they do not offer good conditions for use of the Edge Test (Fig 3.18).

(D) Presence of clear flaking scars unaffected by subsequent natural damage. Clear flaking scars are usually evident from the continuous straight profiles leading to the weathered point (fig 3.19 ). However, in cases where four clear scars cannot be located on an artefact, it may

(C) Consistency of topographic surface history. Relevant surfaces in the Study Area must not have had different exposures to the atmosphere, for example if some been covered up by sand or soil for long periods and others have not (see page 137). Soils are not extensive or deep at ZR, but the appearance of artefacts beneath the present soil at the excavations at ND4 (page 110) and KH6 (page 136) show that exposure to weather may not have been uniform for all artefacts. As some are buried now, so others now exposed may have been buried in the past. However, as discussed above, the likelihood of substantial areas being buried by sand or soil, and therefore substantial numbers of artefacts having been protected from the weathering process, is small. It has been assumed, but not tested, that buried artefacts weather at a slower rate than those exposed

3.19 Edge cast showing clear, straight flaking scar profiles

31

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia do actually find) that artefacts of equal age remaining in one piece will not show much variation in weathering as a result of these high magnitude events – most have had a share. Moreover, high magnitude events are probably not very frequent: for example, amongst thousands of flake scatters we have examined, broken flakes are seldom seen. The generally low standard deviation of Edge Test values on individual artefacts provides fortuitously an indication that resharpening of large tools at a date much later than the original date of manufacture was rare a ZR (see page 134 for a rare example). (G) Aspect. One of the potentially serious hazards that might invalidate the Edge Test is aspect of the site under study. Stones perched on the edge of a high mesa would surely receive more weathering from wind blown particles than those in a sheltered position at the bottom of a cliff. To test this, two plateau sites were compared at ND 4 and ND 8 as described on page 104. (H) Consistency in carrying out the Edge Test on screen. Because the operator has to make decisions about angle and termination when drawing the lines of the flake scars on the screen, different operators may produce different results. When we tested this between two operators (TH and KvO), different results did indeed come out, although their magnitude hardly affected the overall results. In order to ensure all artefacts had (at worst) the same ‘bias’, all Edge Tests were carried out by a single operator (KvO). At the same time, as mentioned above, refinement of the Edge Test program is ongoing.

3.20 Edge cast showing retouch scar on the left side. An Edge Test can be carried out using this edge provided it is long enough and appears to be a contemporary retouch

be possible to obtain valid results on retouched edges, as described under (1) above. (Fig. 3.20). (E) Appropriate angle of edge profile. Almost all artefact edge profiles lie between 60 and 100 degrees. A more acute edge will probably tend to weather faster if only because its greater fragility may result in more frequent chipping. Chipping is a natural part of the edge wear process and in the fullness of time its effect will tend to even out, as discussed in point 6 below. However, if an edge profile is very acute, the greater frequency of chipping may give inappropriate weathering values. Most of the acute edged artefacts have been found in LSA context, from the cave excavations or fresh surface knapping scatters. We have tended to avoid measuring acute-angled weathered artefacts.

(I) Sufficient sample numbers. At some sites the number of diagnostic artefacts is limited. Where diagnostic artefacts are simply not there in quantity, samples may be smaller than is desirable. Sample size tables (such as can be downloaded from the Internet) are often used to determine the minimum sample size needed for valid results. They vary according to the kind of population being sampled. To obtain representative results from Edge Testing artefacts, a sample of 20 will generally yield an accuracy of ± 10% and a sample of 55 will improve this to ± 5%. Of course, we sampled as many artefacts as possible in each category at each site; and quite often the 20 sample minimum was exceeded. (We also carried out our own research to confirm the percentage error on various sample sizes, see Appendix 4.)

(F) Uniformity of results. Where the four Edge Tests on an artefact give results that deviate from the mean by more than 0.3 sq. mm in loss of section mass, the artefact is carefully examined and may be discounted. At Zebra River the number of artefacts of this kind is less than 10% - testimony to long periods of exposure to subaerial weathering which tend to bring about an averaging-out of the eccentricities created by ‘high magnitude events’ of whatever kind. All artefacts lying on the surface for prolonged periods will receive their share of high magnitude events such as large chips, abnormal exposure to prevailing wind, excessive grinding by being on an animal pathway, or abnormal chemical attack through proximity to concentrations of destructive chemicals, (e.g. animal dung). After such a prolonged period we can reasonably expect (and indeed

As we will show below in Section 5, despite the potential hazards, the Edge Test results speak for themselves in terms of validity within individual sites, but not necessarily between different sites. Passing large enough numbers of artefacts through the Edge Test while safeguarding against the pitfalls as far as possible, is the best way to ensure that valid results are obtained. The application of the Edge Test was done in the field whenever possible but the procedure is slower in these conditions. At some sites therefore, bulk samples of

32

Section 3: The Analytical Methods artefacts, especially flakes, were collected and measured in more convenient conditions at Zebra River Lodge.

colours (e.g. Munsell colour 2.5YR 6/4) until turning an iridescent indigo and finally black (in the range Munsell colour 10R 2/1). The rust colours represent iron oxide and the black represents manganese oxide. As manganese is a relatively rare constituent in the earth’s crust, but occurs in greater concentration in desert varnish, it is thought to be caused by biochemical processes, as many forms of bacteria use manganese (Perry & Adams 1978).

The options for display of the Edge Test data are explained below (page 99). 3.1.6 Evaluating Edge Test results: Spotting anomalies The Edge Test results are generally valid within any site for the relative dating of ESA and MSA artefacts. However, three of the sites where Edge Tests were carried out - UR2, KH4 and ZR2 – gave results that would place artefacts in chronological relationships that are highly unlikely. Ironically, the Tests from these places actually add greatly to our understanding of chronology and/or the topographic history, because they bring to our notice unusual weathering events, some of which happened between the deposition of one typology and another. These situations are discussed individually below.

In terms of its relevance to archaeology, desert varnish only forms readily if clasts are not subjected to abrasive action such as wind-blown sand. Thus the absence of wind polish (see below) and the presence of desert varnish both point to a lack of sand-charged wind, which suggests that this has not been a feature of climate in the Study Area. In turn this rules out artefact burial by wind-blown sand. Moreover the presence of desert varnish on an artefact in effect tells us that since its accumulation, erosion/ weathering of the artefact surface has ceased. Of course, the present varnish might theoretically only be the latest, following the removal of a previous layer, thus resetting the varnish clock (Liu & Broecker 2008). However this is unlikely at ZR where long term climatic stability is indicated.

3.1.7 Raw material analysis All the artefacts described in this project, unless otherwise stated, are made of quartzitic sandstone. It was important to establish whether there are significant variations in the composition of this material that may have any effect on degree of hardness and therefore rates of weathering. Analysis of the hardness of 15 samples was carried out. The results, which show that hardness does not vary significantly, are described on page 97.

Can desert varnish be of any help in dating artefacts? According to Liu & Broeker (2007, p.19) ‘the technique has the potential to yield numerical age assignments for surface stone tools’, but that potential is still under development. Unfortunately the rate at which desert varnish forms is poorly understood. It can develop within in tens or hundreds of years, depending upon the local geomorphological circumstances. In a humid environment it can develop within decades. Attempts at dating desert varnish (VML dating) have been made in the arid deserts of the USA (Broecker & Liu, 2001, Liu & Broecker 2000, 2007, 2008 ). Clearly this is a subject needing further attention at ZR. To this end, four samples from ZR were submitted for electron microscope analysis by Dr. David Waters at the Department of Earth Sciences and Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, UK. The results are given in Appendix 5.

3.1.8 Surface analysis of artefacts for climatic and dating evidence Patination on artefacts in temperate zones has been studied for almost a century (e.g. Sturge 1912, Burroni et al, 2002) but little work has been done on quartzitic sandstone in Africa, where the same process is termed ‘desert varnish’ or ‘rock varnish’. In the field at ZR, quartzitic sandstone when freshly exposed is a dull green, (approximating to Munsell colour 5GY 6/1) or sometimes biscuit coloured, but weathering turns it darker as iron and manganese oxides accumulate on the surface together with wind blown clay. It passes through various deepening rust

3.21 Colour contrast on a plano-convex artefact where the dorsal side has been exposed to weathering while the ventral has been protected by long-term face-down orientation.

33

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Differences in colour between ventral and dorsal sides of many artefacts and natural clasts bear witness to the lack of disturbance over long periods. Exposure to the sun, rain and atmosphere accelerates the process of oxidation on the upper side while the underside is protected from these processes. Artefacts of pyramidal form, such as Levallois cores, are especially liable to have darker dorsal sides, because they naturally rest on the flatter ventral surface. (Fig 3.21)

proved impossible to obtain sufficient clean quartz to give any result. 3.1.10.2 The Flip Test The Flip Test (Hardaker & Dunn 2005) provides a numerical assessment of symmetry that is best applied to large samples to test whether they belong to the same population. At Zebra River, it is already evident that Acheulian products belong to different periods, but the variation in styles and weathering that prompts this conclusion does not compartmentalise them into ‘watertight’ groups – there is almost certainly overlap in both these criteria. In these circumstances, it was thought that sample sizes would have to be rather larger than we currently have at ZR to produce clear results from the Flip Test.

Another aspect to rock surfaces that offers promising potential, wind polish, is rarely seen at ZR. As mentioned above, desert polish and wind polish may be mutually exclusive. In arid environments in or near sand deserts this phenomenon is also seen on some surface clasts and artefacts (Fig. 5.49 page 138). The rate at which this condition develops can be very fast – on the outskirts of the town of Sebha in the central Libyan Sahara, an area where sand-charged winds are common, drinks cans discarded by the roadside were seen to have a similar glaze to the stones around them! 3.1.9 The Role of Slope Clearly, the greater the slope the more potential there is for surface clasts to move, and conversely, if surfaces are flat, gravitational movement will be virtually impossible. Not all artefact scatters are on totally flat ground at ZR, but the slopes on which we find most artefacts are less than about 3 degrees. The question then is, what effect do slopes between 0 and 3 degrees have on downslope movement of clasts? Although downslope movement has been studied in various environments including deserts (e.g. Vincent & Shah, 1995, Adelsberger & Smith 2009) there are no studies on the movement of clasts on desert pavements with slopes less than 3 degrees. We will show below that from the evidence of the artefact scatters themselves, plus experimental work in torrential rainfall, downslope movement of the ZR artefacts on sites is negligible (page 141). 3.1.10 Other methods that were considered 3.1.10.1 Cosmogenic dating It should also be added that cosmogenic dating was considered as a means of assessing the age of surface artefacts but it cannot be used for material that has lain continuously on the surface (as opposed to buried) and therefore it has no contribution to make in the Zebra River study. Isotopes of beryllium and aluminium that have a measurable half-life are created in quartz when exposed at the surface. However, it is only when the sample is buried at depth that the isotopes begin to decay, independently of each other. Before we were aware of this, a sample artefact from the Plateau was submitted to the processing laboratory at the University of Glasgow for analysis, but in any case it

34

SECTION 4: THE FIELDWORK STUDIES

4.1 General field procedures: Major and Other sites

close by (shown on Fig 4.1).. Within these areas, satellite imagery was used very effectively to locate likely sites, almost all of which were subsequently visited on the ground. Less likely types of terrain, such as isolated plateau tops, or areas with no satellite imagery pointers, were covered by sample traverses. A high proportion of the major artefact scatters has thus been identified, and an impression of the density and spread of artefact distribution ‘in between’ has been gathered (cf the ‘scatter between the patches discussed by Isaac & Harris (1975)).

As we have seen, the Study Area straddles the Plateau and the Gorge; archaeologically this has given rise to three kinds of topographic context for sites – those within the Gorge, those intermediate between the Gorge and the Plateau, and those on the Plateau. Within the Gorge, the Acheulian and MSA are common. On the margins of the Gorge, Acheulian is present but less common. Away from the Gorge on the Plateau, it is usually absent. MSA and LSA artefacts are widespread over all three types.

Fig 4.2 is a summary table of all sites recorded in the Study.

With a greater Study Area extending to 110 x 80km, sampling rather than total coverage was inevitable, but the amount of time given to each site has varied from minutes to days. There is thus a second way to classify the sites, depending on their importance. In the listing below, the sites are arranged by geographic region and subdivided into ‘Major’ and ‘Other’ according to the amount of work done on them.

4.2 Major Plateau Sites 4.2.1 Nudaus 4 (ND4) 24°27’56.20”S 16°27’39.50”E Fig. 4.3 and Fig 4.4) This is one of several mesa-like plateaus situated about 10km from the Great Escarpment edge (Fig 4.5). The site is of great importance because of its isolated location, abundant Levallois content, and an apparent lack of ESA presence. The segment of the mesa containing dense scatters of artefacts lies between 1510 and 1520 metres above sea level and has an area about 570 x 250 metres. It is ringed on three sides by a rock escarpment separating

In 2008 it was decided to define two ‘Core Areas’ within which we would attempt to find all major sites. The main core area of 13 x 8km covers a section of the Gorge, with adjacent Intermediate areas and part of the Plateau, and a detached Core Area covers another part of the Plateau

4.1 Distribution of sites (excluding long traverses) in the focal area, with site name abbreviations 35

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Site name

Code

Location, centre of site

Summary

Nudaus 0

ND0

24°28'52.34"S 16°23'8.11"E

Nudaus 1

ND1

Nudaus 2

ND2

Nudaus 3

ND3

Nudaus 4 Nudaus 5

ND4 ND5

Start point 24°32'7.29"S 16°27'3.09"E Start point 24°29'25.70"S 16°27'43.10"E Start point 24°28'50.70"S 16°23'3.60"E 24°27'56.20"S 16°27'39.50"E 24°28'25.40"S 16°25'50.70"E

Original site (2001) with abundant Mode 3 and rare Acheulian Foot traverse, shale with few finds until mesa top Vehicle traverse, shale, few finds

Nudaus 6

ND6

Nudaus7

ND7

Nudaus8

ND8

Nudaus 9

ND9

Ou Kamkas 1

OK1

Centre point 24° 28' 36.5" S 16 27 51.8" E 24°35'23.41"S 16°29'42.83"E

Ou Kamkas 2

OK2

24°35'11.4"S 16°29'37.0"E

Lahnstein1 Lahnstein 2

LH1 LH2

24°28'49.46"S 16°33'32.47"E 24°2843.57"S' 16°32'10.51"E

Kamkas 1

KK1

24°34' 0.60"S 16°28'33.50"E

Kamkas2

KK2

24°34'29.90"S 16°29'8.10"E

Kamkas 3 Karab 1 Karab 2 Marion Reitz 1 Glukauf 1

KK3 KR1 KR2 MR1 GK1

24°37'53.90"S 16°33'31.10"E 24°37'58.7"S, 16°40'00.6"E. 24°40'38.77"S 16°47'7.32"E 24°38'28.30"S 16°56'52.40"E 24°41'44.70"S 16°53'19.30"E

Glukauf 2

GK2

24°40'35.50"S 16°56'27.50"E

Glukauf 3 Kabib 1

GK3 KB1

24°42'43.88"S 16°56'55.48"E 24°38'28.30"S 16°56'52.40"E

Kabib 2

KB2

24°35'7.20"S 16°55'52.20"E

Kabib 3 Nomtsas 1 Nomtsas2 Nomtsas3

KB3 NT1 NT2 NT3

24°33'3.13"S 16°55'7.23"E 24°24'14.70"S 16°49'12.70"E 24°25'14.00"S 16°50'45.00"E 24°26'21.70"S 16°51'36.87"E

Nomtsas 4 Gamis 1 Gamis 2

NT4 GM1 GM2

24°30'39.85"S 16°54'3.67"E 24°15'11.1."S 16°33'53.2"E 24°15'1.84"S 16°35'50.37"E

Gamis 3 Ounois 1

GM3 ON1

24°14'48.49"S 16°35'54.25"E 24°16'45.50"S 16°25'54.00"E

Ounois 2

ON2

24°16'36.20"S 16°25'58.10"E

PLATEAU SITES

Start point 24°29'13.22"S 16°23'9.91"E Start point 24°27'28.07"S 16°27'22.75"E 24°27'50.29"S 16°27'46.23"E

36

Foot traverse close to ND0, shale, few artefacts Plateau top, abundant MSA Plateau mesa, mostly non workable sandstone and few artefacts Foot traverse 3.7km plateau into ZR valley, few finds. Foot traverse across mesa top N. of ND4, unworkable bedrock, few finds Valley floor adjacent to ND4, Levallois scatters Foot traverse S. of ND4, very few artefacts Quartzitic sandstone, very dense MSA ½ km north of OK1 on plateau top; quartzitic skin on shale, sparse MSA Unworkable sandstone, no artefacts Tabular quartzitic bedrock, almost no artefacts Shale bedrock, only four undiagnostic artefacts Close to KK1, but on quartzitic bedrock, 27 undiagnostic artefacts Shale bedrock, 5x5m grid: 4 flakes Shale bedrock, few artefacts Shale bedrock, no artefacts Shale bedrock, no artefacts Quartzitic sandstone in Fish River Group, LSA Quartzitic sandstone with MSA and LSA Quartzitic sandstone with MSA Quartzitic sandstone with MSA and LSA Border of sandstone & Quartzitic sandstone, dense flakes & cores Shale bedrock, no artefacts Unworkable bedrock, no artefacts Sandstone bedrock, 2 LSA flakes Sandstone bedrock; 5x5 metre grid yielded 6 LSA flakes Shale bedrock, no artefacts Narob valley, Acheulian & MSA Narob Valley terrace, derived ESA/MSA Quartzitic sandstone, MSA and LSA Shale with quartzitic skin; 56 artefacts LSA and a few Mode 3 Tabular Quartzitic sandstone: Mode 3 and LSA

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

Harughas 1

HG1

24°22'48.20"S 16°24'22.50"E

Harughas 2 Harughas 3

HG2 24°27'5.00"S 16°23'10.90"E HG3 ° 24°27'5.00"S 16°23'10.90"E

Harughas 4 Kambes 1

HG4 ° 24°27'5.00"S 16°23'10.90"E KM1 24° 2'28.30"S 16°30'13.20"E

Kambes 2

KM2

24° 1'56.70"S 16°30'14.84"E

Kambes 3

KM3

24° 3'53.20"S 16°28'51.20"E

Spitskop 1 Mooi Rivier1&2

SP1 MO1 MO2

24° 6'30.90"S 16°26'32.00"E 24°39'41.43"S 16°11'17.80" E 24°39'42.00"S 16°10'44.20"E

Zebra River 1

ZR1

24°30'52.30"S 16°17'15.00"E

Zebra River 1a

ZR1a

24°31'4.17"S 16°17'18.83"E

Zebra River 2

ZR2

24°32'2.70"S 16°18'38.60"E

Zebra River 3 Zebra River 4

ZR3 ZR4

24°31'1.66"S 16°18'32.99"E 24°32'17.76"S 16°18'59.94"E

Zebra River 4a

ZR4a

24°32'23.90"S 16°19'28.90"E

Zebra River 5

ZR5

24°31'3.50"S 16°18'46.02"E

Kyffhauser 3

KH3

24°30'55.49"S 16°18'57.46"E

Zebra River 7

ZR7

24°32'38.96"S 16°20'3.26"E

Zebra River 8

ZR8

24°32'39.72"S 16°20'53.57"E

Zebra River 9

ZR9

24°32'23.92"S 6°21'17.39"E

Zebra River 10

ZR10

24°32'6.04"S 16°21'16.97"E

Zebra River 11

ZR11

24°31'49.60"S 16°21'33.76"E

Zebra River 13 Ralph’s cave Zebra River 14

ZR13

24°32'11.75"S 16°17'19.96"E

ZR14

24°31'25.01"S 16°17'24.59"E

Zebra River 15

ZR15

24°30'44.17"S 16°16'22.53"E

GORGE SITES

Quartzitic sandstone on shale: MSA and undiagnostic flakes Unworkable sandstone: few flakes Plateau top, dense MSA artefacts Plateau top, dense scatters Edge of Naukluft scarp: Tabular quartzitic raw material: Levallois As BP1, classic Levallois, long blades, elongated cores, large flakes Alluvial fan from Naukluft, unworkable raw material, no finds Fossil lakeshore, few artefacts Limestone bedrock in far SW of Study area; few artefacts Quartzitic sandstone on limestone; abundant flakes, some Acheulian Apron front of Wendt cave, no artefacts Quartzitic skin upon limestone bedrock, abundant artefacts esp. flakes & blades Gail’s Cave site; LSA Quartzitic skin on limestone, Acheulian & Levallois artefacts Opposite side of river from ZR4, fewer finds Quartzitic skin on limestone bedrock; Acheulian & Levallois Quartzitic skin on limestone bedrock; Acheulian & Levallois Quartzitic skin on limestone; blades and cores Quartzitic skin on limestone; blades and cores plus Levallois Quartzitic skin on limestone; flakes, blades and cores Quartzitic skin on limestone; flakes, blades and cores Quartzitic skin on limestone: long blades and scrapers Cave in Limestone cliff with LSA artefacts on threshold Thin quartzitic skin on limestone; (one) Acheulian & plenty MSA Quartzitic skin on limestone adjacent to Zebra River, MSA & strong LSA

SITES INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN PLATEAU AND GORGE

Zebra River 6

ZR6

24°30'32.16"S 16°17'39.69"E

Kyffhauser 1 and Kyffhauser 2 Kyffhauser 4

KH1 KH2 KH4

24° 29' 8.00"S 16° 19' 12.30"E 24° 29' 2.03"S 16° 21' 0.63"E 24° 29' 05.7"S 16° 17' 46.3"E

Kyffhauser 5

KH5

24° 29' 25.5"S 16° 18 '03.6"E

Kyffhauser 6

KH6

24°30'2.00"S 16°17'57.80"E

37

Large site: Quartzitic skin on limestone bedrock; variable scatters Streamside detritus with mainly undiagnostic flakes and cores Quartzitic skin on limestone bedrock; Acheulian and MSA Quartzitic skin on limestone: thin scatters incl. Levallois Quartzitic skin on limestone: Rich Acheulian and MSA

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Kyffhauser 7 Neuras 1

KH7 NR1

24°30’ 0” S 16°18’ 10”E 24°28'11.90"S 16°16'13.86"E

Neuras 2

NR2

24°28'9.19"S 16°16'11.57"E

Neuras 3

NR3

24°27'53.00"S 16°16'12.00"E

Neuras 4

NR4

24°27'55.16"S 16°16'31.86"E

Neuras 5

NR5

24°27'41.89"S 16°15'55.16"E

Urikos 1

UR1

24.30.09.9S, 16.06.57.2E

Urikos 2

UR2

24°28'42.32"S 16° 7'13.65"E

Zebra River 12

ZR12

24°32'11.75"S 16°17'19.96"E

OTHER SITES

Loose quartzitic scatters with MSA Quartzitic skin on limestone with thin ESA Quartzitic skin on limestone with MSA Quartzitic skin on limestone with few ESA Thin quartzitic skin on limestone few artefacts Quartzitic skin on limestone with ESA and MSA Tsauchab River valley; Acheulian and other finds recorded but fluvially altered. Ancient pond with dense flake and blade scatters Isolated mesa top in limestone, occasional undiagnostic finds

4.2 Summary of sites

Fig. 4.2 Summary list of sites. Names in bold highlight the more important sites

4.3 Location of ND4 and ND8

4.4 The mesa-top site of ND4 38

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.5 ND4 map. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

4.6 Typical surface on the ND4 Plateau top

39

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia it from the surrounding valley at 1485-1495 metres. The plateau is capped by quartzitic sandstone and has two obvious advantages as an occupation site: views on three sides and abundant lithic raw material.

At the southern tip of the dense area of ND4, seven contiguous 5x5 metre grid squares were laid out starting at the escarpment edge and moving inwards, to assess whether there was a greater concentration of artefacts close to the edge. This proved not to be the case. Rather, there was a slight tendency for artefact density to be less near the escarpment edge and greater towards the centre of the promontory.

4.2.1.1 Fieldwork at ND4. (Fig 4.6) The fieldwork here comprised several traverses over the mesa and onward to an adjacent mesa to the north (ND7), to establish the extent of dense scatters. The main occupation area is situated on the southern promontory which offers vistas on three sides. ND7 contained very little suitable lithic raw material and only a thin scatter of artefacts.

These grids were searched and all artefacts noted. The results are shown in Fig 5.9 page 106. Two teams of two people were used to count the artefacts within each grid. All artefacts in the grid were removed and placed at the

4.7 Excavation at ND4.

4.8 Buried artefacts from the ND4 excavation 40

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies side for counting and analysis. It was quickly found that different eyes see different things. Therefore after completion of each grid, the teams checked each others’ grids, picking up any artefacts not noted by the first pair, and thus ensuring no bias would accrue through one team being more vigilant than the other. After the analysis, the artefacts were put back in the grids thus reducing our disturbance of the scatter. The seven grids yielded a total of 455 artefacts. In addition another 5x5 metre grid was sampled in 2008 for Levallois material for further Edge Tests, yielding 22 items. These are included in Fig 4.9. As a naturally ‘ring-fenced’ site, ND4 was selected to attempt to calculate the total number of artefacts within the site. (Page 105) It was therefore necessary to determine what proportion, if any, of artefacts were concealed beneath the thin, patchy soil. An initial ‘scrape’ in 2007 reaching 15cm revealed five flakes and one flattish Levallois core. In 2010 two more metre square trenches adjacent to one another were selected for excavation (Fig 4.7). Results and implications of these finds are given on pages 110-11 .

Type

Class

3 7 10 11 12 14 15 17 20 21 26 27 29 Totals

Cleaver Elongated Core Hndx Unstruck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Levallois flake Blade Bifacial Core tool Blade core LSA Core LSA flake Core/Discoidal core Flake incl RTF Debitage Hybrid

Numbered incl 2010 excavated 1 30 12 41 24 11 1 5 1 1 5 101 14 7 254

2005 Grids not numbered 0 4 5 24 15 10 0 0 0 0 102 243 52 0 455

4.9 Recorded artefacts from ND4 of lesser quality: clearly skills would have varied between individuals and from generation to generation.

GPS plotting of some individual artefacts was also carried out at ND4; but the density of material here is so great that making a map of all diagnostic items would have taken many weeks. The general picture of artefact spreads was assessed by eye.

The site also contains significant numbers of ‘elongated core handaxes’ discussed below (page 144) (Fig 4.11) together with normal flakes, blades, some quite long, and blade cores. Owing to the weathered condition of the material, retouch on flakes is not easy to detect or to distinguish from natural edge damage, but it is probably occasional, e.g. on artefacts 417 and 535. Levallois points are present but rare. A thin spread of LSA material is seen, in the form of fresh undiagnostic flakes and cores.

Extensive Edge Tests were carried out at the site, adopting the policy of assessing a roughly equal number of flakes and diagnostic artefacts. Full discussion of the site is provided in Section 5 below. 4.2.1.2 Artefact summary for ND4 Fig 4.9

4.2.2 Nudaus 8 (ND8) 24°27’50.29”S 16°27’46.23”E (see Fig 4.3)

The tables in Section 4, unless otherwise stated, summarise the ‘numbered’ artefacts found at the site, by category. As mentioned above (page 4) these tables are therefore not necessarily an objective record of artefacts collected under controlled conditions in gridded areas, but they do provide an overview of the flavour of the material at different sites.

This site is located in a small horseshoe valley adjacent to the escarpment of ND4. The site is important because because of the presence of an abundance of Levallois material in a different physical environment from ND4, 15-20 metres lower than the flat mesa top of ND4 close by. The artefacts lie in a broad cluster straddling the small stream course in the centre of the valley about 300 x 200 metres in size, on gently sloping ground. They extend across the stream course on to the rising ground the other side, thus precluding the possibility that they have fallen from the ND4 site. Any artefacts falling into the stream bed itself will have been transported away over time, but all other artefacts are judged to lie roughly in situ (see the discussion on page 104 below).

The lithic assemblage here is notable for its high quality Levallois cores and flakes, the absence of Acheulian material (save for a single cleaver from the far west of the mesa, not in the main site), and a series of ‘hybrids’ discussed below (Page 165). It is also notable for the density of artefacts on the ground. The artefacts tend to be wellweathered with a reddish to blackish colour. The Levallois core and flake element (Fig 4.10A and Fig 4.10B)) possess a cohesiveness suggestive of the dominance of a single community with exceptional skills in fashioning this type of artefact. Many specimens show selection of large blanks, consistently skilled knapping of the pyramid with long thin flakes removed with a soft hammer, and almost perfect flake removals fitting into the base of the core like an oyster in a shell. Along with these prize examples there is however a significant number of Levallois items

4.2.2.1 Fieldwork at ND8 Fig. 4.12a & b Following the discovery of the ND8 site, a brief assessment was made of the other detrital slopes below the mesa edge, and the surrounding shallow valley: both areas had to be 41

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.10A Levallois artefacts from ND4

42

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.10B Cleaver and blade from ND4

43

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.11A Elongated Core handaxes from ND4. More are shown in Figs 5.61 and 5.68

44

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.11 B Elongated Core handaxes from ND4. More are shown in Figs 5.61 and 5.68

45

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.11 C Elongated Core handaxes from ND4. More are shown in Figs 5.61 and 5.68

46

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.12a Artefacts from the MSA site of ND8: (a) Unstruck Levallois core (note similarity with Levallois flake; (c) Elongated core with cleaver-like removal at end; (d) Struck Levallois core; (e) cleaver

elongated core type); (b)

47

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.12b Unstruck Levallois core, illustrated with a combination of drawing and photograph.

4.2.2.2 Artefact summary for ND8 (Fig 4.13)

crossed to gain access to the top. Few artefacts were seen in the valley, mainly single strays. One additional small cluster of flakes and elongated core handaxes was noted. Very few artefacts were observed on the steep slopes below the mesa. The ND8 scatter may thus be a rare instance of an occupation site at a lower elevation than the mesa top.

Artefacts were only recorded within the grid for the purpose of comparing weathering with the Levallois on top of the adjacent ND4 mesa, as described above. Fig 4.13 shows the all the recorded artefacts from the site.

In 2007, five struck and one unstruck Levallois cores were recorded and photographed as a representative selection, randomly collected, at ND8. Realising that the weathering of the artefacts at ND8 could usefully be compared with those on top of the adjacent mesa at ND4, we returned in 2008 to carry out a more formal survey. A 20x20 metre grid was laid out inside which all diagnostic artefacts were counted. They comprised 37 artefacts: 10 unstruck Levallois cores, 14 struck Levallois cores, 9 Levallois flakes, two elongated core handaxes and two possible cleavers/worked points. Of these, 28 items were given artefact numbers for the purpose of Edge Testing, but only 15 items proved suitable for the Test. Undiagnostic material was not counted in the grid, but was of a density comparable with ND4.

Type

Class

3 7 10 11 12 TOTAL

Cleaver Elongated core handaxe Levallois unstruck core Levallois struck core Levallois Flake

Number of items 1+1? 2 11 19 9 43

4.13 Recorded artefacts from ND8 4.2.3 Ou Kamkas 1 (OK1) 24°35’23.41”S 16°29’42.83”E (Fig 4.14)

(Further searches in this area (at ND7 and ND9) are described on pages 56-7)

Although a Plateau site, this location is not on the very top of the plateau but on a slope averaging 2.3 degrees on the north side of the Kamkas River valley, some 4.5 metres

48

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies artefacts lie amongst a very dense surface-enriched zone of quartzitic sandstone clasts (see orange area on fig 4.15). There appeared to be no Levallois flakes or blades despite the cores, suggesting this may have been a factory site from which the tools were transported elsewhere. The intensity of the scatter, plus the generally large size of the artefacts, suggests that those remaining have not moved significantly despite the slope. A field check between the scatter and the stream bed below revealed almost no artefacts, although there was some vegetation concealing the bare ground. Thus it seems even smaller items have not undergone a downslope movement. The stream bed itself at this point is filled with sandy fluvial sediment, covering up any potential large clasts that may be present there: a search over about 100 metres revealed no artefacts at all.

4.14 Location of OK1

above the valley floor. The top of the plateau lies at an elevation 22.5 metres above the streambed at this point. (Fig 4.15).

4.2.3.1 Fieldwork at OK1 Unstructured walking was carried out to determine the extent of the scatter and the typology of artefacts. Photos of representative items were taken but no formal count was made as it was intended to revisit the site later. The items recorded were five unstruck Levallois cores, one struck Levallois core, two elongated core handaxes, one retouched flake, and two long blade cores.

Despite its slope, this site contained a very dense cluster of MSA artefacts: Levallois cores, long blade cores, large flakes, elongated core handaxes and a few retouched flakes Fig 4.16. It is a rare example of a Plateau riverbank site. Within a wider area of 80 x 80 metres, there was a very dense central zone of c. 30 x 30 metres. The

4.15 Ou Kamkas farm from the air, showing the D850 crossing the Kamkas River. The orange area shows the extent of the concentrated site of MSA material at OK1. 49

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.16 Selected artefacts from OK1.

50

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies cores and flakes but with some MSA blade cores. In a short unstructured roadside walk we recorded ten flakes, one retouched flake, four MSA blade cores and five other cores. No other diagnostic material was seen. HG 3 and 4 were visited in 2009 in an effort to augment our knowledge of plateau and mesa-top sites. HG 3 is at the south-western corner of a large mesa-top. Here, the bedrock is a rather coarse quartzitic sandstone, which coincides with dense MSA artefact scatters, but on other mesa tops, where raw material was even poorer, no artefacts were seen in the vicinity. A 2.5 metre square grid was taken here, sampling all artefacts.

4.17 Location of HG1-4

At the site of HG 4, located 1.4 km south of Harughas Farm on the lower quartzitic pediment, fairly good quality raw material coincided with another area of dense scatters. Type HG3 10 11 12 17 25 26 27 Totals HG4 10 11 12 15 19 25 26 Totals

4.18 The Harughas sites. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe 4.2.4 Harughas 1, (HG1) 24°22’48.2”S 16°24’22.5”E; Harughas 3 (HG3). 24°23’45.82”S 16°24’14.83”E; and Harughas 4 (HG4) 24°22’40.26”S 16°24’22.36”E Fig 4.17, Fig 4.18. These three sites are taken together, because together with the surrounding area they illustrate the greater importance of raw material proximity than topographic position in the choice of occupation sites by MSA people.

Class

Number of items Grid Other

Unstruck Levallois core Struck Levallois core Levallois Flake Blade core Pyramid core Undiagnostic core Flake Other (Pointed tool)

5 3 4 1 1 2 4 1 21

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unstruck Lev core Struck Levallois core Levallois Flake Bifacial chopping tool Convergent core Pyramid core Undiagnostic core

1 2 3 5 2 0 0 13

1 0 3 4 0 1 2 11

Fig. 4.20 Recorded artefacts from HG3/4 Fig 4.18 shows the location of the 7 x 10 metre grid from which artefacts were sampled.

The terrain in this area is dominated by two north-south faults (Fig 4.18) giving rise to two west-facing escarpments that separate the high mesa top of HG3 from the lower mesa to its west, on which are located HG1 and HG4. The difference in elevation is some 25 metres. HG4 marks the watershed between the north-flowing streams of the Narob catchment at Harughas Farm and the east-flowing catchment of the Ami-Aub to the south.

4.2.4.2 Artefact summary for HG3 and 4 Fig 4.19 & 4 Fig 4.20 At HG3 artefacts were only recorded in the grid, while at HG4 a further zone was searched (Fig.4.20). Both the density and typology of these two sites are different. 4.3 Other Plateau Sites (a) near the Gorge

4.2.4.1 Fieldwork at HG sites

4.3.1. Nudaus 0 (ND0) 24°28’52.34”S 16°23’8.11”E Fig 4.21

HG1, which was visited on the first expedition in 2002, is located in the same area as HG4; it contained quartzitic sandstone on a shale base, yielding mainly undiagnostic

A roadside survey, at the point where the first discovery of dense scatters was made in 2001, prompting the 51

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.19 Artefacts from HG3 and HG4

4.21 Location of ND0,1,2,& 3

52

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.22 Acheulian artefacts from the Plateau edge site at ND0: (a) large crude handaxe, (b) finely made

handaxe, (c) cleaver, (d) enlarged photo of the lower edge and butt of (b) showing heavy use wear on the butt cf minimal weathering on the edge, (e) small crude weathered handaxe

53

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.23 Nudaus 1 from the air Nampal project. No formal work was done here but the site contained many large flakes and elongated core handaxes of MSA style. Interestingly, although a Plateau site, Acheulian material was present in the form of three pointed handaxes and a cleaver (Fig 4.22; the drawings were made by John Wymer). The handaxes are noteworthy for their great variation in style and quality. Also at this site, a scatter of fresh flakes and cores betrayed a knapping event of LSA date. Very close to this site the formal traverse of ND3 was carried out (see below).

which we recorded as a possible knapping site. However, the mesa top is capped with a fairly thin layer of quartzitic sandstone, upon which were seen denser scatters of LSA flakes and cores. 4.3.3 Nudaus 2 (ND2) Traverse starting at 24°29’25.70”S 16°27’43.10”E (Fig 4.24a) A 2.3 km vehicle traverse on the north side of the Nudaus River, on shale bedrock with occasional quartzitic beds but in tabular or friable material which would be impossible to use as a lithic resource. As at Nudaus 1, artefacts are very infrequent along this route. Seven stopping points yielded only one thin scatter of MSA material and two other single finds.

4.3.2 Nudaus 1 (ND1) Foot traverse starting at 24°32’7.29”S 16°27’3.09”E (Fig 4.23) A 660 metre traverse along the boundary fence between Nudaus and Kamkas farms towards a mesa top. The purpose was to gain further information about the relationship between raw materials and lithic scatters. From the road to the base of the mesa, the bedrock was shale with no quartzitic sandstone clasts. On this stretch there were almost no artefacts: stopping to search every few metres we encountered mostly single finds or no finds, but also one thin scatter of fresh medium sized LSA flakes,

4.3.4 Nudaus 3 (ND3) Foot traverse starting at 24°28’50.70”S 16°23’3.60”E A traverse of about 750 metres from the road close to ND0 into the interior of the Plateau and back along a parallel route (fig 4.24b). The bedrock is shale but there is a surface-enriched layer of quartzitic sandstone. The

54

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.25 Location of ND5-9 represent knappable raw material – it simply reflects a high iron content in the exposed stone. This situation was repeated even more starkly at Lahnstein Farm (see below page 162). 4.24a ND2 Traverse © 2009 Cnes/Spot Image © 2009 AND © TeleAtlas

4.3.6 Nudaus 6 (ND6) Foot traverse starting at 24°29’13.22”S 16°23’9.91”E (Fig 4.26a) Another traverse covering 3.7km showing ‘orange’ on the pre-2007 Google Earth imagery close to the Escarpment, made to test the frequency of artefacts vs the distribution of knappable quartzitic raw material. The traverse begins on the D850 road less than 1km from the edge of the Escarpment and runs south across very slight relief on the plateau, along the fence separating Nudaus and Kyffhauser farms. After 2.5 km (Wpt 51) it dips 50 metres into the

4.24b ND3 Traverse. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe purpose of the traverse was to discover the extent of the dense scatter observed at the roadside at ND0. The result was a variable density with fairly frequent LSA scatters. 4.3.5 Nudaus 5 (ND5) 24°28’25.40”S 16°25’50.70”E Fig 4.25 A low level plateau 3.7 km to the west of ND4, this features prominently on Google Earth imagery as a bright orange mesa and was therefore traversed on foot. However the capping here is of non-quartzitic sandstone, not knappable, except in a 30 metre stretch where hard quartzitic clasts coincided with a cluster of MSA material including a local chopper-core industry (together with a single, very Acheulian-like, biface, artefact No. 75 (see Fig 5.78a page 162) on which Edge Tests were carried out. The fieldwalking at ND5 showed that orange on the (pre-2007) Google Earth imagery does not necessarily

4.26a ND6 Traverse. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe 55

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia upper end of the Zebra River valley before ascending again to a flat mesa top surrounded by escarpment on three sides (Wpt 53). Shortly after leaving the road the frequency of artefacts fell away despite the presence of good raw material, and after 700 metres artefacts were almost absent.

top of the mesa (Wpt 53), almost no artefacts except the odd LSA item were seen, despite an apparently knappable skin of quartzitic sandstone. At this point, the mesa is broad and very flat; views of the surrounding escarpment valleys can only be obtained at the mesa edges; the vistas from the interior are more restricted.

After 1 km (Wpt 48) the bedrock slowly changed to sandstone, then shale, and occasional LSA scatters were encountered, but no older material. This continued until the descent into the Zebra River valley (Wpt 51), which here forms a small V-shaped feature with a very narrow river terrace lying in the valley floor. Above this on the south side (Wpt 52) a detrital fan contained Levallois material including cores and flakes, the only substantial artefact scatter on this traverse. This feature corresponds to those seen further downstream at ZR11, 10, 9, 8 and 7. On

4.3.7 Nudaus 7 (ND7) Foot traverse starting at 24°27’28.07”S 16°27’22.75”E (fig. 4.26b) A foot traverse across the top of the mesa immediately north of the prolific ND4 site, covering 1.29km. The site yielded sparse scatters of mainly Levallois flakes and cores amongst a raw material resource comprising generally poor quality crumbly quartzitic sandstone. Many of the artefacts were made on material of better quality than the local stone so were presumably imported to this site.

4.26b ND7-9 Traverses. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe 56

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies 4.3.8 Nudaus 9 (ND9) Centre point 24 28 36.5 S 16 27 51.8 E (Fig. 4.26b)

4.4.4 Kamkas 1 (KK1) 24°34’0.60”S 16°28’33.50”E Roadside stop on the D 850 NW of Ou Kamkas farm entrance. The bedrock here is shale; a 5x5 metre grid was taken. In this sample only four artefacts were found: three flakes and one blade, all non-diagnostic.

A foot traverse from ND4 southwest towards ND5, via the ridge to the south. Much of the bedrock is sandstone, of unworkable quality, and as usual these areas have few or no artefacts, but when it is quartzitic, some artefacts are usually seen.

4.4.5 Kamkas 2 (KK2) 24°34’29.90”S 16°29’8.10”E On the D 850 just SE of Kamkas 1 but this time on bedrock of sandstone/quartzitic sandstone. A 5x5m grid was taken to compare with KK1 and KK3. It yielded 27 non diagnostic artefacts, all flakes, blades or cores.

During this traverse, plus the traverse at ND7 and other walks in the area, we seldom found more than thin scatters of artefacts except at ND8. One other scatter labelled ‘dense’ was recorded south of ND4 (see fig 4.26b) but this was not investigated in detail.

4.4.6 Kamkas 3 (KK3) 24°37’53.90”S 16°33’31.10”E

4.4 (b) East of the Gorge (Fig 2.1).

On the D850 to the east of Kamkas 2, another 5x5m grid was taken on shale bedrock with only 4 flakes found. Fig 3.6 (page 26) shows the grid underway at this site.

The bedrock on the Plateau in this region comprises alternating bands of shales and sandstones. The latter vary in composition from soft iron-rich pure sandstones to highly diagenised quartzitics. Hence this was a good area to sample a range of potential Palaeolithic raw material resources to gauge their correlation with artefact scatters. In this area the correlation was 100%, i.e. scatters are totally coincident with suitable raw material and in areas lacking raw material only stray artefacts are seen.

4.4.7 Karab 1 (KR1) 24°37’58.7”S, 16°40’00.6”E A roadside stop on the D850 on shale bedrock. A ‘background hiss’ of quartzitic artefacts was noted amongst which was a fine Levallois point. A formal grid was not taken.

4.4.1 Ou Kamkas 2 (OK2) 24°35’11.4”S 16°29’37.0”

4.5 (c) Plateau Sites in the Fish River geological subgroup

A roadside check 0.41km 400m north of the prolific MSA site at Ou Kamkas 1, this site is on top of the Plateau above the Kamkas River. The bedrock is quartzitic sandstone scatters on shale; the artefacts are thinly scattered MSA blades, flakes and cores, but without any sign of true Levallois.

Strictly speaking, the following 12 sites lie within the Fish River geological subgroup and therefore outside the Nama shales and sandstones of the Kuibis and Schwarzrand Subgroup that define Study Area. This region was sampled in 2002 by ‘drive and search’ method to assess whether artefacts may also occur on other geological formations. In this area, the local rock was seen to be a semi-knappable sandstone not unlike the quartzitics of the Nama Group, but less consistently fine-grained and diagenised. The topography in this region is fairly flat, typical of the Plateau top, where streams, forming the headwaters of the Fish River catchment, have only incised gently into the landscape. They would provide water only in the rainy season. The locations of these sites is shown on Fig 2.1 page 15.

4.4.2 Lahnstein 1 (LH1) 24°28’49.10”S 16°33’32.40”E On satellite imagery taken prior to 2007, one of the northsouth bands of Nama sandstones and shales in the vicinity of Lahnstein Farm reflected a much brighter orange colour than others on the Plateau. A long rough journey to reach the place only revealed that this colour was once again caused by the bedrock containing more iron; in fact it was a crumbly sandstone, less diagenised than the quartzitic rock with knappable qualities. A thorough search over a 100 metre stretch of enriched surface clasts revealed not a single artefact. Even the ubiquitous LSA was absent.

4.5.1 Karab 2 (KR2) 24°40’38.77”S 16°47’7.32”E Roadside stop near the geological junction between the Kuibis and Schwarzrand and Fish River Subgroups, showing shale bedrock and no artefacts.

4.4.3 Lahnstein 2 (LH2) 24°28’43.50”S 16°32’10.50”E

4.5.2 Marion Reitz 1 (MR1) 24°40’19.03”S 16°52’14.99”E

About 2.25 km to the west of LH1, a further dense scatter of clasts was examined. Here the bedrock was tabular quartzitic sandstone, more cohesive than the pure sandstone of LH1. Here too was a thin scatter of greenish LSA flakes and cores and a very few more rounded flakes and cores of orange hue. This was an example of poor, but workable, raw material yielding a thin crop of artefacts.

This site also contained no good raw material and yielded no artefacts. 4.5.3 Glukauf 1 (GK1) 24°41’44.70”S 16°53’19.30”E At this point the bedrock is a very dark blue-grey sandstone which appears to be unworkable. A scatter of 14 flakes and

57

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia four retouched flakes, together with one core, revealed an LSA knapping event within a 10 metre radius.

4.5.7 Kabib 2 (KB2) 24°35’7.20”S 16°55’52.20”E (Fig 2.1)

4.5.4 Glukauf 2 (GK2) 24°40’35.50”S 16°56’27.50”E

An interesting site located on the border between quartzitic sandstone and shale bedrock, containing a dense cluster of large red artefacts, all very weathered, and comprising only flakes and cores. In the limited time available, and faced with a hostile farmer, it was not possible to investigate further.

Poor quality raw material yielded a single Levallois core. 4.5.5 Glukauf 3 (GK3) 24°42’43.88”S 16°56’55.48”E Roadside stop on Fish River quartzitic bedrock. A 5x5 metre grid yielded 2 large flakes, 5 medium flakes, 5 Levallois cores (three just outside the grid), and 9 other cores. Nearly all items were weathered and appeared to belong to a single MSA episode.

4.5.8 Kabib 3 (KB3) 24°32’43.19”S 16°55’5.80”E We stopped at this roadside site to verify our belief that on shale bedrock, as seen here, artefacts are usually absent, and so it proved.

4.5.6 Kabib 1 (KB1) 24°38’28.30”S 16°56’52.40”E

4.5.9 Nomtsas 1 (NT1) 24°24’14.70”S 16°49’12.70”E (2.1)

At KB1, a 5x5 metre grid count laid on to an artefact cluster revealed 16 artefacts clearly of both MSA and LSA date. The MSA material included elongated core handaxes and pyramid cores of Levallois type (Fig 4.27) together with flakes in weathered condition, and the LSA material was distinguishable as thin flakes in mint sharp condition and of the familiar greenish colour.

Roadside stop on the sandstones just beyond the far eastern limits of the Nama Group. As at the previous site, the bedrock is not knappable and no artefacts were recorded.

4.27 Artefacts from Kabib 1: (a) Struck Levallois core, (b) very weathered elongated core These examples typify the weathered artefacts made on coarse grained material seen on the Fish River sandstones of the eastern Study Area

handaxe.

58

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies 4.6.4 Gamis 3 (GM3) 24°14’47.6”S 16°35’41.3”E

4.5.10 Nomtsas 2 (NT2) 24°25’14.00”S 16°50’45.00”E (Fig 2.1)

This extended site is close to Gamis farmstead, perched on the edge of a high rock ledge overlooking the Narob River. It contains LSA flakes of random sizes and shapes, along with large quartzitic sandstone cores partly exploited. The LSA scatters seem to stretch for more than 100 metres along the ledge and clearly represent a substantial open air occupation site with a fine overview of the valley below.

Roadside stop on sandstone in the Visrivier valley; virtually a barren area with only two LSA flakes. 4.5.11 Nomtsas 3 (NT3) 24°26’21.70”S 16°51’36.87”E (Fig 2.1) Roadside stop on sandstone bedrock yielding only six LSA flakes within a metre grid.

4.6.5 Ouinos 1 (ON1) 24°16’45.50”S 16°25’54.00”E

4.5.12 Nomtsas 4 (NT4) 24°30’39.85”S 16°54’3.67”E

4.6 (d) North of the Gorge (Fig 2.1)

This and the following site are located in a shallow valley 0.25km from a stream bed on the D855 road north of Zebra River towards Bullsport. Driving on the route from Bullsport to Zebra River, we found scatters by the roadside to be infrequent. The road crosses the grain of the country with many stream bed crossings especially in the area of Ouinos and Harughas farms. Mesas are seen at a distance. Most of the terrain shows no sign of the flat areas with scatters of stones that betray potential for artefacts. At ON1 however, in a few minutes, 22 flakes, 9 retouched flakes, one elongated core and 24 other cores, some Levallois, were noted. The bedrock was shale but with a capping of quartzitic sandstone.

4.6.1 Gamis sites

4.6.6 Ouinos 2 (ON2) 24°16’36.20”S 16°25’58.10”E

In 2010 a brief reconnaissance was made into the Narob Valley which runs into the Fish River complex, to verify our hypothesis that ESA occupation might be present in this valley because it might have offered permanent water and springs that would attract Acheulian inhabitants. This proved to be the case, and the whole area needs further attention to gain a more complete picture of the archaeology of the valley. LSA activity here is also evident. Our experience here suggests that the Acheulian may also be present in other of the substantial Fish River tributaries in the Study Area, such as the Khamaseb, Khos and Kamkas (Fig 1.5 page 6), even though these rivers are up to 70km from the edge of the Great Escarpment. These areas have yet to be visited.

About 0.3km south of ON1, in the same shallow valley, an MSA site with elongated core handaxes, flat-topped Levallois cores made on tabular raw material, and flakes.

Located on the roadside between Nomtsas 3 and KB3, this spot recorded an absence of artefacts in the shale zone. It represents the general trend in this area for long expanses of terrain with very little archaeological material. On balance these 12 sites verified our suspicion that Palaeolithic artefact clusters were mostly assembled where suitable raw material was available. Where this was poor or absent, only transient knapping was carried out, quite often by LSA people.

4.6.7 Harughas 2 (HR2) 24°27’05. 0”S 16°23’10.9”E In undulating terrain, roadside stop on poor quality quartzitic sandstone bedrock yielded only a thin scatter of undiagnostic flakes and cores. 4.6.8 Kambes 1 (KB1) 24° 2’28.18”S 16°30’14.84”E Roadside stop north of Bullsport adjacent to the Naukluft escarpment, on the northwest edge of the Kuibis and Schwarzrand Subgroup. The terrain comprises detrital fans emanating from the Naukluft mountains, mixed with flat surface-enriched scatters of quartzitic sandstone. On these flat areas artefacts are present. At KB1 they contained a number of Levallois cores, struck and unstruck, with flat tops, a type also seen at Ouinos 2. At first regarded as a local stylistic variant, these cores have actually been made on tabular rock with insufficient depth to allow the full height of the pyramid to be created.

4.6.2 Gamis 1 (GM1) 24°15’11.1”S 16°33’54.2”E Adjacent to a small tributary of the Narob River, some 40km north of the main Escarpment, an intense scatter of Acheulian tools together with some MSA items was seen. The site appears to contain one of the densest concentrations of late Acheulian material we have noted. 4.6.3 Gamis 2 (GM2) 24°30’39.85”S 16°54’3.67”E

4.6.9 Kambes 2 (KB2) 24° 1’56.70”S 16°30’42.60”E

An island in the braided course of the Narob River, this area is clearly fluvially disturbed but it contains a thin spread artefacts including a rolled handaxe and a cleaver along with flakes and MSA cores. It is perhaps indicative that in the Narob Valley there are substantial ESA and MSA sites to be discovered, whose contents have sometimes found their way into the river.

Only 1.24 km north of KB1, this site contained classic weathered Levallois cores, but none of the flat topped variety, and large flakes.

59

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.29 LSA blind on the edge of the escarpment at Mooi Rivier

4.28 Kambes 3: The present tributary stream emanating Naukluft Mountains (seen in the background) has cut through a previous detrital fan. The top two

from the

the midst of the Nama limestone country. They represent the far southwest corner of the Study Area. Here, the escarpment edge is highly crenulated and steep, falling some 300 metres to the canyons below. Traversing a section of this terrain by vehicle on the Mooi Rivier farm track, it was very clear that surface enrichment does not occur in this limestone-dominated landscape, and artefacts are seldom present, at least in dense scatters. A foot traverse near the escarpment edge confirmed this impression. However at two sites on the escarpment edge, small isolated quartzitic sandstone scatters were noted. At the first site cores in sharp condition accompanied small quartz fragments. At the second site 0.94 km away, a small scatter contained a probable Levallois flake and an MSA blade. In this areas too, there are numerous prehistoric ‘hunting blinds’ made of piles of stone slabs (Fig 4.29), set up at strategic places to give cover to hunters while their colleagues would drive game towards them. In the example illustrated the blind is built on a neck of rock with precipices on either side. The date of these features is believed to be within the last 5000 years: they are broadly comparable to, and roughly contemporary with, examples widely seen at American Indian prehistoric sites (Delacorte, 1985).

metres of the fan comprise sands and clays and the bottom

1.5 metres contains a variety of clast sizes

suggesting an earlier period of high energy stream flow.

No artefacts are seen in the section.

4.6.10 Kambes 3 (KB3) 24° 3’53.30”S 16°28’51.20”E This site is on one of the larger fans emanating from the Naukluft Mountains, The surface comprises almost 100% limestone clasts lying amongst dusty sands and clays representing the top of the detrital fan. The current river has incised 3.5 metres into this fan, a possible indication that the fan itself is of considerable age (Fig 4.28). While no artefacts were seen in the sections of the river incision, both MSA and LSA material lie on top The lack of artefacts within the section corroborates our other observations in the Gorge at ZR4 and at sites such as KH6 that most or all detrital material associated with fluvial activity at ZR had been deposited prior to any human presence. 4.6.11 Spitskop ‘Lake’ (SK1) 24° 1’56.70”S 16°30’42.60”E (Fig 2.1) North of the small settlement at Bullsport the Google Earth imagery shows a large white area of a former lake that has periodically filled when outwash from the Naukluft is particularly heavy. On what appeared to be an old shoreline, quartzitic sandstone clasts were infrequent amongst limestone and other rock types, and no artefacts were observed. The age of this lake is unknown but the absence of artefacts on the shores suggests it was not there in the remote past. Normally lake shores are popular as occupation sites for Palaeolithic inhabitants: classic African examples include Olorgesailie, Kenya (Isaac 1977) and Olduvai, Tanzania (Leakey 1971).

4.8 Major Gorge Sites 4.8.1 Zebra River 1 (ZR1) 24°30’52.30”S 16°17’15.00”E (Figs 4.30 and 4.31)

4.7 (e) South west of the Gorge (Fig 2.1) 4.7.1 Mooi Rivier 1 (MO1) 24°39’41.43”S 16°11’17.80”E 4.7.2 Mooi Rivier 2 (MO2) 24°39’42.00”S 16°10’44.20”E These sites are located 19 km from the Plateau quartzitic source material on the high point of the escarpment edge in

4.30 Location of ZR1 60

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies (item 66). In the tributary streambed adjacent to the site, a large very rolled pointed handaxe (item 73) was retrieved (see Fig 3.18 page 31), but its condition indicates that it has travelled from upstream and is not a part of the ZR1 assemblage. Having established the general location of artefact scatters on the terrace, two straight transects were then taken to bisect the main scatter in a roughly cruciform layout (Fig 4.34). Each transect comprised a sequence of grids at 5 metre intervals, each ‘grid’ comprising a circular area two metres in diameter (9.87 sq. metres). 160 grids were searched. All artefacts lying within each grid were recorded. The results are given in Fig 4.32. In this table, GPS numbers in the table relate to two different GPS devices and have no other significance. The column ‘Misc’ comprises handaxes (one plus one possible broken roughout), blades (13), Levallois flakes (three), Levallois points (one), and scrapers (one).

4.31 View of ZR1 site

In total, 1764 artefacts were counted in the 165 grids, with densities varying from 0 to 83 artefacts per grid. All artefacts except the small handaxe were replaced in their grids, and no Edge Testing was carried out as this survey was done before the Edge Test program was developed. A very dense scatter was located towards the middle of the surveyed area (see Fig 4.34 Map below), but substantial artefact numbers were recorded in grids throughout the area, except in the north part towards point D, where the ground slopes down to the stream. The overall average of artefacts per square metre over 330 square metres was 5.34, and in the dense scatter it was an astonishing 39 per square metre. This contrasts with an average at ND4, on the Plateau, of 0.63 artefacts per square metre over 700 square metres. At ZR1 there were very few diagnostic artefacts – only three Levallois flakes, no Levallois cores, 13 blades, and a single handaxe, in the grid sample.

1

1 2

1 2

4 3 4 18 78

1

1

1

1

5 3 4 18 79

2 1

1 1

1 1

Transect C-D South to N 66 13 1 2 16 67 19 2 1 22 68 21 1 1 23 69 10 1 11 70 4 4 71 17 2 19 72 13 13 73 11 11 61 74 11 1 12 75 12 1 13 76 12 1 1 2 16 77 23 1 1 25

112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 37 36

7 8 13 13 9 3 4 6 6 7 11 6 5 6 10 10 10 6 6 5

1 2 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

Total

15 12 14 8 12 3

Misc

1

Transect C-D South to North Prep Cores

Prep Cores

r/t Flakes

6 12 3 13 12 3

Total

1

60 61 62 63 64 65

Misc

2

Flakes

Total

Misc.

Prep Cores

r/t Flakes

2

Transect A-B East to West GPS No.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Flakes

GPS No.

Transect A-B East to West

r/t Flakes

The area was fieldwalked using the point-to-point method to assess the extent and concentration of artefacts and to look for diagnostic tools. A small complete pointed handaxe (item 64) was found in this fieldwalking, along with a Levallois point (item 65) and an LSA long blade

Flakes

4.8.1.1 Fieldwork at ZR1 Fig 4.33

GPS No.

Located beside a major tributary of the Zebra River as it enters the main Gorge, this site was strategically placed to form access from the north into the main Zebra River valley. Lying above the tributary is an ancient detrital terrace, composed of densely packed quartzitic sandstone clasts long ago transported by the tributary stream from the Plateau some 4-5 km above. The terrace slopes to the valley floor from the foot of a small escarpment at an average angle of 1.5 degrees. The concentration of artefacts covers an area about 225 x 150 metres.

7 10 15 14 9 3 4 8 6 9 13 7 6 7 12 11 11 6 6 6

11 65 3 3 117 3 3 118 4 4 12 1 1 Transect C-D South to N 13 2 2 119 6 1 1 8 14 66 13 1 2 16 120 6 6 15 67 19 2 1 22 121 7 1 1 9 16 68 21 1 1 23 122 11 1 1 13 New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 17 69 10 1 11 123 6 1 7 18 70 4 4 124 5 1 6 19 1 1 71 17 2 19 125 6 1 7 20 72 13 13 126 10 1 1 12 21 4 1 5 73 11 11 127 10 1 11 22 3 3 74 11 1 12 128 10 1 11 23 4 4 75 12 1 13 129 6 6 24 18 18 76 12 1 1 2 16 37 6 6 25 78 1 79 77 23 1 1 25 36 5 1 6 26 80 3 83 78 14 14 35 7 2 9 27 54 3 1 58 79 17 17 34 5 5 28 68 4 1 72 80 6 1 7 33 3 1 4 29 53 54 81 14 2 16 32 2 1 1 4 30 53 53 82 23 1 24 31 3 3 31 30 1 31 83 28 2 30 30 9 9 32 18 1 19 84 17 17 29 (not used) 33 26 26 85 18 1 19 28 3 1 4 34 43 43 86 14 1 15 27 5 2 7 35 44 3 47 87 20 1 1 22 26 4 1 5 36 27 3 30 88 6 6 25 7 7 37 29 29 89 18 18 24 3 3 38 24 1 25 90 15 1 16 23 4 4 39 13 1 14 91 6 1 1 8 22 1 1 40 22 1 23 92 10 1 11 21 6 1 1 8 41 9 1 10 93 14 2 16 20 8 8 42 7 3 10 94 10 1 1 12 19 4 4 43 13 1 14 95 14 1 15 18 5 5 44 8 1 9 96 14 1 15 17 4 4 45 4 1 5 97 20 1 21 16 4 4 46 9 1 10 98 14 2 16 15 2 2 47 7 7 99 10 2 12 14 2 1 3 48 5 5 100 21 21 13 8 8 49 16 1 17 101 16 16 12 4 4 50 13 1 14 102 13 1 14 11 4 4 51 13 1 14 103 7 1 8 10 1 1 52 5 1 6 104 11 2 13 9 13 13 53 9 9 105 6 6 8 4 1 5 54 14 2 16 106 13 1 14 7 6 6 55 7 7 107 10 10 6 4 1 5 56 23 23 108 15 15 5 1 1 57 16 1 17 109 13 13 4 3 3 58 11 1 12 110 4 4 3 4 4 59 10 10 111 7 8 2 1 4.32 ZR1 transect results

62

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.33 Artefacts from ZR1: (a) pointed handaxe with broken tip; (b) pointed handaxe in fresh condition; (c) small pointed handaxe possibly resharpened

from a larger one (this was the only Acheulian item found during the grid count); (d) fresh long blade; (e) Levallois point.

63

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Type

Class

27 28 -

Flakes RTFs Cores undiagnostoc Miscellaneous other TOTAL

Number of items 1653 63 30 18 1764

4.35 Summary of Artefacts from ZR1 transects. ‘Miscellaneous’ included one small Acheulian pointed handaxe, item 64. More details shown in Appendix 1 4.8.2 Zebra River 2 (ZR2) 24°32’2.70”S 16°18’38.60”E Fig 4.36 and Fig 4.37 A nearly-flat river terrace next to the main stream of the Zebra River, this area is distinctive for its skin of blackish quartzitic sandstone lying on the limestone bedrock, amongst which are numerous artefacts.

4.34 Transects at ZR1. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

4.8.2.1 Fieldwork at ZR2 (Fig 4.38)

Outside the transect area (E on the map, Fig 4.34) a thin scatter of flakes was seen on top of the low mesa to the east of the terrace. Artefacts were evidently being carried up the hill some 100 metres, away from the raw material source. This is a rare instance of artefact mobility albeit over a short distance and involving only flakes.

The scatter zone was informally walked in 2007 (i.e. artefacts were collected for Edge Testing randomly over the central area of the site, not within a grid square). In 2008 however, two grid squares, one 3x3.5 metres and another 5x2 metres, were sampled for all artefacts.

4.8.1.2 Artefact summary for ZR1 Fig 4.35 The site is notable for its predominantly flake and corebased industry, but with both Acheulian and Levallois present in very small numbers. The landowner had retrieved two Acheulian pointed handaxes from this site before work began (items 69 and 70). No Levallois cores were seen on this site. The Table of Artefacts (Fig. 4.32) reflects the totals from both the point-to-point walking and the transect survey. 4.36 Location of ZR2

4.37 View of ZR2 site 64

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

Type

Class

11 14 19 26 27 28 TOTAL

Struck Levallois Cores Blades Convergent cores Cores Flakes Retouched flakes

Number of items 1 27 2 2 87 1 120

Fig. 4.39 Table of ZR2 artefacts in grid surveys the important site of Urikos 2 (see page 92) we shall show that when subject to long term periodic inundation, scatters become ‘weathered’ by water corrosion at a faster rate than when simply exposed to the air. This is also believed to be the situation at ZR2, where the artefact scatters are only two to four metres above the current river bed level and only 30-150 metres from the river, so occasional overbank flooding is a possibility.

4.38 Surface scatter at ZR2 showing accelerated rounding of clasts and artefacts owing to inundation from mainstream flooding.

Note the darkening of

artefact surfaces with manganese crustal deposit.

Comparison between the items listed for the random and the gridded samples reveal an unconscious bias in the process of ‘random’ collecting. It shows one must be cautious in using random sampling as representative for the artefact population of a whole site. In this case it was very easy to overlook the (small) very rounded flakes, whereas when scanning a grid all artefacts within it are noted. Larger diagnostic tools are not so easily overlooked when searching randomly.

The artefacts at ZR2 can still be used to compare relative age within the site. Within the two sampled grids there were 120 artefacts (Fig 4.39). The composition of the scatters is not affected by their weathering and provides information about the usage of this site. 4.8.2.2 Artefact summary for ZR2, Fig 4.40 A & B

The dark colour and generally very rounded condition of the artefacts was initially suggestive of an early industry, but no Acheulian material was found here. However, from

At first appearing to be largely of Mode 1 type but with a strong long-blade element together with long blade cores

4.40a Blades from ZR2 65

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.40b Other artefacts from ZR2 Type

Class

11 12 14 17 18 19 26 27 28 TOTAL

Struck Levallois Cores Levallois Flakes Blades & long blades Blade cores Levallois points Convergent cores Cores Flakes Retouched flakes

Number of items 2 5 31 5 2 10 6 126 2 189

4.42 Location of ZR3 (Gail’s cave)

4.41 Numbered artefacts from ZR2 (excluding gridded areas)

4.43 Gail’s cave

66

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.44 Artefacts from Gail’s cave comprise mostly unretouched flakes and debitage. The colour is greenish and the oxidation (red iron oxide or black manganese oxide) that accrues with exposure has not developed. They are also virtually mint fresh. These artefacts are less than 4000 years old. When similar material is found in the wider landscape it is a fair conclusion that it is also of similar age.

67

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia (item 47), closer inspection revealed the presence of a small proportion of Levallois material including crude Levallois cores, convergent points and convergent blade cores. But the large finely-made Levallois cores as seen at ND4 are not present here; Levallois pyramid cores and flakes are rare and the Levallois points mostly rather crude, and sometimes unifacial. The main characteristic of the typological assemblage here is the high proportion of very rounded long blades, and a total absence of ESA or elongated core handaxe forms.

proximity gave dates of 2835 and 1160 BP. The lowest layer of the excavation, of unknown date, contained corroded bone but no artefacts. Wendt’s excavation of a cave close to ZR3 is described on page 18 above. 4.8.4. Zebra River 4 (ZR4) 24°32’18.06” S 16°19›03.29»E (Fig 4.45) The landowner had previously retrieved a finely made ficron-like handaxe further upstream from ZR2 (item 71). This prompted the search to find the expected scatter to which item 71 might belong. It was eventually located 1.7 km away at ZR4.

The Edge Tests carried out at this site are discussed on page 1130-1. 4.8.3 Zebra River 3 (ZR3) “Gail’s cave” 24°31’1.66”S 16°18’32.99”E Fig 4.42 A small limestone cave in a tributary valley in the Zebra River Gorge was visited in 2002, (Fig 4.43) and excavated in 2007. The excavation is the subject of a separate paper by Dr. Vicky Winton (Winton forthcoming). One of the purposes of excavating the cave, which is only 2 km from the one excavated by Wendt (Wendt 1972), was to establish whether ESA/MSA artefacts were present. They were not, despite there being dense scatters of Acheulian, Levallois and other ESA/MSA material in the valley adjacent. The cave and its detrital apron contained only LSA flakes and cores (Fig 4.44), together with ostrich eggshell and pierced beads, and other perishable material. Carbon dating of two samples on charcoal from two adjacent hearths in close

4.45 Location of ZR4

4.46 GPS locations of diagnostic artefacts at ZR4. For detailed maps of the different categories see Figs 5.38-39 68

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.47 GPS tracks at ZR4. Point-to-point tracks are supplemented by forays into the wider area (not all tracks are shown here, and the initial overview fieldwalking has already been carried out to determine the main concentration of artefacts).

Type

Class

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 17 19 20 23 27 Total

Pointed Acheulian Handaxe Ovate Handaxe Acheulian Cleaver Ficron Ficron-cleaver Elongated core handaxe Rough biface Victoria West core Levallois unstruck core Levallois struck core Levallois Flake Long Blade Pyramid blade core Convergent core Core Chopper Flake

Number of items 19 6 3 1 1 15 5? 1 8 6 7 7 1 1 3 2 37 123

4.48 Artefact summary of recorded artefacts for ZR4

ZR4 is a small site adjacent to the main river in the Gorge, but located on a low pediment dome between the river and the Gorge cliffs, raised above the stream bed which is here entrenched in a rejuvenation slot up to about 3 metres deep. The geology of the immediate bedrock is limestone but as is normal with artefact-rich Gorge sites, there is a thin skin of quartzitic sandstone detritus on the surface, which provided the raw material for artefacts. These are spread thinly all over the lower dome but with a greater density in the east (Fig 4 46).

4.8.4.2 Artefact Summary for ZR4 Fig 4.48, Fig 4.49a b &c The site is chiefly notable for a mix of Acheulian handaxes and slightly scarcer Levallois items, along with the usual background of flakes and a few undiagnostic cores. Elongated core handaxes were found in moderate numbers. The occurrence of long blades and blade cores is low (contrast ZR2 close by where these are high but Levallois is rare and ESA absent). Non-diagnostic artefacts were not collected at this site, but amongst the thin scatters of flakes LSA material was seen.

4.8.4.1 Fieldwork at ZR4 Fig. 4.47 shows the main point-to point GPS traverses at this site, carried out after the whole area of the map had been initially fieldwalked without GPS to locate the alleged scatter reported by the landowner. After the discovery of a spectacular Acheulian handaxe (artefact 100, see below) several more intensive investigations revealed the scatters of diagnostic artefacts now mapped (summarised in Fig 4.48 and broken down into diagnostic types in Section 5). This site was subsequently searched on two more occasions and it is believed that virtually all diagnostic items have been recovered.

The Acheulian includes an extraordinary large (344mm) ‘ficron-cleaver’, nicknamed the ‘Mandolin’, (item 100) which seems to be unparalleled in Africa or elsewhere (Fig 4.50). Theoretically it conforms to Kleindeinst’s Large Shaped Tools of ‘Convergent Shouldered Cleaver’ type (Kleindeinst 1962) although we are not aware of any actual example being published. A ‘mini’ version of the same type was found at Kyffhauser 6 (see pages 86-7). The freshness of the ‘mandolin’ and several other Acheulian items raises an important question about the different Acheulian phases and whether there is a late Acheulian post-dating the Levallois here, a point discussed below in Section 5 (page 126).

69

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.49a Examples of pointed and ovate handaxes from ZR4

70

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.49b Handaxes and cleavers from ZR4.

71

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.49c Two finely made handaxes from ZR4

72

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.50 Item 100, the ‘Mandolin’

73

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.50 Item 100, the ‘Mandolin’

74

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies 4.8.5.1 Fieldwork at KH3/ZR5 The valley was fieldwalked fairly exhaustively (Fig. 4.53) to ensure no concentrations of artefacts were missed. A combination of point-to-point and unstructured walking was used to cover the whole valley including the hinterland. An experiment was conducted at ZR5 to test the coincidence of artefacts with the natural distribution of quartzitic raw material. As mentioned above, in almost all areas where raw material is present, artefacts are seen, while in areas with no raw material, artefacts are very few. Close to the edge of the site, in an area rich in cleavers, two 5x5 metre grids were staked out. (see map Fig 5.14 page 111) Here, the boundary between the skin of quartzitic clasts and bare

4.51 Location of KH3 and ZR5 4.8.5 Kyffhauser 3 (KH3) 24°30’55.49”S 16°18’57.46”E and Zebra River 5 (ZR5) 24°31’3.50”S 16°18’46.02”E Fig 4.51 These two sites lie in the same valley as ZR3 (Gail’s cave). Archaeologically they form two intense but quite separate occupation zones; they are considered together here because of their proximity, just 0.6 km apart. They both occupy valley-floor pediments lying between the small stream now occupying the middle of this valley and the steeper slopes which separate it from the Plateau above (Fig 4.52). ZR5 stretches about 1.5km along the valley and KH3 is about 400 metres in length. The little streambed here cuts into the bedrock by about a metre. Once again the bedrock is limestone but the pediments are strewn with quartzitic debris derived from the Plateau, the nearest part of which is only 2.5km from the site. This valley attracted occupations of ESA, MSA and LSA visitors. In between and around the two main sites there is a thin scatter of artefacts of all types. As usual flakes outnumber diagnostic tools by many times. The Acheulian here has a range of styles and conditions, and includes a dense cluster of well-made cleavers.

4.53 Sample GPS tracks at KH3 Based on Google Earth imagery © Europa Technologies © 2010 Google © Cnes/Spot Image Image © 2010 DigitalGlobe © 2010 Google © Cnes/Spot Image Image © 2010 DigitalGlobe

4.52 General view of KH3/ZR5

75

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.54 Grid squares at ZR5

4.8.5.2 Artefact Summary for KH3/ZR5 Fig. 4.55

limestone is particularly well defined: one can stand with one foot in the quartzitic zone and the other outside it. One grid lay within the quartzitic zone and the other just outside it. The two grids were only 10 metres apart (Fig 4.54). The inside grid contained 37 artefacts, the outside one contained none. This subject is discussed further in Section 5 below (Page 122). Fieldwalking was also carried out on the top of the adjacent mesa (Fig 4.52). Here the bedrock is limestone with no quartzitic debris, but a few flakes, some retouched, were seen. Most were fresh and of LSA appearance, but some in rounded and blackened condition in a small cluster suggested occasional pre-LSA presence on this hilltop above the KH3 site.

Type

Class

1 2 3 4 7 8 10 11 12 14 19 Total

Pointed Acheulian Handaxe Ovate Acheulian handaxe Acheulian Cleaver Ficron or ficron ended cleaver Elongated core handaxe Rough biface Levallois unstruck core Levallois struck core Levallois Flake Blade/Long Blade Convergent core

Number of items KH3 ZR5 6 37 1 4 11 17 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 12 10 15 4 23 26 7 1 0 63 120

4.55 Table of recorded artefacts from KH3 and ZR 5

76

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.56 LSA knapping site at KH3. The lighter colour of the artefacts picks them out from the older clasts

4.57 General view of ZR10

77

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.60 Location of ZR7-11

4.9 Other Gorge Sites: The Upper and Lower Zebra River area

4.58 Blade samples from ZR10 In the course of fieldwalking, three LSA knapping sites were recorded (fig 4.56), each comprising a closely-knit cluster of greenish fresh quartzitic flakes, debris and core remnants, including one refit. These clusters comprised undiagnostic, crude flaking of variable sizes up to c. 120mm without retouch.

4.9.1 Zebra River 7 (ZR7) 24°32’38.96”S 16°20’3.26”E Zebra River 8 (ZR8) 24°32’39.72”S 16°20’53.57”E and Zebra River 9 (ZR9) 24°32’23.92”S 6°21’17.39”E Figs 4.60, 4.61 Three sites in the upper reaches of the main Zebra River valley were briefly examined in 2008. All are located on the pediment adjacent to the main stream bed and elevated from it by 1-2 metres. They contain scatters of quartzitic artefacts upon the limestone base. At ZR7 blade cores, long blades, discoidal cores and flakes were noted. At ZR8 the same repertoire was seen but with prepared (Levallois) cores and a few convergent flakes. ZR9 had fewer artefacts, mainly flakes and blades with some retouched cores. Acheulian items were not recorded at any of these sites although strays may be present.

4.8.6 Zebra River 10 (ZR10) 24°32’6.04”S 16°21’16.97”E Fig 4.57; fig 4.58 This site comprises a 400 metre stretch adjacent to the main Zebra River 0.5km further upstream from ZR9. It yielded moderately dense scatters of the same general composition as ZR7-9, (see next site) with long blades, usually cortical, and crude prepared cores. A 5x5 metre grid was sampled for all artefacts. The results are shown in Fig. 4.59. At this site, one or more blade industries are represented. Therefore a further 10x10metre grid was sampled for blades only, yet to be Edge Tested. 54 rounded and 22 fresher blades were recorded from it. It appears that ESA inhabitants did not select the Upper Zebra River, with its narrower floodplain and smaller lithic resource, for occupation. More work on this site is planned. Artefact types Large flakes Medium flakes Small flakes Cores Long blades Medium blades Small blades Total

4.9.2 Zebra River 11 (ZR11) 24°31’49.60”S 16°21’33.76”E This is the furthest upstream site in the Upper Zebra River area, 0.5km from ZR10. Here the valley of the main river has narrowed to 200 metres and the pediment adjacent to the river incision is less densely packed with quartzitic raw material. The frequency of cortical long blades increases, but further north the overall density of artefacts falls away, only to increase again at the far northern point. Here numerous scrapers, denser than at any other site in the Study Area, were noted (artefact numbers 856-860 are representative).

Number 31 17 20 15 10 4 4 101

4.9.3 Zebra River Springs Fig 4.62 This is not an archaeological site (no artefacts were found) but it is important to record the presence of springs in the deep clefts of the ZR Gorge tributaries. The largest of these, called Zebra River Springs, was briefly visited in 2009. It comprises a steep narrow gorge towards the upper end of which is located a permanent spring that creates a swathe of dense vegetation trailing some distance downstream. Because of the vegetation and thick deposits of tufa, (Fig 4.63) any potential artefacts would be hard to locate. The

4.59 ZR10 5x5 metre grid results: all artefacts

78

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.61 View of the Upper Zebra River valley showing ZR7 in the foreground with ZR8 beyond

4.62 Sketch of the ZR Springs area

79

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Acheulian handaxe, perhaps dropped in transit, as no other ESA items were seen in the short time spent here. 4.9.6 Zebra River 16°16’22.53”E

15

(ZR15)

24°30’44.17”S

The furthest downstream site yet visited in the Gorge, this area lies on a stretch of ground raised about 10 metres above the adjacent Zebra River bed. It contained weathered flakes of MSA affinity, together with a relatively large proportion of LSA flakes distinguished by their unstructured form, light colour and freshness. This is one of the few open air LSA sites of substantial size, second only to the very extensive LSA scatters seen at Gamis on the Plateau (page 59). 4.10 Major Sites intermediate between the Plateau and the Gorge 4.10.1 Zebra River 6 (ZR6) 24°30’32.16”S 16°17’39.69”E Fig 4.64

4.63 Tufa photo at ZR springs. Massive deposits of

tufa, some fallen from cliffs above, litter the slopes near the ancient springs in one of the tributaries.

Zebra River

antiquity of the spring is clear from the abundance and thickness of the tufa cliffs. Without doubt humans would have frequented this site for access to water and possibly game and plant food, but it would be a long task to try to locate evidence of human presence, although tufa might be capable of yielding a date by one of the uranium series methods, and could also contain good environmental evidence.

4.64 Location of ZR6 A large site with variable amounts of raw material and uneven distribution of artefacts, situated in the main tributary valley entering the Zebra River from the north, which is also the course of the routeway from the main D855 road to Zebra River Lodge. In the north it adjoins KH7, and in the south it stretches as far as the Wendt Cave and ZR 1. The site lies mainly on the east bank of the stream course on gently sloping terrain and is about 1.3 km long.

4.9.4 Zebra River 13 (ZR13) Ralph’s Cave 24°32’11.75”S 16°17’19.96”E In this small tributary close to the main Zebra River there are caves in the limestone cliffs on either side of the narrow valley. One appeared to have no artefacts associated with it but the larger cave contained a scatter of mainly LSA artefacts in a wide area of the cave threshold. Detailed investigation was not undertaken but it would appear to be similar to ZR3 (Gail’s Cave). 4.9.5 Zebra River 16°17’24.59”E

14

(ZR14)

4.10.1.1 Fieldwork at ZR6 An initial traverse was made in 2006 and a further traverse in 2008. The site is one of very few noted so far in the Study Area where artefact scatters (as opposed to stray artefacts) are seen not to coincide with raw material scatters, and vice versa. Although this occurred in only two small places at ZR6, it is worth recording:

24°31’25.01”S

At ZR6 Site 1, which is a low dome on the west bank, (Fig 4.65) the bedrock is limestone, a few metres above the quartzitic detritus terrace, on gently sloping ground. Despite the absence of raw materials, small and medium

A typical Gorge site, laid out on a thin scatter of natural quartzitic sandstone clasts, and containing a strong assemblage of MSA including long blades, Levallois cores and discoidal cores. Amongst this was seen a single 80

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.65 ZR6 Site 1 sized quartzitic flakes (20-50mm), cores and blades were observed. In a 5x5m square, a total of 57 artefacts were recorded, all flakes or cores. The extent of the scatter covered about 50 x 30 metres. The artefacts were recorded as ‘moderate-very weathered’ and thus appear to be preLSA in date. On the east bank of the river, quartzitic raw materials and artefacts mostly coincided, but in one area, despite what appeared to be good raw material of knappable size, no artefacts were noted.

4.67 The sites of KH4 and 5 showing raw material zones in flat tint (culled from enhanced satellite photography) and the location of the main artefacts scatters as black rings. The raw material scatters without artefacts are thinner on the ground. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

It is worth recalling that at ZR1, a few artefacts were noted on the limestone slopes above the main scatter (see above page 64) which had been carried a few metres up the hillside.

4.10.2.1 Fieldwork at KH4 Fig 4.67. Random traverses were conducted over the whole of the quartzitic area to establish the location of concentrations. Much of the area is thinly covered with raw material and contains only the occasional artefact, usually undiagnostic, but in two adjacent areas where raw material was thicker on the ground there were dense concentrations containing a range of handaxes and MSA items (Fig 4.67). These areas were traversed using point-to-point tracking. No grid samples were taken but the area would benefit from further study.

4.66 Location of KH4

4.10.2.2 Artefact Summary for KH4. Fig 4.68A

4.10.2 Kyffhauser 4 (KH4) 24° 29’ 05.7”S 16° 17’ 46.3”E Fig 4.66

The ESA element lacks any of really fine work; most handaxes are of the large rather crude pointed type. The Levallois material contains good quality struck cores. The artefacts recorded (for Edge Testing) are shown in Fig.4.69. The Edge tests yielded puzzling results which are discussed on page 134 below.

Two sites, KH4 and KH5, were found in one of the south flowing tributary valleys north of the main Zebra River. Detrital fans emanating from spurs of the Plateau contain quartzitic raw material that has been exploited for artefact manufacture, in Acheulian and Levallois modes. KH5 is a minor site described below (page 91).

81

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.68A Selected artefacts from KH4: 1024 flat-capped struck Levallois core, 1087 elongated core handaxe, 1092 Acheulian pointed handaxe. Despite the general similarity of 1087 to a handaxe it has no edge work, and removals are for flakes and blades; the pointed thinned tip is fortuitous. It demonstrates the subtle discrimination needed to separate elongated cores from handaxes. In contrast note the small edge removals on 1092. 82

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.68B Artefacts from KH4: 1162 convergent flake, 1158, 1165, 1171 Acheulian pointed handaxes, 1160 cleaver with later (LSA?) retouch on edge. Note the variation in size, shape and style of the handaxes. The convergent flake 1162 although classic is one of only two examples from this site

83

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia In the bed of the river between KH4 and 5 was found one of the very large handaxes (artefact 1090) that occur occasionally in the Study Area. These are collectively discussed below (page 155).

Type

Class

1 2 3 4 7 8 10 11 12 14 17 18 26 27 28 Total

Pointed Acheulian Handaxe Ovate Handaxe Acheulian Cleaver Ficron Elongated core handaxe Rough biface Levallois unstruck core Levallois struck core Levallois Flake Long Blade Pyramid blade core Convergent Flake Discoidal core Flake RTF

more work was carried out in 2010, which will be the subject of a separate report. 4.10.3.1 Fieldwork at KH6 This is the first site where we have begun to investigate artefacts in detail, recording positions of all artefacts in grid squares selected in areas of apparent contrasting density or content, with a view to analysis of the spatial patterns within the site.

Number of items 12 2 2 1 9 2 5 11 4 9 1 1 1 10 4 74

Recognition of the importance of this site caused a change of approach in fieldwork procedures. We began using the normal cross-site GPS traverses of the potential area to determine its extent, but the presence of diagnostic material in significant quantities caused a switch to a more tightly structured traverse of parallel lines 10 metres apart that would cover the whole site and give an accurate overview of the total assemblage. Unlike some other sites, the optimum target numbers of 50 artefacts of each diagnostic type for Edge Testing can easily be reached here, although at the time of writing not all have been tested. It was decided not to remove artefacts from their resting place unless special detailed study was required. Thus the site would remain undisturbed for future reference. However to carry out so many Edge Tests in situ (i.e. kneeling on the ground beside each artefact to apply Plasticine casts, photographing them, photographing the artefact, and replacing it exactly where it was), would have taken excessive time. Instead, we brought a ‘mobile field office’ (namely a table and chairs) to the site and completed Edge Tests by carrying them here and back to their recorded GPS points one by one. The accuracy of an ordinary handheld GPS varies between 1 and 3 metres. Thus returning a stone to its exact place using GPS points alone is not possible. So we marked the artefact positions with small cairns thus ensuring accurate replacement.

4.69 Recorded artefacts from KH4 4.10.3 Kyffhauser 6 (KH6) 24°30’2.00”S 16°17’57.80”E Fig 4.70

Three spots were chosen for detailed mapping of artefact scatters and metre grids were laid out; (see Fig 3.8 page 27) analysis is currently underway. Within these grids, excavation of three sample metre square pits was undertaken to establish whether buried artefacts were present (see page 136). 4.10.3.2 Artefact summary for KH6 Fig 4.71a -c This site contains the largest number and densest scatter of diagnostic artefacts of any site so far discovered in the Study Area, except perhaps for ND4, which lacked the Acheulian element. The abundance of both Acheulian and Levallois elements provides sufficient numbers for the reliable analysis of the material.

4.70 Location of KH6 and KH7 Located 3 km north of the main Zebra River in a large tributary valley, this site is densely packed with both Acheulian and Levallois material. It covers approximately 180 x 160 metres on gently sloping terrain encased on two sides by minor, shallow stream beds and to the west by the bank of the main streambed of the valley. To the south, east and north lies the much larger but less dense site of KH7. The whole area comprises two large detrital fans emanating from valleys that bisect spurs of the Plateau. KH6 was only discovered in 2008 and worked on in 2009;

The proportions of different classes varies significantly here from other major sites, notably in the scarcity of elongated core handaxes, long blades and MSA points, the frequency of discoidal cores, and the presence of Victoria West style sidestruck cores.

84

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.71a Three ‘difficult’ artefacts from KH6. 1165 is classed as a Rough Biface: it has the tentative shape of a pointed handaxe and some attention to the edges. It is clearly not refined but may not be ‘unfinished’ if it was hurriedly produced for an urgent purpose. 1190 is a little crude to belong to the Ovate Handaxe tradition of ZR; it has no edge trimming but is well rounded; it is therefore tentatively classed as an elongated core handaxe. 1302 is classed as an Ovate Handaxe because it has edge working and a degree of symmetry, but it could possibly be an elongated core 85

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.71b Three of the refined handaxes from KH6. 1317 and 1293 vary from mint sharp to very rounded, hinting that high grade Acheulian workmanship may relate to more than one period. The fine long thin scars from 1317 show great skill, whereas on 1293 near perfect symmetry has been achieved by progressively finer edge retouch on an already exceptionally well-crafted roughout. 1326 (see also next fig.) is slightly less well finished but is made to an unusual ficron template reminiscent of the ‘mandolin’ from ZR4. (fig. 4.50)

86

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.71c Drawing of the ficron-cleaver from KH6

87

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 4.10.4 Kyffhauser 7 (KH7) 24°30’ 0” S 16°18’ 10”E Fig 4.70

Noteworthy also is the range of handaxe styles (Fig 4.71ac) including a number of finely finished pointed examples as well as a miniature version of the ‘mandolin’ artefact 100 from ZR4 (see page 69).

This was classed as a major site because of its size, but it was not worked on in detail. A very large area of quartzitic detritus surrounding KH6 on three sides, approximately 0.8 x 0.8km, KH7 was only explored by unstructured walking. The general impression is of a thin crust of quartzitic detritus and corresponding thin scatters of artefacts, including a few Acheulian and Levallois together with the ubiquitous flakes and cores. The discoidal core predominance seen at KH6 is replicated here, at least over parts of the site.

The recorded artefacts including the finds from 2010 (not yet fully analysed) are shown in Fig. 4.72.

Type

Class

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 17 18 21 26 Total

Pointed Acheulian Handaxe Ovate Handaxe Acheulian Cleaver Ficron Elongated core handaxe Handaxe roughout Victoria West core Levallois unstruck core Levallois struck core Levallois Flake Long Blade Pyramid blade core Convergent Flake Retouched flake(LSA) Discoidal core

Number of items 52 9 10 1 3 5 7 11 46 22 1 1 2 2 46 172

4.10.5 Neuras sites (NR 1-5) Fig 4.73 To the northwest of Zebra River is a farmstead called Neuras centred on a geological fault that yields abundant freshwater springs. From the air the area shows as a green streak in a predominantly brown environment. Some 2.3 km east of these springs, there begins a series of quartzitic stone scatters lying on low domes separated by shallow stream beds emanating from the Plateau. These were designated NR1-5.

4.72 Recorded artefacts from KH6. The discoidal cores were recorded in fieldwalking but were not given artefact numbers.

4.73 Location of Neuras sites

4.74 Map of East Neuras sites. 1079A marks the findspot of a stray ficron-like handaxe – see Fig 4.76. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe 88

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies 4.10.5.1 Fieldwork at NR sites

The map (Fig 4.74) shows whiter strata towards the southwest (limestone) but darker (shales and quartzitic sandstones) in the artefact zone. A small section eroded by one of the gullies bisecting NR 1 and 2 revealed the quartzitic surface skin lying upon fluvial debris comprising mainly shale, with occasional limestone clasts (Fig. 4.75a and b). This material is derived from the Schwarzrand and Kuibis sandstones and shales in the Plateau escarpment immediately to the east of the sites.

The five sites examined comprise about half of the likely artefact scatter zones as defined by the satellite imagery (darker patches on the map Fig 4.74). All sites were covered by unstructured GPS traverses carried out to assess the potential for further study. Four of the five Neuras sites visited contain Acheulian and all have Levallois artefacts but only NR5 has a dense enough scatter to merit a full study. However, even from these relatively superficial traverses, the sites show interesting variations in their content so are described below. Collectively these sites demonstrate the link between raw material quality and occupation density; the greater the numbers of suitable clasts, the more artefacts on the ground. Detailed follow up has not yet been carried out. 4.10.5.2 NR1 24°28’11.90”S 16°16’13.86”E MSA dominated this site with plenty of undiagnostic flakes, mostly not sharp, but with a thin cover of Acheulian. The full length and breadth of this dome was walked and no dense scatters were evident. 4.10.5.3 NR2 24°28’9.19”S 16°16’11.57”E Adjacent to NR1, this dome only contains raw material towards its edge. In one part of the site however there seemed to be a clustering of Levallois points, all in the same biscuit-coloured stone. No other Levallois points were noted at NR, and it is the only occurrence of these items in a cluster seen in the whole of the Study Area.

4.75a Section below the archaeological surface in the NR 1 and 2. The gully floor is

4.10.5.4 NR3 24°27’53.00”S 16°16’12.00”E

gully at the junction of

pure shale

A large area thin on raw material but containing sporadic, finely made Acheulian handaxes as well as a little Levallois material. 4.10.5.5 NR4 24°27’55.16”S 16°16’31.86”E The nearest site to the escarpment but not favoured with good raw material. North of NR3 another interfluve with poorer raw material and only thin artefact scatters yielded the heavy butted handaxe 1079A Fig 4 .76 4.10.5.6 NR5 24°27’41.89”S 16°15’55.16”E This, the furthest of the NR sites from the escarpment, had a much denser supply of raw materials and corresponding greater density of artefacts. 4.10.5.7 Artefacts summary for NR sites The table (Fig. 4.77) represents only a random thin sampling but it confirms that in this general area all periods are represented. The numbers for NR5 are underrepresented in the table because it was realised a return visit would be necessary, and this has still to be fulfilled.

4.75b Section at NR4 shows a thin soil lying on partly degraded shale bedrock

89

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.76 Large demi-ficron handaxe from north of NR3. Suitable for large game butchery, it appears to be a stray

Artefact type 1 Pointed handaxe 2 Ovate handaxe 3 Cleaver 7 Elongated core hndx 8 Handaxe roughout 10 Unstr Lev core 11 Str Lev core 12 Levallois flake 14 Long blade 17 Blade core 18 Levallois point 28 Retouched flake 29 Scraper Totals

Number of artefacts recorded in traverses NR1 NR2 NR3 NR4 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8 13 9 10

4.77 Recorded/numbered artefacts from Neuras sites

90

Totals NR5 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 9

9 1 3 7 1 6 6 3 3 4 4 1 1 49

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies struck and unstruck, elongated core handaxes, long blades, and one small biface (item 1020), as well as the ubiquitous flakes. 4.11.2 Kyffhauser 1 (KH1) 24° 29’ 8.00”S 16° 19’ 12.30”E, and Kyffhauser 2 (KH2) 24° 29’ 2.03”S 16° 21’ 0.63”E Fig 4.79 In the streambed detritus of this tributary of the main Zebra River, quartzitic sandstone surface material is present. Several stops along the streambed were made, all yielding mainly non-diagnostic artefacts, probably of MSA date. The position of the scatters close to the stream on slightly sloping ground may mean that fluvial movement has affected the material, so further work was not carried out. KH1 and 2 are the most substantial of these occurrences, and the others were not given site numbers.

4.78 Location of KH5

4.12 Major and other sites in other locations 4.12.1 Urikos 1 (UR1) 24.30.09.9S, 16.06.57.2E Fig 4.80 Situated in the far west of the Study Area at a spring point in the Tsauchab River bed (shortly before it is joined by its tributary the Zebra River), this site had yielded a huge but very water-rolled handaxe, (Fig 5.70E) now held by the landowner. The river bed here rests on limestone bedrock and flows continually from the spring point, generating a rich array of green vegetation and acacia trees downstream for about 6km, which contrast with the scattered thorn scrub in the rest of the valley. The valley here is still within the Gorge Zone and has steep cliffs either side rising 150m to the plateau caps either side. A long stretch of the dry river bed was searched and another very water-rolled quartzitic handaxe was found on top of the terrace adjacent to the river, plus a limestone flake and a worked quartzite point, possibly associated with limestone quarrying, traces of which were seen near by. A fluvially rolled handaxe lying on top of a gravel terrace suggests the terrace predates the handaxe, which has been transported from upstream. Although various fluvial terrace deposits are present in or close to the present stream course, some of which have been cut into by the current river Fig 4.81, all the surfaces and sections we witnessed comprised poorly stratified mixes of large limestone boulders in a matrix of smaller stones, gravels and sands. The large boulders preserve the story of massive flash flood events, punctuated by lesser but still vigorous stream flows, in the remote past. No concentrations of artefacts were seen and no traces of fossil vegetation were apparent in the sections, although a full investigation was not carried out. Where the valley of the Tsauchab emerges from the Gorge zone into flatter terrain as it approaches the dunes, there may have been net deposition zones during all or part of the Palaeolithic period. This offers the prospect of fluvial terrace deposits that may contain artefacts.

4.79 location of KH1

4.80 location of UR 1 and 2

4.11 Other Sites intermediate between the Plateau and the Gorge 4.11.1 Kyffhauser 5 (KH5) 24° 29’ 25.5”S 16° 18 ‘03.6”E Lying 0.75km southeast of KH4, but it is a separate site on the right bank of the stream just north of the main D850 road (see Fig. 4.78). This fan-shaped dome fills a 50 degree angle formed between two tributaries, some 3.5km from the main Zebra River. The area is covered with thin scatters of quartzitic sandstone detritus sometimes thinning to almost nothing, all lying on the limestone bedrock. No dense concentrations of artefacts were seen, but artefacts are nevertheless scattered widely, and include Levallois cores,

From the condition of artefacts seen, fluvial transport at UR1 has certainly been involved, thus begging the question

91

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

4.81 River terraces alongside the bank of the Tsauchab River in the far southwest of the Study Area. whether they are a product of springside occupations, or have travelled from far upstream. A little further down the valley under the cliff and away from the current stream course, a scatter of fresh LSA flakes made of limestone was noted. Apart from a single rolled chopper-core from the river bed close to the Zebra River Lodge and the flake from the springside here, this is the only clear instance of the Nama limestone being used for artefact manufacture. 4.12.2 Urikos 2 (UR 2) 24°28’42.32”S 16° 7’13.65”E Fig 4.80 On the track leading to UR1, there is a small flat area on a low saddle between a hill and a small rock ridge, which contained dense scatters of very rounded artefacts, mostly flakes and blades (Fig 4.82). At first glance, this looked as if it might be a rare example of a pre-Acheulian flake industry. In fact it was to provide a timely lesson in the pitfalls of edge wear analysis (see page 128).

4.82 Sketch of the environs of the UR2 pond

4.12.2.1 Fieldwork at UR2

On closer inspection the area was seen to comprise a shallow dried-up lake basin. At its fullest, it extended about 200 metres but the deepest parts occupy only a few square metres (Fig 4.83). The whole lake was never more than about 1.5 metres deep. In the lowermost zone which we called a ‘pond’, small flakes were thick on the ground whereas away from it the artefacts were both less dense and larger in size.

To quantify this, three grid squares were marked out, Grid 1in the bottom of the pond, Grid 2 at what appeared to be the pond edge, and Grid 3 further up the slope. Fig. 4.83 shows Grids 1 and 2. (Fig 4.84) Grid 1 is flat, Grid 2 slopes at 3°20’ and Grid 3 slopes at 7°3’. Fig 4.85 shows the surface artefacts seen within Grid 1. In the course of fieldwalking two LSA scatters were seen (see fig 4.86).

92

Section 4: The Fieldwork Studies

4.83 Sketch map of the UR2 pond area

4.84 Sampling in progress at UR2. Grid 2 is at the edge of the pond and Grid 1 is in the deepest part of it.

4.85 Surface artefacts in Grid 1 at UR2

4. 86 LSA scatter near the UR2 pond area

Type

Class

Number of items Grid 1 Grid 3x3m 3x3m 0 1 1 3 0 0 8 2 8 5 27 15 11 11 55 36 6.11 4.0

11 Struck Levallois core 14 Blade 26 Core 27 med Flake 27 large Flake 28 med RTF 28 large RTF Total Average per sq. metre

4.87 UR2 Artefacts from three grids

93

2 Grid 3 6x6m 0 2 7 1 6 36 32 84 2.33

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 4.12.2.2 Artefact summary for UR2

area. The bedrock is limestone, with no detrital quartzitic material lying on it, as the site is detached by some 7km from the main Plateau. On top of this hill in 2001 were seen occasional undiagnostic quartzitic flakes, some quite large, and usually weathered. The site is an obvious vantage point with views of the main Zebra River, (see Fig. 4.89 ) and it indicates the occasional transport of tools away from raw material sites in the MSA and later. Similar strays were recorded at Mooi Rivier. (see page 60)

Fig 4.87 shows the artefacts recorded in each grid. Grid 3 was four times larger than grids 1 and 2, because the density of artefacts was seen to fall away. The sole Levallois artefact (Fig 4.88) is small but fairly certain. The interpretation of these observations is given on pages 128-9. 4.12.3 Zebra 16°17’19.96”E

River

12

(ZR12)

24°32’11.75”S

This concludes the complete list of sites so far examined at ZR. In the following section, the data collected is analysed in more detail.

Quiver Tree site Fig 4.89. This site is a small mesa top, known locally as the Quiver Tree Hill, south of the main Zebra River in the Gorge

4. 88 Small struck Levallois core from UR2

4.89 Looking NE from above ZR12 showing the magnificent panorama from this site. GPS positions of artefacts at Gorge sites are marked. The high hilltop to the right of ZR12 had no artefacts at all. Picture adapted from Google Earth imagery © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

various

94

SECTION 5: INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDS

This section first outlines the hypothesis of environmental change on which our interpretation of the ZR evidence rests. This is followed by a detailed presentation of the analytical methods used in the study – tests for lithic hardness, artefact surface analysis by electron microscope, and application of the Edge Test to assess the relative age of artefacts. The interpretation of these data is then discussed site-by-site under ‘Interpreting the Fieldwork’. We then consider factors relating to the whole Study Area, including examining how !Kung (‘San’, ‘Bushman’) lifestyles can guide our interpretation of Palaeolithic behaviour. Finally a hypothetical reconstruction of an ESA occupation zone is attempted.

maximum numbers sustainable in the current environment. If a population exceeds this limit, for example in ‘bad times’ when inclement weather shrinks the food resource, (causing the population size to become unsustainable), humans may first reduce their numbers while remaining in the same place, but if conditions become too adverse, they will begin to spill into underpopulated areas if any exist in adjacent terrain. This trend will ripple through the landscape until all adjacent areas are filled to capacity. Seeking survival by migration to unknown habitats is a high-risk strategy, which may end in extinction if the migration fails to find a better environment. It will only be enacted if catastrophic environmental degradation threatens. Areas suitable for human occupation will not necessarily be populated if they are remote and separated from the existing population by some kind of barrier; this is a possible scenario in Western Namibia, which in earlier times may have been too remote from the Oldowan human population core areas to become inhabited. But eventually, when all the contiguous niches in the environment have been filled throughout a continent, the spillage overflows, if routes are available, into another continent. This evidently happened shortly after 2 million years ago through the Levant (or perhaps later, see Langbroek 2004), and subsequently on a number of other occasions.

5.1 Overview: the role of environmental change in shaping Palaeolithic life patterns The stone artefacts distributed over our Study Area offer a valuable palimpsest of evidence for human occupation during the Palaeolithic period. The record is probably virtually complete, in a landscape whose topography survives little altered from ESA time. While detail may be lacking, the outcome is a remarkable, broad-brush vista of prehistory, which demands an appropriate overview. Can we indeed construct an interpretation of human dynamics both on the micro- and macro-scale from these lithic scatters?

Population movement is not necessarily confined to ‘bad times’. When ‘good times’ come, human populations also undergo change by increasing to reach the maximum sustainable numbers. It is possible that this trend could over-reach the maximum and thus also initiate population movement. Thus good times as well as bad times could have been the cause of migrations out of Africa or within Africa: either way, the key factor is change. In reality, environments seldom remain constant for prolonged periods, so the potential for human movement is present for much of the time in any landscape. The important point here is that human populations can seldom ignore change whether for the better or worse; this is a constant still applicable today. Where we can detect environmental change in the past, such as from deep sea cores or the study of dunes or fluvial deposits, it can be expected that there would have been consequential responses in human behaviour.

We begin with a hypothesis. Humans, like other animals, do not generally change lifestyles or move from their ‘living space’ (see page 20) unless prompted (see for example Foley 1987, 44). There is plenty of evidence to show Palaeolithic populations using focal areas within prehistoric landscapes, such as Olduvai or Koobi Fora in East Africa. But artefact clusters can represent a range of purposes: at Boxgrove in the UK, ESA humans made tools and discarded debitage near a spring and at a butchery site (Pitts & Roberts 1998), but these places did not appear to serve any other function. Artefact clusters thus had differing purposes, which may have varied across the Palaeolithic world according to differing environments. Apart from acting as a living space, clusters could be the site of a transient camp, a workshop, or, as at Boxgrove in the UK, a butchery site or a waterhole. Did human communities return regularly to these sites over hundreds of thousands of years, or are they one-off events, or something in between? Surface studies offer the prospect of addressing these issues.

Good times and bad times come about mainly through climatic fluctuations, but can sometimes be caused by geological change. The record of both in Africa is becoming increasingly clear: the periodicity of climatic forcing combined with MIS core data yield a fairly precise sequence of climatic oscillations during prehistoric time, while major geological events such as the formation of the

There is a limited number of reasons why human populations may arrive, increase, decrease, depart or become extinct in any area, mainly relating to environmental change or population pressure. Populations will tend to reach the

95

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Rift Valley, which underwent major faulting in the Middle Pleistocene (Shackleton 1955), are becoming increasingly well-dated from ash sediments (Maslin & Christensen, 2007). The interplay between climate change and geological change – themselves not unrelated – results in the actual environmental changes on the ground to which local human populations must respond.

detail is preserved – the land surface at Zebra River has not been ‘contaminated’ by recent human spoiling, and in the more remote past it has probably not been subjected to disturbances that would erase the lithic record. The limitations may not be in the evidence itself but in our own shortcomings in interpretation – for example our inability to (as yet) accurately date stone tools, or to analyse the information we have gathered in an orderly way.

Human changes may also be prompted by environmental changes of other kinds, such as the spread of a deadly disease or the sudden eruption of a mega-volcano on another continent, but we are lucky if such events are preserved in the fossil record. Finally, changes can come about by chance incidents about which we can know nothing, such as human conflict within or across groups, which may significantly alter population patterns over the short or medium term.

5.2 Application of the analytical methods 5.2.1 Hardness tests As mentioned in the section describing the Edge Test (page 33), a critical factor in the interpretation of loss of mass from edges is the variation in the resistance of the rock type to weathering processes. If rock hardness is not uniform, the data gathered in Edge Testing will provide only an imperfect evaluation of relative age. Some variation in the hardness of the quartzitic sandstone used for artefact manufacture over the Study Area can be taken as inevitable (and indeed physically visible without the need for tests); the point is whether this variation is negligible or significant in distorting our data.

As a consequence of all this, populations constantly swell, shrink and move according to the changes wrought upon them. The human ability to overcome environmental change and impose its own plan of living increases as we move forward in time; charting this process is at the core of Palaeolithic archaeology. At Zebra River, because of the favourable conditions for archaeological investigation mentioned above, we have the opportunity to seek patterns reflecting this. We cannot possibly expect to detect all the intricacies of human comings and goings from what remains on the surface today, even though much of this

The Oxford University Centre for the Environment, a part of the School of Geography and the Environment in the University of Oxford, kindly agreed to test a selection of 15 artefacts for hardness using the Equotip Hardness Tester

5.1 Graph of artefact hardness on 15 samples on the Leeb scale. Dots show the average hardness and pins show the range of hardness in each artefact.

96

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.2 Artefacts used in the hardness tests 97

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia which displays results on the Leeb hardness scale (Aoki & Matsukura 2007). The Leeb test uses a spring powered carbide ball hammer. An electronic sensor measures the velocity of the hammer as it travels toward and away from the surface of the sample. The Leeb value is the hammer’s rebound velocity divided by the impact velocity times 1000. The result is the Leeb hardness ranging from 0 to 1000, which can be related to other hardness scales such as Rockwell and Vickers.

area. Thus the hardness of cortex in relation to knapped surfaces may not maintain a consistent relationship. Artefact 1293, a pointed handaxe from KH6, (see also fig 4.71b) is softer on both faces near the point (371466 as opposed to 502-741 for the rest). This handaxe is remarkable for a number of reasons. It is probably the finest pointed handaxe found so far in the Study Area, with superb symmetry both in plan and section, but is it also very rounded. Its Edge Test value is 2.13, and the Edge Test carried out in the tip area gave a result of 4.17. The artefact’s overall hardness is the least of those tested from the main Study Area. Softness and rounding thus seem here to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Each artefact was tested extensively over the surface, smaller items receiving at least 20 separate tests and larger ones up to 100 tests. The tests were grouped into like zones, judged by the surface appearance, e.g. cortical areas, black staining, orange staining, or distinctive roughness. The summary of results is shown in Fig. 5.1, which displays both the average hardness of artefacts and the range of values within them, and lists the artefacts used in the tests. Fig 5.2 illustrates these artefacts.

This is a salutary lesson in the influence of hardness on the Edge Test values. In general, handaxe quality improves with sharpness at ZR. Item 1293 shows a reversal of this trend. Although its average hardness is not far out of line with other handaxes from KH6, a combination of relative softness and a very soft tip has rendered the tool susceptible to weathering at a faster rate than normal. The tool could of course be very much older than the other fine work handaxes at ZR, although this is highly unlikely, or it could possibly have had a spell in a streambed.

In Fig 5.1, the values are left on the Leeb scale, which offers adequate enumeration for comparative evaluation of the data. Solid dots are artefacts from the Kuibis and Schwarzrand Sandstones and Shales of the main ZR Study Area. Circles are from other rock formations: item 1 is a small LSA flake from Sossusvlei Camp on the edge of the Namib Sand Sea 45km west of ZR; item 14 is a struck Levallois core from Glukauf 3 site in the Fish River subgroup in the east of the Study Area; item 15 is a crude chopper, with a smooth wind polish, from the Namib Dunes near Homeb, 150km northwest of the Study Area.

We know from study of the tools found at ZR as well as from other places that Palaeolithic humans were very aware of the geological characteristics of stone insofar as they affected tool manufacture. In the UK examples of quartzite blanks being tested specifically for artefact suitability, using a different hammerstone from the one used for subsequent knapping, have been noted (Hardaker & MacRae 2000). If the (limited) number of hardness tests carried out is truly representative of the ZR artefact assemblage, the vast majority of the raw materials chosen for tool making at ZR fall within a limited hardness range, and this was not, we suggest, by chance. The choice of a softer stone is rare. It may sometimes have been due to inexperience, but in the case of item 1293, the quality of the workmanship is so exquisite it can hardly be doubted that the choice was deliberate. One might surmise that a softer stone was selected in order to ease the knapping process to make a tool of special quality. This artefact may serve as a reminder that ‘odd ones out’ usually have a special explanation and should not be taken as an indication of any general trend (see page 99). It would of course be desirable to test all handaxes for hardness, but this was not a practical option.

At once the Study Area group stands out as containing only a limited hardness range, from 622 to 730. However, the range of hardness values obtained for any individual artefact in the Study Area is greater than the range of average values between the different artefacts. This is probably because the Equotip gun only assesses hardness over an area less than 1mm square, therefore it will record micro-variations in hardness depending on whether the gun hits, for example, a quartz grain or the matrix surrounding it. Clearly it is the average hardness for each artefact that is the relevant measure against which to assess whether Edge Test values will be skewed by hardness variation. Three of the artefacts displayed large variations in hardness in different zones on the surface. This suggests there are hardness variations within the raw material on these items. These three are discussed below:

5.2.2 Raw material and surface analysis of artefacts

Artefact 184, long blade from KH5, is softer on the ventral side (range 414-535 as opposed to 482-726 for the rest of the artefact). There is no apparent reason for this, but the artefact has lain on its ventral side more recently or more often, as revealed by a slightly lighter colour.

As noted above (page 47) recent work by Liu & Broecker (2007) in the drylands of the USA has shown how rock varnish can indicate alternations between wet and dry periods in the past. Three artefacts – one from the on the Plateau, one from ZR2 in the Gorge, one from Gail’s Cave (ZR3), and one natural clast, were submitted for electron microscope analysis of the surface and interior composition to Dr. David Waters, Department of Earth Sciences and

Artefact 1023, cleaver from KH4, is softer in the cortical area (range 444-615 as opposed to 518-821 for the rest). The only other artefact containing cortex, item 862, No 10 in the graph, has no difference in hardness on the cortical

98

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, UK. His report is included in full in Appendix 5.

An important question is: what comprises an acceptable sample to ensure validity of Edge Test results? In Appendix 4, some tests are described which give guidance in this respect. At some sites the numbers of artefacts in some categories are inadequate to yield results within a 10% tolerance, but most sample sizes give results that are within this tolerance.

The analysis was carried out with two main purposes – to ascertain whether artefact surfaces at ZR may contain any trace of the rock varnish that has potential to portray climatic oscillations, and to amplify the results of the hardness tests (above) for clast interiors.

It will be noted that the numbers of artefacts recorded in tabular form for each site in the text do not always tally with the numbers Edge Tested. This is mainly because of the omission of those with a high standard deviation, but occasionally inappropriate cast profiles also rendered the Test inapplicable.

In summary, it was found that all four samples were comprised of closely similar quartzitic sandstones, but the natural clast contained more iron-stained clay matrix, indicative of a greater length of time on the surface. Silica cement is the constituent which facilitates the production of sharp edges on the artefacts. One sample, an LSA flake from Gail’s Cave (ZR3), had acquired a desert varnish, which suggests a future potential for elucidating past climatic fluctuations from this data at ZR.

In both types of graph, absolute dating, admittedly of a crude sort, can be achieved by reference to the known date ranges of the different typologies from excavated sites. This aspect is covered on pages 174.

5.2.3 Edge Tests: display of the data

5.2.3.1 Average Rounding graphs

Edge Tests were carried out on about 1200 artefacts from the key sites ND4, ND8, ZR2, ZR4, KH3, KH6, ZR5, and UR2, with the purpose of attempting to determine their relative age. Although the premise that weathering increases with time can hardly be denied, caution was exercised because of potential hazards that might distort the results (as described above under Section 3, page 30). The greatest proportion of rejected results was due to standard deviation from the mean by more than 0.30 sq mm, leaving just under 1000 which were used in the final display of the results. Having eliminated all dubious data, there remains clear evidence for the robustness of the Edge Test program.

This is the standard method of display used in the study. Along the x-axis are plotted the average values for each artefact from a single site of a single type (e.g. Levallois cores). Irrespective of what the sample size, the dots representing each artefact are equally spaced out so that they always occupy the full length of the x-axis. Thus a sample of ten will be more spaced out than a sample of 20. (See for example Fig 5.4). However the reader can see how the numbers vary in each class from the number of symbols plotted, and also from the N= mark in the legend. The y-axis calibrates ascending loss of section mass, with the sharpest on the left side and the most weathered on the right.

The large amount of data accumulated from testing at least four edges on nearly 1000 artefacts can be displayed in a variety of ways, from simple numerical tables to complex graphic imagery. Care has to be taken to ensure that the way the data is displayed does not present misleading impressions.

Different artefact types from the same site (or from different sites when appropriate) can thus be plotted together for comparison. In addition to indicating relative age, both axes of the graph also serve as a proxy timeline, with the most recent time at bottom left and most distant time at top right.

All the Edge Test results are first plotted on Excel spreadsheets, showing each value, also noting any special characteristics such as unusual patination, retouch, natural damage, or recent breaks. Before displaying on graphs, artefacts whose standard deviation of rounding values is greater than 0.3 sq. mm. may be ‘weeded out’ (see above, page 32 item F). Those remaining are plotted on graphs by typological classes. In the graphs, the term ‘handaxes’ refers to Acheulian handaxes, cleavers and ovates. Where other bifaces are also included in this class, such as assumed handaxe roughouts (not ‘Rough bifaces’), the term ‘Biface’ is substituted. (They usually comprise only one or two items within the class.) After trying several different graphic formulae, two types of graph were adopted: Average Rounding graphs and Relative Frequency graphs.

The Average Rounding graph is thus a multi-purpose tool with the potential to show a number of different characteristics. Examples of different curves are shown in Fig 5.3. A straight line, (Fig 5.3A) without ‘steps’ at any point, will imply there has been steady output with no prolonged interruption in artefact manufacture while that type was being made. A dome-shaped curve will imply more ancient than recent output (Fig 5.3 B). A saucershaped curve suggests more recent than ancient output (Fig 5.3 C), and a curve with a ‘step’ may suggest distinct phases of manufacture with a substantial gap in between (Fig 5.3D). A curve showing only higher values of loss of mass implies that output ceased before the recent past. Likewise a curve showing no higher values suggests output is more recent. Fig 5.3E may be interpreted as a steady output terminating at some time before the present, because there are no artefacts in the sharper range.

99

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.3 Average Rounding: sample graphs When different classes of artefact from the same site are plotted on the same graph, most classes show an overlap in the range of rounding, but if the curve of one class of artefact lies above another, its artefacts are in aggregate more rounded and thus likely to have been produced partially or entirely at an earlier date. For example in Fig. 5.4, Flakes and Cores show a range between 0.1 and 1.26, and Levallois artefacts from 0.26 to 1.24. The sample numbers are high for each category – 31 and 29. Their overlap is between 0.26 and 1.24 yet the flakes line is substantially below the Levallois line, i.e. a substantial number of flakes are less rounded than the Levallois. Therefore it can reasonably be concluded that most of the flakes are more recent than most of the Levallois. Classes whose curves lie along similar lines are more likely to be contemporary.

5.4 Typical Average Rounding graph showing four

A variant of this display also includes vertical pins through each artefact symbol indicating the range of values of loss of mass within the four tests taken on the artefact. (Fig 5.5) This shows whether there is a relationship between amount of rounding and the range of Edge Test values

diagnostic types from one site

5.5 Average Rounding graph variant including range of values within each Levallois flakes and cores at ND4 (solid dots) and ND8 (grey dots). Dots represent the mean values for each

artefact shown as vertical pins, as seen on

artefact

100

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.6 Sample Relative frequency graph recorded within each artefact, but the potential for greater range naturally increases with the average rounding. Comparison of Edge Test data between sites, as opposed to within sites, was also carried out. However, in such cases we have to be sure that all conditions have been equal at both sites, otherwise comparisons lose their validity. This aspect is discussed site-by-site below. 5.2.3.2 Relative Frequency graphs Fig 5.6 This method of display is used to supplement the Average Rounding graphs when further clarity is sought. The degree of rounding is divided into nine categories in equal increments of 0.39sq mm loss of section mass. These are plotted along the x-axis. The numbers along the x-axis represent the median points of each category, for example the second category ‘0.62’ simply represents the median between 0.39 and 0.78. The nine categories equate to the following verbal descriptions: 0.23 mint or near to mint sharp, edges very sharp to the touch 0.62 sharp, edges still sharp to the touch 1.01 slightly rounded, edges not sharp to the touch 1.40 rounded, edges slightly blunt 1.79 more rounded, edges blunt 2.18 very significantly rounded, surfaces as well as edges abraded 2.57 severely rounded, perhaps fluvially rolled or the victim of accelerated chemical weathering through submersion in water, seldom seen at ZR 2.96 extremely rounded, usually a victim of fluvial rolling or chemical weathering as previous, rarely seen in this state at ZR.

The y-axis represents the percentage of artefacts in each category for any given artefact type in any site. As in the Average Rounding graphs, results from sites with different numbers of artefacts can be compared because they are converted to percentages. Such graphs provide an overview of how weathered the artefacts are at any site. It can also be regarded as a timeline, moving from the distant past on the right to recent time on the left. When more than one class is plotted together on the same graph, any differences will be immediately apparent. In the example (Fig.5.6) the elongated core handaxes (darker line) are more rounded than the Levallois material, which peaks very strongly in the less-rounded zone. From such displays, provided there are no other factors rendering the data invalid, we can be reasonably certain of the relative ages of the two different classes. 5.3 Interpreting the fieldwork In this section an attempt is made to discern some specific trends from the fieldwork data, starting with the mainly MSA assemblages of the Plateau, chief of which are at ND4 and ND8, and then looking at the mixed ESA and MSA assemblages in the Gorge from KH5/ZR3, ZR2, ZR4, and finally the intermediate Gorge/Plateau sites such as ZR1, KH4, KH6, and NR. Discussion is site-based but topics arising that have wider relevance to ZR as a whole are discussed as they arise. 5.3.1 The Plateau: The MSA sites of ND4 and ND8 Fig 5.7 The ND4 location atop a prominent mesa feature clearly represents a largely in situ MSA assemblage and thus offers great potential for study. The intense Levallois flavour of 101

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia points normally associated with this period. This is not due to small sample numbers: at ND4 we noted 82 Levallois cores and 39 Levallois flakes (not all of these were assigned numbers so the totals in the recorded artefacts list Fig 4.9 are smaller). These numbers are of course a minute proportion of the totals on the whole site. Convergent flakes were simply not produced by this community. This may apply elsewhere too. Unfortunately, convergent flakes are too few in the ZR landscape as a whole to enable meaningful Edge Test sampling. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the true ‘set piece’ convergent point or flake from an ordinary flake that happens to have come out looking this way. In short, classic Levallois and convergent pieces may not be linked, and the latter is, at ZR, a rather puzzling and rare group. 5.7 Map of ND4 & 8. © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe its artefacts is also exceptional even on the Plateau. (The question of an Acheulian presence at ND4 is discussed below (page 165)). The site contains no water source within it. Also, it is surrounded by an area of headwaters, where stream courses are small, lacking rounded boulders and with only slight evidence of runoff activity. Today, there are no springs in this part of the Plateau: the geological structure comprising a flat-bedded table land of porous sandstones is not conducive to spring formation, although the shales in this bedrock may be impervious. Even if the climate had been considerably wetter in Palaeolithic time, there was probably no permanent water source available for several kilometres around. Whatever attraction this site had for its inhabitants, it is likely to have trumped the need for accessible water. It is hardly possible to imagine the site as just an occasional stopping-off place, because of the density of artefacts. It cannot have been just a factory site, because thousands of tools are still there. At the very least it would have been a factory and butchery site, which may virtually add up to a ‘living space’. In any case, thirst must have played a part in the human routines there. This adds up to strong evidence for MSA inhabitants being able to carry water to the site, implying they had acquired the technique of making watertight containers. A similar conclusion was reached by Deacon (1989) in the context of the Southern Cape. If this technology existed, stone tools could also have been transported in bags. At first sight, the sheer number of artefacts suggests an extremely large number of people working at tool-making, although this is actually unlikely given that the arid environment could not support a dense population. More likely the assemblage belongs to many separate visits and/ or generations, perhaps spread over thousands of years, but now telescoped into a single layer of ‘surface enrichment’. The Levallois material itself is impressive here, with a fair proportion of large, well-made classic cores and flakes, but curiously there is a total absence of the convergent flakes/

In our sample of 82 Levallois cores, 20% are unstruck. To match the 65 struck cores there are only 39 Levallois flakes. That is, again, not a consequence of small sampling, but an indication of how high a proportion of the Levallois flakes have actually been moved from this part of the site. It offers useful evidence about the daily routines of MSA occupants. The place of artefact manufacture is governed by the raw material source, which happens in this case also to be a strategic vantage point, though whether it was perceived as such by the occupants is conjectural. The main products are still, as always, ordinary (nonLevallois) flakes, but the largest tool of the day – the Levallois core – is manufactured here and largely retained here. (As discussed below, there are only a few lying in the surrounding landscape which was fieldwalked within a 3-4km radius). The site must therefore have been used not only for tool manufacture, but for use, and this may include using Levallois cores as tools, especially as 20% of them are unstruck. Many of these unstruck cores are quite suitable for flake removal. The function of Levallois cores is discussed further below (page 169). However, game or plant food would have to be sought in the wider landscape and for this purpose the smaller, more portable, Levallois flakes may have been carried away from the site. We have not noted concentrations of Levallois flakes in fieldwalking the hinterland, but they occur occasionally as singles. Animal food processing was likely to be split between killing sites located anywhere in the vicinity – where larger carcasses would need to be dismembered before removal – and smaller kills which could be carried to the living space unprocessed. From the concentration of large artefacts remaining at the ND4 site, it is clear a good deal of food processing was carried out there. 5.3.1.1 Evaluation of the Edge Test results Fig 5.8a & b Edge Tests at ND4 were carried out on 114 artefacts comprising 48 non-diagnostic flakes and cores, 17 elongated core handaxes, 38 Levallois flakes and cores, and 11 blades and blade cores. At ND 8 tests were carried out on 19 Levallois flakes and cores.

102

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.8 Relative Frequency and Average Rounding graphs for ND4 and ND8 The Relative Frequency graph (Fig 5.8a) shows the elongated core handaxes considerably more rounded than the Levallois items. It shows over 45% in the 0.62 (slightly rounded) category. This is discussed in more detail below (page 144 ECHs). A noticeable factor in this graph is the extension of both these classes into the ‘extremely rounded’ categories – a feature seen only here and at the adjacent ND8 site. All other Levallois Edge Test results, in the Gorge and Gorge margins, terminate at the 2.18 category. There could be several explanations. Weathering processes may operate more rapidly on the Plateau than in more sheltered parts of the Gorge, although the hardness tests showed there is no significant variation in raw material at ND4.

The Average Rounding graph (Fig 5.8b) portrays the wide range of rounding seen in the different categories. The most rounded are the ECHs, followed by the classic Levallois cores and flakes, and finally the flakes and (nonLevallois) cores and blades/blade cores. The most obvious reading of this graph suggests there may have been three separate phases of occupation within the MSA, the earliest concentrating on the manufacture of ECHs, the second on classic Levallois cores and flakes, and the final on blades and blade cores. As time progressed, the proportion of flakes produced appears to have increased. This conclusion would however need to be verified through further Edge Testing. Two special factors are of interest in reading the Edge Test graphs at this site: the place of flakes and non-Levallois 103

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia flake cores, and the question of weathering variability within artefact categories. 5.3.1.2 Flakes and non-Levallois cores at ND4 The flake element at ND4 is significant because it is a site with no visible ESA presence; hence any flakes must belong either to the MSA or the LSA. It would be useful to ascertain the proportion of flakes to diagnostic tools produced by the MSA occupants at this site. Flakes and non-Levallois cores are virtually the only class where items score below 0.25mm loss of section mass in Fig 5.8b. These number eight items out of a total of 48 which might be interpreted as an indication that one sixth of the flake and core population is post-MSA. If, as we argue below, there is a large gap in time between the departure of MSA inhabitants and the arrival of LSA peoples, there should be a ‘step’ in the flakes graph as envisaged above (see Fig 5.3d page 100). There is no such step. This suggests that even though the flakes and blades categories are less weathered than the other categories, the bulk of them were probably produced during a contiguous period in the MSA. That conclusion tallies with our field observation that LSA flakes of unweathered greenish appearance are not abundant at ND4. (See below where an arbitrary split between MSA and LSA flakes has to be made. (See pages 34 and 184 where the distinctions between MSA and LSA are defined). 5.3.1.3 Range of rounding within artefacts There is a large range of weathering within each artefact amongst the Levallois at ND4. Fig 5.5 above shows all artefacts at ND4 in a Relative Frequency graph containing pins through each artefact to indicate the range of Edge Test values measured in the (usually four to six) tests on the artefact. Obviously where the mean of the four gives a low value, the scope for a large range is less, but on the artefacts with a higher mean, a large range of values requires an explanation. However it is usually just one value out of line with the others on an artefact. On looking more closely, it is nearly always caused by the selection of an edge for testing where a problem was not detected when the casts were taken, such as structural weakness in the stone (e.g. a crack), a very exposed protrusion, or most commonly a secondary break that appears to make the edge more rounded. Because the points where the casts were taken were marked on the artefacts, we can return to them to see what was wrong. As a rule, this problem was bypassed by discarding all artefacts where the standard deviation from the mean was greater than 0.30 sq. mm. As we have seen in the section on hardness (page 104) a guiding axiom in Edge Test analysis is not to read anything into exceptional pieces – the weathering processes, hardness variation, possibility of burial and possibility of fluvial rolling leave room for exceptions to occur. The graphs simply spotlight the exceptions. It would seem unlikely that the small number of more rounded Levallois items at ND4 and ND8 represent a Levallois industry of materially earlier date than anywhere

else in the region. It is possible that use wear, through long-term usage of a small proportion of artefacts on light duties, causing abrasion rather than spall fracturing, may account for excessive rounding on some artefacts at ZR, but the end result will be hard to distinguish from weathering. If very rounded Levallois items do not indicate an especially early date, the occasional less weathered Levallois items likewise do not mean the Levallois continued into the LSA. Continuation of the Levallois technique into recent time would require people with no cultural affinity to the MSA Levallois period to develop the specialised skills necessary to reproduce fine quality cores and flakes imitating a longabandoned culture. Although there are examples of the Levallois technique from remarkably diverse periods in archaeology, such as at the Neolithic site of Grimes Graves in the UK, or the Later Stone Age of Western Australia (Dortch, pers comm.), in the context of Zebra River we do not believe these stray sharp Levallois cores represent a recent Levallois episode. Fresh artefacts with Edge Test values outside the general range may also be explained as having been buried for significant periods. At ND4, the trench dug on the mesa top yielded large numbers of artefacts suggesting burial at this site is important (page 110). 5.3.1.4 The influence of topographic position: comparison of ND4 and ND8 Edge Tests An opportunity to assess the importance of aspect and relative elevation in affecting rates of weathering arose at ND4. While most of the artefacts lie on the mesa top (ND4), a significant concentration was found lying on nearly flat ground at the bottom of the small adjacent valley (ND8) which is 15-20 metres below the escarpment edge. Fig 5.7 , see also Fig.4.4. As mentioned in Section 4, the configuration of the ND8 artefacts precludes any possibility that they could be derived from the plateau top (page 41) and clearly indicates a quite separate in situ occupation site. It might be surmised that artefacts lying for prolonged periods on the top of a mesa would be more subject to wind erosion than ones lying in a sheltered valley close by. This was tested by comparing Edge Tests for artefacts from the two sites. 33 Levallois cores/flakes from ND4 and 19 from ND8 were tested. On the Average Rounding graph (Fig 5.8b) ND4) both are shown. The ND4 artefacts are no more weathered than those in the relatively sheltered valley bottom. In fact the opposite is true: ND8 has three even more weathered than those from ND4. This could of course be due to ND8 having been an earlier site, but against this the characteristics of the Levallois material in both sites is similar – very large well-made items along with other smaller less well-made ones, and absence of Levallois points, suggestive of roughly contemporary occupation. Despite their different topographic positions, weathering rates at the foot of the scarp have been roughly

104

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds similar to those on top of the mesa, indicating that wind abrasion is only a part of the reason for weathering here. That would eliminate sand-charged wind as a significant contributory factor in weathering. It is just possible that micro-climate may have played a part here – a windfunnel effect up or down the ND8 valley empowered the weathering process to compensate for the more sheltered topographic position of the valley. 5.3.1.5 Calculating length of occupation at the ND4 site, and implications for the Study Area Most estimates of population density for the ESA and MSA are extremely low (e.g. Christian, 2004, 198) – small groups of around 20-30 people occupying from 500 to 1000 square km. Bleek et. al., (1937), and Barnard (1978) give similar estimates for modern !Kung hunter-gatherers (see page 193). The raised mesa-like terrain at ND4 is almost entirely ringed by an escarpment and with no higher ground adjacent. This ensures the artefacts present have not been transported by natural forces from any place at a higher elevation. Is there an opportunity here to attempt, by sampling, to calculate the total number of artefacts belonging to the site, and from this to estimate, using a range of hypothetical rates of production, the possible range of time in the MSA when the site was occupied? Such a calculation would invoke multiple variables, some based on sampling, but others which would have to be estimated from a priori reasoning. The factors which we believe would influence the calculation of the total number of artefacts produced by the MSA occupants are outlined below and then discussed in more detail. 1. The total number of artefacts remaining on the surface of the site. This can be estimated fairly accurately by sampling and fieldwalking to determine the extent of scatters. 2. The number of artefacts that have been carried away from the site. One clue here is provided by sampling the number of struck Levallois cores compared with the number of Levallois flakes, and this can be backed up to some extent by fieldwalking the surrounding area to verify the density of stray artefacts that may have been carried off site. 3. The number of artefacts that have simply been lost over time, for example by falling over the edge of the escarpment, or throwing from the cliff edge. The first of these can be assessed, in order of magnitude terms, by searching the detritus surrounding the mesa, but the other two can only be guessed. 4. The number of artefacts buried beneath the soil at the site. This can be tested by sampling, but complications arise owing to the uneven distribution and depth of soils. 5. The length of time tools were in use. This can only be indirectly tested.

6. The number of artefacts of LSA date. The calculation of occupation time will require an estimate of the rate at which artefacts of different types were manufactured. For this there is no firm evidence from ZR, but information from other sites is useful. At Baker’s Hole in the UK, (also a Levallois factory site, Roe 1981, 80) large numbers of artefacts (including thousands of flakes and debitage) could be produced on a single living site in perhaps no more than a year or two. Of course Baker’s Hole cannot be directly compared with ZR, but it shows that large numbers of non-diagnostic artefacts alone do not prove anything about length of occupation. The number of diagnostic tools is a better guide. Here, we would need to introduce a range of likely production rates, assuming a group size of 20-30 people, and this is the most difficult part of the equation to establish. Clearly such calculations may not achieve even moderate accuracy. Why then bother to make them at all? The exercise is carried through because of the unique opportunity offered by having a complete Palaeolithic site exposed to view, rather than just a dug fraction. It turns out that despite all the imponderables and the necessarily large range of possible answers, the exercise is extremely informative, as we shall see below. The five factors just outlined are now considered in detail. 1. The total number of artefacts remaining on the surface of the site. As noted in Section 4 above, seven contiguous 5x5 metre grids in a typical scatter zone at ND4 were exhaustively searched and all artefacts recorded. The results are shown in Fig 5.9. This forms the main basis for a calculation of the artefact total. Fieldwalking with GPS then established the extent of the dense zone, and a further peripheral zone where artefacts are present but the density falls away. The grid chain was selected in an area where, by eye, the scatters were judged to be ‘dense’ (Fig 5.7). From fieldwalking over the whole mesa top, the ‘dense’ area was estimated to be maintained over approximately 570 x 250 metres, with a further marginal zone beyond this where the density fell off to ‘moderate’, then ‘few’ and finally none. Assuming the average density from the grids is maintained over the whole of the dense area, the total number of artefacts here, calculated from the seven contiguous grids (Fig.5.9), would be 2.6 x 570 x 250 = 370,000. Adding a further estimated 25% for the peripheral zone beyond, this becomes 463,000. 2. The number of artefacts that have been carried away from the site. Figs 4.9 and 5.9 show we recorded 41+24 = 65 struck Levallois cores but only 24+15 = 39 Levallois flakes. If this ratio is representative of the site as a whole, 40% of

105

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Non-tools GRID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Debitage Small flakes

4 4 3 4 11 9 17 Total 52 Total &%

10 3 2 1 1 6 0 23

Small Tools

Large tools

NonLev Cores

Flakes Blades Str Lev Cores

Unstr Lev Cores

Lev Flakes

Elong Cores

16 4 23 22 8 9 20 102

12 21 22 34 34 41 56 220

0 0 2 1 0 1 1 5

0 0 0 2 1 8 4 15

1 0 1 1 0 0 1 4

Non tools 177 or 39%

0 2 2 1 1 2 2 10

0 0 7 4 2 4 7 24

Small Tools 230 or 50..5%

Large tools 48 or 10.5%

Grand total

Per sq metre

43 34 62 70 58 80 108 455

1.72 1.36 2.48 2.80 2.32 3.20 4.32 2.60

Average number of artefacts per 5x5 metre grid: 65

Grid square counts at ND4 Fig 5.16 Grid square counts 5.9 at ND4. the Levallois flakes have disappeared, probably carried away for use elsewhere. That does not imply other types of artefact have also undergone the same export ratio, but it does suggest that export of flakes occurred, perhaps on a lesser scale. The calculation therefore allows for removal of 40% of Levallois flakes and 20% of normal flakes from the site. From our artefact records, at ND4 5.5% are Levallois flakes and 48.37% are MSA flakes. The total number of artefacts removed from the site on this basis would be: Levallois flakes 5.5% of 463,000 x 40% = 10,186 Normal flakes 48.37% of 463,000 x 20% = 44,790. These have to be added to the total of 463,000 obtained in 1 above, which now becomes 463,000 + 10,186 + 44,790 = 517,976. 3. The number of artefacts that have simply been lost over time. When we searched the slopes surrounding the mesa top at ND4 there were very few artefacts to be seen. Of course, on a slope of 7-10 degrees on the mesa edge, material will move downslope relatively quickly, yet no accumulation is seen at the foot of the scarp. We conclude that loss from falling over the edge is negligible and other loss probably very small, so no figure has been entered on this count. 4. The number of artefacts buried beneath the soil at the site. In order to calculate this, an area in the central part of the site was selected which appeared to contain a rich soil layer, and two metre square trenches were dug (Fig 4.7 pages 4041).d six artefacts. They were then excavated to a depth of 20cm. At this depth, the soil was close to bedrock and became difficult to prize apart. Grid 1 yielded 40 buried artefacts and Grid 2 contained 31 (Fig 4.8). There were no diagnostic artefacts amongst them (see Appendix 1). We were aware that soil cover at ND4 is patchy, because there

are frequent occurrences of surface bedrock. It appears to be confined to small basin-like features where hollows in the bedrock have accumulated a coarse red soil. A critical question is what percentage of the dense artefact area at ND4 rests on soil that has artefacts buried in it. Several foot traverses were carried out, noting the percentages of the traverse where soil was present. Our assessment was that about 30% of the site was covered by soil, but only half of this would be deep, the rest being peripheral to the outcrops of bedrock. In sum therefore we estimated 15% of the total area of the dense artefact scatter at ND 4 would lie upon soil that contained buried artefacts at a conservative estimate of 20 per square metre. The calculation is thus: 570 x 250 = 142,000 sq metres in the dense zone x 15% = 21,375 sq metres containing 20 per sq metre = 427,500 artefacts. We add a further estimated 50,000 in the peripheral zone, making a total of 477,500 buried artefacts. The grand total of artefacts estimated to have been produced at ND4 therefore becomes: Surface artefacts 517,976 Buried artefacts 477,500 Total 995,476. 5. The length of time tools were in use. Where weathering has removed traces of use wear, the only evidence for longevity of use may be from signs of resharpening. There are two reasons to believe that resharpening of Levallois tools was uncommon at ND4. Firstly it is seldom observed, and secondly the abundance of raw material on site would tend to make for laziness in tool conservation. So tools were not probably not curated or conserved very much by individuals but were discarded well before their natural lifespan was up. However this point is developed further below in terms of long-term reuse (see pages 108 and 179).

106

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds 6. The number of artefacts of LSA date. As the calculation is attempting only to measure the length of the MSA occupation, any artefacts of later date must be eliminated from the count. The Edge Test graph (fig 5.8b) provides the only clue here, but as discussed above (page 103) the graph is ambiguous. Before any further calculations, it is necessary to separate ‘tools’ from ‘non-tools’ amongst the ND4 artefacts, because we shall only be estimating the rate at which tools were made. This is done by referring to the totals in the seven controlled grids shown in Fig 5.9. Diagnostic items are easily defined but with non-diagnostic ones a more arbitrary choice has to be made. Artefacts were divided into three types – those we considered non-tools (debitage, small flakes under 20mm longest dimension, and nonLevallois cores), small tools (medium and large flakes and blades) and large tools (struck and unstruck Levallois cores, Levallois flakes and elongated core handaxes). 91% (220) of the total of 242 flakes sampled at ND4 were over 20mm in longest dimension. Evidence to support flakes being used as tools is seen in retouch on edges. Although weathering on the edges makes it hard to be sure where true human retouch has been applied, we identified this clearly, while in the field, on 11 pieces or 4.5% of the total flake sample. That will certainly be fewer than the real count, but flakes do not always need retouch to serve as cutting tools for small jobs. Many more items contained negative edge scars that could be human retouch. Using this formula and applying it to the total number of artefacts estimated (995,476), we arrive at the following: Non tools 39% or 388,235 Small tools 50.5% or 502,716 Large tools 10.5% or 104,525 We are now at last ready to calculate the occupancy time using a range of rates of tool production. This can then be compared with the total period of time within which Levallois industries are believed, from other Southern African sites, to have been current. Using the artefact classification in Fig 5.9, 61% (607,240) of the ND4 artefacts would be tools, of which 50.5% (502,715) would be small tools and 10.5% (104,525) large tools. This is a ratio of 4.8 small tools to every large tool. 39%, (388,235) of the artefacts are non-tools. Because small tool production continued after Levallois had ceased, the overall ratio of small tools to large tools made in the Levallois period will actually be lower. Assessment of the proportion of small tools and flakes belonging to the post- Levallois period is made as best we can from the Average Rounding graph (Fig 5.8A). Here, about half of the flakes are less rounded than the Levallois items. So we re-assess the true ratio of small to large tool manufacture in the Levallois period at 3.6:1, which would reduce the total number of small tools belonging to the Levallois period at ND 4 from 502,716 to 376,987. On this basis,

Fig.5.10 shows the rates of tool manufacture per year that would stem from these quantities over a range of possible occupation periods. The calculation assumes only one human group would be resident at any one time on a site of this extent. This table shows the rates of tool production over a range from 10 to 100,000 years. Clearly it has to be read with two questions in mind – at what point do the numbers look too large, and at what point do they look too small? To resolve this, it is necessary to try to imagine the factors influencing the mechanisms of tool manufacture and use. It might be assumed the need for large tools was fairly constant and frequent, requiring manufacture once every several days. In this case, a rate of manufacture of large tools from 100 (i.e. two a week) to 1000 (i.e. ten a week) per year at ND4 might seem appropriate, with a parallel rate of small tool manufacture of between 377 and 3770 per year. That would suggest a period for occupation of between 100 and 1000 years. For a community of 20 or 30 people this seems an adequate number of tools, but it is a very short period indeed within the possible MSA timespan. Even if the calculations are tenfold out, the occupation time range would only increase to between 1000 and 10,000 years, so a shortfall in time would still apply. How does one account for this anomaly? The assumption that tool manufacture was regular and frequent may be incorrect. Perhaps we should consider a ‘site’ as a communal pool of tools, made occasionally and distributed on the ground so that whenever one was needed, a brief search would yield it. (The ground would need to be thinly vegetated, as it is today, for this to be feasible.) Such tools once made would be re-used over many generations, like a family passing on its heirlooms. Transport of tools would usually be restricted to local movement on the site, but they would also occasionally be taken on treks for butchery tasks elsewhere, and they might not be returned to the site, as intimated from the occurrence of ‘strays’ in the wider landscape. Replenishment would only be performed when the spread over the site became inconveniently thin. In this model, there would be no need to make tools all the time; perhaps several years might go by without any large toolmaking being done. The same situation would apply with the more frequently-used flake tools. Long term tool replacement in the community would represent a response to natural wastage. In this context, the average rate of manufacture of large tools per year could easily fall in the range 1-10, giving an occupation period of between 10,000 and 100,000 years at ND4 (Fig 5.10). However where there is a degree of ‘family likeness’ of large tools at a site, this argument may be somewhat tempered. It would suggest that large tool making was not a product of many separate unrelated occupations – communities were rather maintaining established traditions which can be discerned from a degree of continuity of style in the tools. The truth may lie somewhere in between – if we were to look sufficiently closely we might find different

107

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Duration of occupation of site in years 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 10,000 100,000

Rate of manufacture of tools per year Large (N=104,525) Small (N=376,987) 10,452 37,698 2091 7540 1045 3770 209 754 105 377 21 75 11 38 1.1 3.8

5.10 Rate of tool manufacture at ND4 in the Levallois period

Fig. 5.17. Rates of tool manufacture at ND4 in the Levallois period chains of ‘family likenesses’ belonging to different chains of generations within the MSA. Such patterns are already visible in the Acheulian repertoire at ZR where we can distinguish early crude weathered handaxes from less weathered, more finely made examples. But the stylistic overlap between the chains may greatly blur the picture.

of the hypothesis that resharpening and re-use were only occasionally practised. The fact that the majority of handaxes are still large confirms this. 5.3.1.6 Curation, caches and containers The growth of the concept of curation in the hominin mind would have been greatly facilitated by having a means to carry things (i.e. containers). Part of the alleged distinction between Acheulian and MSA is the increased range of human movement in the MSA, which implies an ability to carry kit about. It would be inconvenient to have to hold large tools in the hand when traversing terrain while simultaneously dragging meat or other goods, so the case for MSA communities possessing containers is strong even though only circumstantial. The same conclusion was reached by Deacon (1989), McBrearty & Brooks (2000), Isaac (at Olorgesailie, Isaac 1975, 218), and MacRae (in Oxfordshire, UK, MacRae 1988). Even if conscious curation was not practised, the idea of the cache may have developed; indeed one of the raisons d’etre of the assumed ‘living space’ argued above is to act as a cache for re-use of tools. Several of these bases in the group’s territory would ensure that hunters were never too far from their tools. The communal cache may be a first step towards the concept of personal curation. As has been noted above, MSA sites on the Plateau are often far from a reliable water source, and it has been surmised that containers were used to carry water to these sites.

When there was a break in human occupation, useful tools from previous occupations would still be visible when a new group arrived, as is evident from the visibility of tools on the surface today after several hundred thousand years. This would help to explain why the same sites appear to be chosen over and over again – the new arrivals were simply tapping in to what they would perceive as an environmental resource, in the form of tool caches already in place. Sites once established would be self-perpetuating. The Average Rounding graphs when amalgamated for four key sites in the Gorge and on the Plateau (Fig 5.11) provide a reminder that ‘breaks’ in human occupation in ESA/MSA time do not seem to have been of enormous length at ZR. As seen above (Fig 5.3d page) evidence of a long break should be manifest in a distinct step in the graphs representing the difference in rounding between the older and the newer group of artefacts. The absence of such steps implies ESA/MSA occupation formed a broadly continuous period. A combination of factors means the artefacts themselves may not reveal evidence of re-use (see Fig 5.12) for a rare example of a tool retouched in discernibly later time). Resharpening an item that had been made hundreds or a few thousand years before would not bring about detectable differences in weathering on flake scars, all of which will have become rounded in the succeeding period. Additionally, many potential ‘retouch’ scars may be indistinguishable from natural damage. There is however another possible means of detecting re-use, in the number of small diagnostic tools. The range of sizes of pointed Acheulian handaxes at ZR is considerable, from 81mm (item 594) to 343mm (item 100). An example of the range at a typical site is seen in Fig 5.30 from ZR4. page 122. Of course the original sizes of handaxes would have varied, but anything under about 120mm seems uncomfortably small to start off with, implying that resharpening may have taken place on the smaller ones seen today. The presence of a small number of small handaxes is supportive

Further evidence for curation comes from the occasional stray large tools, both ESA and MSA, found in isolation, which may represent the sites of butchery events using large tools brought from the main living space. Such strays are sometimes found on shale bedrock at some distance from quartzitic raw material. Finally, curation of a more personal kind may be implied from the two ficron-cleavers (items 100 and 1326) from ZR4 and KH6, discussed on pages . To conclude this section, we have identified an unexpected situation from the artefact count at ND4: the number of artefacts calculated to lie within the ND4 MSA site, which is assumed to be fairly complete, seems to represent a duration of occupation considerably shorter than the

108

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.11 Composite Average Rounding graphs for four key sites

5.12 Artefact 200 from ZR5 showing a rare LSA retouch on an Acheulian cleaver.

example of

The differences in colour and sharpness are clear on this example, indicating an extended time gap between the original knapping and the retouch.

109

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia potential MSA period, even allowing for a very slow rate of large tool manufacture. In temperate zones, where Ice Ages and cool periods are likely to have caused the abandonment of territory for lengthy periods, this shortfall would be expected, but while glaciation affected high latitudes, it is believed that Africa generally just became drier and a little cooler. Perhaps it is necessary to accept the evidence from ND4 for what it is, and try to understand why this should be so. The calculations used to arrive at our conclusion may be flawed, but most likely the evidence reflects a thinly distributed occupation, spread amongst many separate living spaces, and sometimes interrupted by short periods of absence which may have lasted for hundreds, or a few thousand, years. In addition, the major cold epochs of the Pleistocene may have prevented human occupation in parts of Africa for more substantial periods of time. So it is quite possible that in this remote corner of Africa, arrival of humans in the ESA/MSA timespan was relatively late and abandonment was relatively early. Outside this period, ND4 was empty for most or all of the time. This topic is discussed further in the wider context of the Study Area as a whole on page 175. 5.3.1.7 Where have all the small flakes gone? Newcomer (1971) monitored the waste material produced in the manufacture of a flint handaxe and found that, apart from producing over 50 major flakes, some 4600 minor flakes and spalls were detached. Although making Levallois cores in quartzitic sandstone does not equate to handaxes in flint, Newcomer’s experiment serves to illustrate that very large numbers of small waste flakes once must have littered the floor at ND4 and other living space sites at ZR. Very few of the small flakes and none of the really small spalls appear to survive today. Measurement of the length of flake scars from existing Levallois flakes and cores (Fig. 5.59a & b page 99) shows that on Levallois items from various Plateau sites, 46% of measurable removals are less than 20mm long. Yet in the field at ND4 only 4% of flakes are less than 20mm long. What has happened to the rest? The explanation probably involves four factors. First, very small items are quite hard to see so some will be missed. Second, the smaller flakes and debitage may have weathered to the point where they are not so much hard to see as unrecognisable. Third, the smaller the flake the more it is susceptible to downslope movement. Even with an inclination of less than 2 degrees, some smaller stones will migrate during heavy storms, producing a significant cumulative effect over prolonged time. Finally, very small spalls can also be blown by wind. Once these flakes get into a streambed, they are quickly transported, rounded and destroyed. Therefore the apparent absence of small flakes in a surface site need not mean that knapping was done elsewhere, and indeed there is plenty of other evidence to show that that artefact manufacture was done on site.

5.3.1.8 Excavated items at ND4 The small section dug into shallow red soil on the mesa top (page 27) in the dense area of scatters at ND4 revealed seven artefacts (847-853) – one elongated core handaxe and six flakes. At a depth of 14cm, signs of bedrock were apparent although solid bedrock was not reached. Because this small excavation revealed buried artefacts, in 2010, two metre square trenches were excavated at ND4 to amplify this picture. 71 artefacts were recovered from this excavation (Fig 4.7 page 40). The fact that artefacts occur below the surface is of importance because it tells us there is or was a bioturbation mechanism at work in this arid environment. This means all artefacts could have potentially been buried at some period, but because the rate of turnover is unknown, it is impossible to know whether all artefacts will have spent roughly the same amount of time buried as on the surface in proportion to their total age. If bioturbation is fast, this will be the case, and thus burial would be irrelevant in assessing the relative age of artefacts at a site. If it is slow, artefacts may have spent a more variable proportion of their time buried, so this factor will need to be built into Edge Test results. The most likely reason for bioturbation is animal burrowing but a wide variety of causes contribute to it; they are discussed on page 134 below. From the first excavation, the seven artefacts were Edge Tested and the results are shown as black crosses joined by a solid line on Fig 5.13) where they are compared with the combined results of all Edge Tests at ND4 and 8 (shown in subdued tone). There appears to be rather greater weathering on buried items than on surface ones, although the one diagnostic tool, the elongated core handaxe 853, is actually less weathered than five of the flakes. The sample is too small to draw conclusions, and the larger samples from the 2010 excavation have not been Edge Tested yet, so judgement has to be reserved for the time being. 5.3.2 The Plateau: Other sites Ou Kamkas 1 (Page 48) is one of a few examples of MSA occupation on a Plateau a riverside site. As only a short visit was made, conclusions are tentative. Intense scatters over a 30 metre area, comprising more unstruck than struck Levallois cores, elongated core handaxes and blade cores, with a less dense scatter over a wider area of 80 metres, suggest a single factory site. The quality of artefacts is coarse, perhaps reflecting a coarse-grained raw material which prevented refined crafting of the cores. Also interesting is the survival of dense clustering on a slope, estimated at ‘over 2 degrees’, a few metres above the present course of the Kamkas river. Harughas (page 51) is the only zone away from the ND4 region where dense mesa top scatters have been observed. There are many other mesa top features in the Study Area as yet unexplored. The sites were visited to augment our understanding of MSA living strategies on the Plateau. In

110

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds the overriding factor in the choice of occupation sites, if necessary taking precedence over aspect or vantage point considerations. Sample traverses in the region surrounding Harughas revealed large areas of terrain where raw material was absent or sparse, and artefacts were only occasional. The impression of MSA groups ranging over the whole landscape, carrying tools with them and occasionally knapping en route, but returning frequently to the living space, is repeated here. The mesa top at HG3 has similarities with ND4, although only steep-sided on two sides. The raw material is more coarse-grained and is not of good knapping quality at HG3 or on the lower site at HG4, but at least it is present. Consequently the range of artefacts is small, very rounded, and almost impossible to categorise, but small tortoiseshaped cores dominate, often with very few removals and with ventral sides unworked. 5.13 ND4 Average Rounding graph for artefacts showing the excavated items

particular the presence of two dense MSA scatters, one on the mesa top with steep slopes on two sides, (HG3) and one on a lower flat area (HG4) was instructive in suggesting that readily available raw material, seen at both of these sites even though of coarse grained material, was

5.3.3 The Gorge: 1. ZR5/KH3 These two sites are discussed together because they are both in the valley floor less than half a kilometre apart. Because of their close geographic proximity, the Edge Test results from both sites should reveal something about the contemporaneity or otherwise of the archaeological content, if their weathering history is the same.

5.14 Overview of ESA and MSA diagnostic artefacts from ZR5/KH3 showing the two occupation sites near to small streams in preference to escarpment margins.

111

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia In contrast to the ND4 Plateau site, the two sites at ZR3/ KH5 are located on rock pediments immediately adjacent to the streambed in a tributary valley of the main Zebra River. The sites are little more than 3km from the nearest part of the Plateau edge but well within the Gorge (Fig 4.52). ESA/MSA/LSA are mixed, with Acheulian handaxes and cleavers along with prepared cores, blades, blade cores and flakes. Within 400 metres of the edge of the scatters lies the small Gail’s Cave (ZR3) which was excavated in 2007. It is thus an ideal site to compare ESA, MSA and LSA material through the Edge Test data. Vistas are limited and a through route is unlikely to have been prominent in this progressively narrowing valley because of the steep terrain upstream. The sites were chosen, as were most other sites, because of their abundant resources of good quality raw material. The two dense concentrations of artefacts (Fig 5.14 ) both contain ESA/Acheulian and MSA/Levallois, but ZR5 has the greater numbers of Acheulian. The scatter patterns reveal information about occupation strategies: sites were clearly chosen to be close to small streams rather than on the upper edges of the pediments closer to the escarpment wall, even though the raw material resource is spread fairly evenly over the valley. Strays in the valley surrounding ZR5 are also found. They may represent in situ manufacture and discard from immediately available lithic clasts, or they may have been carried from the central site. ZR5 is a good example of the dominance of a central place for most human activity in the Gorge, especially in the ESA.

5.15 Average Rounding graph for ZR5 artefacts

The Average Rounding graph for ZR5 (Fig 5.15 ) contains ample ESA and MSA samples. The two curves are almost exactly coincident. Here is the soundest evidence we will obtain to show that ESA and MSA industries spanned a contemporary period (though not necessarily in parallel) at ZR. At this site, the other categories, blade/blade cores and flakes/cores, are less weathered and would appear to have been produced after the handaxes and Levallois artefacts. At KH3 (Fig 5.16) a similar relationship occurs but with a smaller sample of Acheulian and Levallois. These graphs show some other characteristics providing insight into the temporal aspects of the ESA and MSA here: 1 The curves show no major ‘steps’ (see Fig 5.3) – they are relatively smooth. This suggests that, while artefact production was active, there was no prolonged absence of humans at ZR. Smoothness is also a characteristic of the Edge Test graphs at ND4, ZR2, and ZR5. 2 The curves are generally saucer shaped. A saucer shape simply indicates that as weathering increases, the number of examples falls away. It may be a signal that the longer artefacts lie on the surface, the greater the variety of ‘happenings’ – such as burial, exposure to water in a local

5.16 Average Rounding results for KH3 artefacts pool, or excessive use, that result in weathering variations between individual examples. 3 Apart from a few sharp upward ‘tails’ towards the weathered ends of the graphs, the angles of the curves are generally shallow. This is an indication that the difference in weathering between the least weathered and the most weathered is relatively small, again emphasising the relative compactness of the timespan over which the artefacts were made. 4 In both graphs the non-diagnostic classes are significantly less rounded. That surely indicates high proportions of

112

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.17a Average Rounding graph for ZR5/KH3 nonLevallois flakes and cores

5.17b Relative Frequency graph for ZR5/KH3 non-Levallois flakes and cores them post-date the main Acheulian and Levallois phases here. The same pattern is seen at ZR4 (page 174). 5.3.3.1 Testing the validity of cross-site comparisons at ZR5 and KH3, and some time-related issues Because these two sites are close together, a comparison of the Edge Test results from both was undertaken. Flakes and cores span the entire ESA and MSA, and also that part of the LSA when humans were present, so if weathering rates are similar at different sites, they should show roughly similar curves. The flakes and cores category thus acts as a control in assessing the comparability of weathering rates between sites. Figs 5.17a & b compare the non-Levallois flakes and cores (they are mostly flakes) at the two sites. Those at ZR5 are distinctly more rounded than those at KH3. The sample sizes are large enough, so this is a robust result. Both methods of Edge Test display, Average Rounding (Fig 5.17a) and Relative Frequency (Fig 5.17b) show the same trend. This difference means like-for-like cross-site comparison is not valid here, even though the two sites are near one another. It is not immediately clear why the artefacts at ZR5 have weathered

more rapidly than those at KH3. At ZR5 they are further down the valley, where it is wider; this seems to be the only environmental difference between the two sites. The incompatibility of weathering rates at these two sites shows how important it is to Edge Test flakes and cores to act as a bridging control before comparisons of relative age can be attempted across site boundaries. If there was a prolonged period of population absence between the last MSA and the recent LSA occupations as seen in the cave deposits, why do we not see the predicted ‘step’ in the Edge Test graphs? The explanation may be that in our flake and core samples at these two sites there are actually no LSA items, even though the occasional LSA scatter is seen in the field. That tallies with our field observations – as noted earlier, LSA flakes are easy to spot from their greenish colour and sharpness. We did not note any such artefacts while Edge Testing. Not only here but throughout the whole Study Area, there are no signs of the other diagnostic forms of later MSA/ LSA tools seen in the rest of east and South Africa, such

113

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia AF No 284 290 283 72 381 225 285 289 287 188 193 1052 288 192 1056 200 194 382 190 191 286 295 197 162 202 196 301 199 201 198 195 203 1054

as Lupemban/Sangoan tools, small points, trapezes, small backed blades, Howieson’s Poort shapes, Stillbay shapes, scrapers, and so on. This is a strong indication of human absence during the period following the cessation of MSA tool forms. The LSA ‘undiagnostic’ flakes and cores at ZR are dated by way of our own cave excavation at ZR3 to no older than 2835 BP (though Wendt obtained older dates for his cave and thought some of the artefacts must be MSA); surface finds are of similar type. The re-occupation of ZR after the MSA thus seems to be of very recent date. If we assume, for the moment, that the artefacts at the left hand end of the Average Rounding graphs represent the terminal phase of the MSA, then the amount of loss of section mass they have undergone covers the timespan from that terminal point to the present, during which there was allegedly no human presence at ZR. It is admittedly quite a small loss of mass, but this suggestion would help to explain the absence of the ‘step’ in the graphs that would signal an interruption in occupation. This aspect is discussed again below in the context of absolute dating (page 124). 5.3.3.2 Explaining excessive rounding Three handaxes are markedly more rounded on the ZR5 graph (Fig. 5.15). But they are no more, proportionally, than at other sites, which often show a few very rounded items. They may have undergone accelerated rates of weathering for various reasons, although fluvial rolling would not appear to have played a part here. Despite the proximity of a small stream bed at this site, none of these artefacts was actually found in it, and indeed once artefacts had got into the river bed they would have travelled fairly quickly downstream, and would no longer be located adjacent to the site. As with other sites, we believe a few very rounded examples do not indicate anything chronologically significant.

208 1053 1055 183 161 187 159

5.3.3.3 Adding in the morphology of large tools Is it possible to ascertain any further chronological breakdown from the relatively large samples at these sites by invoking other factors? Fig. 5.18 ranks the ZR5 ESA items in order of sharpness. Cleavers, ovates and pointed handaxes are fairly evenly mixed, so there is probably no temporal separation of the three classes - all three were being made contemporaneously. But the range of rounding of the ESA artefacts (Figs 5.15 and 5.16) presents an interesting challenge – are we to read into it some evidence of ‘steps’ especially in the flat part in the middle of the graph, where there are about nine items with similar values? At ZR5 There are 21 pointed handaxes and 16 cleavers, but only four ovates. At KH3 there are 7 pointed handaxes, 14 cleavers and one ovate, and the cleaver scatter includes a dense cluster. The difference in relative proportions may be indicative of different populations at the two sites. These three artefact types were clearly fashioned with

Description Cleaver Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Cleaver Ovate Cleaver Ovate Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Cleaver Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Ovate Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Handaxe with cleaver end Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe Cleaver Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Pointed Handaxe

-

Mean 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.80 0.84 0.90

ST. Dev 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.23 0.06 0.19 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.30 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.06 0.45 0.22 0.25 0.13 0.23

0.90

0.14

1.18 1.39 1.41 1.47 2.32 2.66

1.31 1.26 0.42 0.57 1.03 1.71

5.18 Table of loss of section mass of Acheulian ZR5 in ranked order from the least (top)

artefacts from

different functions in mind, and the ‘cleaver-makers’ of KH3 had different priorities from the ‘handaxe-makers’ of ZR5. Almost certainly they were connected to different food sources such as big game, small animals, and plant foods, with tool size as well as tool type also playing a part in function. Under the section describing the Edge Test (pages 30-1) we saw the difficulty of distinguishing weathered edges from those smoothed through use, except through detection of the small step fractures signifying heavy duty use. In

114

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds 5.3.3.4 The Levallois at ZR5/KH3 and some comparisons with other sites Figs 5.22 and 5.23 show a selection of Levallois items found at ZR5 and KH3. In Fig 5.22, item 253 is a normal well struck Levallois tortoise core, while item 274 is one made on tabular material where the dorsal dome is truncated by the flatness of the blank. Such forms were also noted at Kambes 1 on the Plateau (page 46). Item 260 is a typical large Levallois flake. In Fig 5.23, item 212 is a rare example of a Levallois point; item 1790 is a large flake and item 277 is a Levallois flake that has itself had a large flake removed from it: the left hand photo here was originally the flattish lower (ventral) face of a tortoise core. This flake then became a core itself when a new flake was removed from the face seen on the right of the picture. A few other examples of this type have been found at other ZR sites.

5.19 Acheulian handaxe 162 from ZR5 showing closeup of the two edges (a) and (b). The step fractures on (b) are enlarged at (c) artefact 162, a large handaxe from ZR5, the two cutting edges are quite different (Fig 5.19). While one side (a) has almost no modification to the original flaking, the other (b) and (c), enlarged from (b), shows numerous step fractures over only a limited zone on the edge, commensurate with heavy duty use for example in the butchery of a large carcass. A drawing of this artefact is shown in fig. 5.21a. Fig 5.20 shows thumbnail screenshots of the 40 Edge Tested ZR5 Acheulian artefacts arranged in order of sharpness, starting with the sharpest. Although there are interesting stylistic variations within this group, styles are not closely correlated with sharpness. Quality (as measured by attention to symmetry and straightness of edges) varies throughout the sequence. Artefacts of purely ‘functional’ appearance, with little attention to symmetry or straightness of edges, can be seen in items 197, 203, 208, 301 or 1056, while artefacts on which care has been lavished are seen in 188, 192 and 283, yet no example could really be said to show outstanding attention to finish. If this site was used by more than one Acheulian population sequentially, it is not particularly clear from these data: more likely the assemblage is the work of a single population with variable skills and perhaps varying needs on different occasions. The drawings of sample artefacts (Fig 5.21 a,b & c) show three typical items (a) a large workaday handaxe (162), (b) a large well-made cleaver 381, and (c) a carefully prepared ficron-like handaxe (192).

It is noteworthy that the classic Levallois at ZR normally employs overwhelmingly the ‘preferential’ method of flake removal (Boëda 1995), i.e. a single flake is removed from the ventral side. Occasional examples of two parallel flake removals have been noticed. Boëda describes other multiple removal options where several flakes may be removed in parallel or from various points round the edge. These have not been noted at ZR. However, Boëda had not recorded the situation in item 277, which is apparently a ‘flaked Levallois flake’. Whereas the Acheulian can be broken down into different styles and typologies which can at some sites tentatively be placed in a chronological order, we have not so far detected any major stylistic groups of the classic Levallois technique, which might point to separate cultural or chronological epochs. Rather, they vary in quality from site to site, probably reflecting the both differing quality of the raw material resource and the different skills of the makers. Here in the Gorge, while the raw material seems to have been adequate, we see fewer of the large, perfectly struck cores and flakes than seen at ND4 on the Plateau. At the HG sites (page 51) and at some other Plateau sites however the Levallois quality is noticeably poorer. 5.3.3.5 Comparison of ESA and MSA scatters at ZR5/KH3 Fig 5.24 is a distribution map of recorded Acheulian and Levallois artefacts at ZR5 broken down into separate diagnostic categories. The same data is displayed in summary form for the two sites KH3 and ZR5 in Fig. 5.14 (page 111). The ESA scatter suggests a large area with the concentration within the Y-shape of the two tributary streams, and outlier occupations on all sides in the immediate vicinity. A few items have strayed down the valley; it is hard to guess whether by natural forces or not, but none of these was picked up in the present streambed. The high proportion of cleavers at this site, many of them clustered in a small zone, suggests the work of a single community over a short period. At ZR5 the MSA occupants chose roughly the same terrain as the ESA occupants, but

115

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.20 ZR5: 40 artefacts edge tested arranged in order of sharpness, showing style and sharpness are not linked

116

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.20 Contd. ZR5: 40 artefacts edge tested arranged in order of sharpness, showing style and sharpness are not linked

117

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.21 a,b,& c ZR5 Acheulian artefacts 162, 192 and 381

118

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.22 Levallois items from KH3

119

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.23 Levallois artefacts from KH3/ZR5, see text for explanation

120

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.24 ZR5:

map of distribution of typologies

© Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

their fewer artefact numbers imply a shorter occupation time. Neither ESA nor MSA occupants had any interest in the Cave (ZR3) which has no artefacts of this age within 400 metres. At KH3 (Fig 5.25) however there are fewer ESA and more MSA artefacts. Once again the MSA scatter does not show separate concentrations and seems to be the product of a single, if quite long, occupation. At both sites, fieldwalking extended into much of the hinterland in the valley, but if large tools were carried into the surrounding landscape for use, they were mostly brought back again, as there are very few strays in the immediate vicinity. The pattern of flake and core distribution, not shown on these maps, covers roughly the same territory. As with all other ESA sites in the Gorge, the total number of ESA tools recovered at these two sites is quite small, amounting to 77 items (Fig 4.55). Although we have certainly not retrieved the total collection, it is difficult to believe that there are thousands of large tools undiscovered here. The soil is thin and patchy and even if substantial numbers remain buried (as noted at ND4) the totals would still be small. The phenomenon of relatively small

numbers is a contributory factor in the discussion of rates of manufacture and Palaeolithic lifestyles, (see pages 105 and 124). In the scatter maps (Fig. 5.14 but also discernible in figs 5.24.and 5.25), the darker patches in the landscape are all places where quartzitic sandstone covers the ground, and there are thin scatters of artefacts all over these areas, but without concentrations. It may be asked whether the general coincidence of both ESA and MSA concentrations at only two sites within this potential raw material zone is a consequence of the same population making both types of artefact, even though there is overwhelming evidence from the Study Area that this is not the case. However, the concentrations are not completely identical, and the very different proportions of ESA and MSA artefacts at these two sites also suggest there were two distinct populations separated in time. In the ESA preference was given to the lower site of ZR5 but in the MSA the upper site was more used. The choice of similar occupation areas by both communities was probably based on the availability of the best raw material in the densest concentration.

121

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.25 KH3: map of distribution of typologies. Inset shows KH3 in relation to ZR5. Legend as on 5.24.© Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe 5.3.3.6 Hammerstones In the course of seven seasons’ fieldwork, many thousands of artefacts have been seen in the ZR landscape, yet we only recorded a single case of a hammerstone that could be identified with certainty. This piece, from KH6, appears to be quite a recent one because it is unpatinated and still shows peck marks on the surface. (Fig 5.26). It is made of limestone. It might be expected that hammerstones should be scattered amongst the artefacts on living space sites in fair numbers. What could account for their apparent absence? One explanation may be that there is a tendency in surface fieldwork to find what one is looking for and miss things that are not on the ‘mental agenda’. Part of the technique of searching for artefacts involves having in mind a vision of the shapes of the objects sought. Thus one acquires an acute eye for a platform or a bulb, a facet or a worked edge. The hammerstone will possess none of these features; it may therefore be overlooked. We did not set out to seek hammerstones specifically at any site. Most natural clasts are angular, yet hammerstones are usually perceived as somewhat egg-shaped and smooth. When a rounded clast is seen, it usually bears no evidence of having been used as a hammerstone, because all trace

of the telltale percussion marks left on the surface will have been eliminated by weathering. On the other hand, looking for percussion marks on angular clasts would surely be a fruitless task, yet it is quite possible that Palaeolithic inhabitants used more angular clasts as hammerstones in the absence of rounded ones, which are decidedly scarce in the ZR landscape. The whole subject presents a salutary lesson in the reading of artefact scatters: even with our best efforts we cannot be sure of obtaining a balanced picture of what lies on the ground. 5.3.3.7 Clast movement: The two grid samples at ZR5 On page 75 we described two 5x5 metre grids, ten metres apart, one in the raw material zone and the other outside it (see Figs 4.54 and 5.14). The grid within yielded 37 artefacts and the grid outside, on the bare limestone pediment, yielded none. This observation is important for two reasons. Firstly it provides yet more firm evidence that artefacts are most numerous where the raw material is best, and where there is none, artefacts are absent or few. Secondly it illustrates how enduring the inertia in clast movement has been: in this sample covering 50 square metres, not a single artefact has become displaced from the raw material zone into the limestone zone in the course of perhaps 200-400,000 years. Although this

122

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.27 LSA scatter at KH3. Yellow arrows indicate a core and flakes. 5.26 Hammerstone from KH6 © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

is no doubt partly because the area is not quite flat - the limestone zone slopes down to the quartzitic zone very slightly - some of the agencies of transport such as animal or human disturbance (see page 140) have the potential to move clasts to higher elevation. The grid sampling here lends weight to our belief that on flat or nearly flat ground, artefacts that have not fallen into stream beds mostly remain at, or close to, the places where they were dropped. 5.3.3.8 LSA at ZR5 and KH3 Three concentrations of LSA scatters were discovered, two at KH3 and one at ZR5. Fig 5.27 shows a part of one of these and Fig. 5.28 shows a refit from this site (see also Fig. 4.56). The scatter photo includes two parts of a broken core and several flakes. When viewed on the ground, LSA scatters look more impressive than in the photo. The artefacts are distinguished by their sharp condition and greenish colour; about 40 flakes were counted in the scatter. The refit comprised a long cortical flake struck off a large piece of raw material from which no other removals had been attempted. Examination of the flake removals from such scatters always reveals a predominance of unretouched flakes, often of random sizes and shapes. No formal tools have ever been retrieved from these scatters. In all respects they share the characteristics of the artefacts from the cave at ZR3 and clearly they belong to the same general period. The LSA at ZR is discussed further on page 184. 5.3.3.9 KH3/ZR5 Conclusions What might well have been ‘twin’ sites turned out to be very different even though only 600m apart. Edge Test

5.28 KH3 refit in LSA scatter. The core has only had one large removal. This has been retouched three times at the proximal end and the core shows three or four subsequent attempts to detach another long

blade before the maker gave up.

This is typical of the LSA at ZR

unstructured opportunistic work of the

data showed the rates of weathering at these two sites were different, and thus direct cross-site comparison is invalid. Nevertheless the Edge Test Average Rounding curves suggest a fairly short window of time for human occupation in the valley, and a strong signal that the ESA and MSA are broadly contemporary. Blades, blade cores, 123

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 5.29a-d ZR4 scatter maps of diagnostic typologies

flakes and non-Levallois cores appear to have continued to be manufactured after the cessation of Acheulian and Levallois material. From the two adjacent grid counts at ZR5 it was concluded most artefacts lie close to their original locations, thus validating the relevance of scatter patterns. The absence of formal LSA tools anywhere in the valley suggests an absence of humans after the MSA until modern Homo sapiens arrived in the recent past to occupy the cave at ZR3, but then there is evidence that they knapped at various places in the valley, leaving only flakes and debitage.

5.29a ZR4 Acheulian artefacts

5.3.4 The Gorge 2: ZR4 The ZR4 site is fairly small in extent but contains features that have an important bearing on our understanding of the Palaeolithic at ZR. It is a mixed ESA-MSA site, also with evidence of LSA occupation. Most spectacular of the discoveries here is artefact 100, the ‘Mandolin’, (fig. 4.50) which has a remarkably close parallel in the smaller item of the same shape from KH6 (see Fig 5.71 page 155). The chief factors of interest at ZR4 are: (a) the different spatial distributions of diagnostic types, (b) the Edge Test results, (c) the variation in style of the handaxes, (d) what the site may tell us of prevailing rainfall regimes.

5.29b ZR4 elongated core handaxe typologies

5.3.4.1 Spatial distributions The distribution of raw material at this site is broadly coincident with the artefact scatters, but with a thinner spread extending to the higher ground away from the river bed.1 In this area undiagnostic flakes and cores were occasional. Although the site has yielded about 75 ‘diagnostic’ artefacts (Fig 4.48), these fall into 13 categories. The numbers of artefacts in some of these categories is sufficient to reveal differing spatial patterning, possibly reflecting different occupation episodes, although more samples would allow greater confidence, (Fig.5.29). Three categories (handaxes N=31, Levallois N=27 and elongated core handaxes N=13) show different spatial distribution. Especially striking are the elongated core handaxes which are confined to the space between the two gullies flowing into the main river bed. The distribution of Levallois material is also concentrated here but with some straying to the northwest, while the Acheulian material is slightly more concentrated towards the central gully and has a slightly wider overall distribution. Blades and blade cores were all found within the general scatter zone but are perhaps too few to provide any clear evidence.

5.29c ZR4 Levallois artefacts

 Away from the site some 230 metres to the west the ficron-like artefact 71 was found, (Fig.4.49c page 72) a lone handaxe in a scatter of mostly flake-based material. 1

5.29d ZR4 blade typologies 124

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.30 ZR4 distribution of handaxes

Thus far no more is revealed than might be expected: a localised raw material resource exploited by successive occupations in ESA, MSA and, (not plotted but noted in fieldwalking) LSA time. Within the ESA scatter (Fig. 5.29a), the five artefact types are thoroughly mixed and by themselves give no indication of more than a single occupation. The map with photos of ZR4 Acheulian handaxes (Fig 5.30) shows there is no geographic localisation of any particular style. The stylistic variation within the Acheulian here seems to fall into three groups – four finely made items (100, 71, 105 and 1042), about a dozen competent items, and the remainder poorly made. This excludes the five so-called ‘rough bifaces’ from this site, which may or may not be Acheulian tools. A key question here is how many separate ESA and MSA occupations do these artefacts represent, and especially to what stage in these occupations does the ‘mandolin’ belong. Here the results of the Edge Tests are instructive.

5.3.4.2 Edge Test results The Edge Test results are displayed as Average Rounding and Relative Frequency graphs (Figs 5.31a & b). The overall values in the Average Rounding graph indicate a similar degree of rounding of all types except the elongated core handaxes. The latter are of special interest at ZR4. Their discreet spatial distribution together with their very rounded Edge Test results suggest they are the product of a community distinct from the main body of classic Acheulian toolmakers, and one which worked here before some of the later Acheulian arrivals. This is discussed in more detail in the wider context of the Study Area on pages 126 and 144. 5.3.4.3 Stylistic variation of handaxes Although there are only subtle differences in rounding between the ESA and the Levallois, these differences may provide a clue to the breakdown of the Acheulian into temporally spaced episodic visits. The overall contemporaneity of the two groups would seem to be implied from the close similarity of the two curves.

125

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.31a ZR4 Average Rounding graph

5.31b ZR4 Relative Frequency graph However, in Fig 5.32 the Acheulian items are listed in rank order of sharpness. The four finely made items are shadowed. (They are judged ‘finely made’ by eye, but readers can judge for themselves from the figs (4.49b ,c, and 4.50) They are all within the top ten least rounded, and thus appear towards the left hand end of the Relative Frequency graph, where the Acheulian dips below the Levallois. In sixth place with a mean value of 0.26 is artefact 100. Its twin from KH6, artefact 1326, (page 86) has an Edge Test mean of 0.15 – also impressively low. Thus the two ficron cleavers from the valley environs are both relatively sharp. There is therefore just a suggestion that the latest phase of the Acheulian is represented by finely made handaxes, including the two ficron shaped items, and that this phase is either contemporary with, or

somewhat later, than the latest Levallois. Artefact 100 is further discussed in wider context on pages 69 and 158. In summary, ZR4 is a place where both ESA and MSA cultures flourish contemporaneously, but with the possibility of a late Acheulian of rather finer tools at the very end of this period. 5.3.4.4 Climatic evidence from the scatters? The ZR4 artefact scatter is located close to the present river bank but elevated some 8 metres above it (Figs 5.33 & 5.34). Although there is no trace of any other palaeochannel in this part of the valley, it would not be totally safe to conclude that the river ran exactly along

126

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Artfct No 105 103 101 71 603 100 600 104 1042 602 594 596 1348 308 607 129 1026 1034 604 601 102 129 131 130 593 608

Description Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Ovate handaxe Ficron Ovate handaxe Ficron-cleaver (mandolin) Pointed handaxe Cleaver Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Unifacial handaxe Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Cleaver Pointed handaxe Pointed handaxe Unifacial handaxe Pointed handaxe Cleaver Ovate handaxe Cleaver

Edge Test result 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.44 0.44 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.73 0.76 0.76 0.83 0.87 0.93 0.97 1.31 1.64 2.03 2.62 4.20

Fig 5.39 ZR4 Acheulian artefacts listed in rank order of sharpness, the sharpest at the top 5.32 ZR4 Acheulian artefacts listed in rank order of sharpness, the sharpest at the top

This is the reference

12

5.33 ZR4 oblique view on Google Earth database. For artefact types see Fig 5.41

127

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 5.3.5 The influence of standing and flowing water: UR2 and ZR2 At these two sites, we noted above (pages 92 and 65) the very rounded condition of the artefacts here. This at first gave a signal of great age, but that did not fit with the typologies seen – for example there was no diagnostic ESA or classic Levallois material. Both sites were located in places where water may have invaded the site and therefore have played a part in the rounding process of clasts. ZR2 is located alongside the main course of the Zebra river in the Gorge, on a flat riverside pediment, and UR2 is the site of a small lake on a saddle, at the far west of the Study Area, within the corridor separating the Nama rocks from the Naukluft Mountains. 5.34 The main Zebra River bank immediately opposite the densest part of the ZR4 scatter. The cliff is about 8 metres high

this course in the ESA/MSA periods. Wherever it ran, the occupation site was selected on the higher level of the raw material zone at ZR4, perhaps to avoid inundation. Artefacts in the lower zone are much fewer. This might give an indication of the magnitude of flash flooding at the time of occupation, which would be commensurate with heavy thunderstorms, although not precluding a generally arid climate similar to today’s. (See also the section immediately following).

5.3.5.1 UR2 The low saddle on which UR2 is located was clearly an occupation area focussed round a small depression that filled with water when heavy rain fell, but was otherwise dry. Though UR2 lies more than 10km from the nearest Plateau quartzitic sandstone outcrops, clasts of local quartzitic raw material have been carried down by the Tsauchab catchment streams and dropped here. This deposition area now lies some 34 metres above the present level of the Tsauchab and its tributary, (Fig 4.82) signifying local uplift and/or rejuvenation since the deposition, and thus confirming the great antiquity of this event.

5.35 UR2 artefacts in the three grids classified by size

128

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.36 UR2 Relative Frequency graph. There is a greater proportion of rounded items in Grid 1 at the pond centre and the least proportion of rounded items are in Grid 3 on the slope above the pond. The range of stone tool types here is markedly different from any other area, comprising an abundance of flakes, with a few blades and cores, and but a single, small struck Levallois core (Fig 4.88). The UR2 site shows important variations in artefact size and rounding across the site. Artefact sizes (Fig 5.35) were measured in the three grids, Grid 1 being in the pond, Grid 2 just outside it, and Grid 3 on the slope above (see Fig 4.82). The artefacts are allocated sizes by adding length to width (thickness was not measured) producing a figure in mm. These are then grouped into five categories of increasing size. Because the numbers of artefacts vary in each grid sample, to obtain comparable data artefact numbers are turned to percentages of the total in each grid.

virtually all belong to the flake category, can be subject to transport by runoff on slopes of more than 2-3 °, larger artefacts, including virtually all the diagnostic tools, will not have been transported downslope by runoff on the flat or gentle slopes where most Zebra River sites are located. The whole equation is of course a ‘sliding scale’ (Fig 5.54 page 142) dependent on the variables of clast size, slope, runoff volume and soil type, but the principle holds true regardless of the length of time artefacts lie on the surface. Not only is the average clast size smaller in the pond than on the slope above, but also the degree of rounding is greater (Figs 5.36 & 5.37 a & b ). Grids 1 and 2 in or close to the pond show flakes distinctly more rounded than those in Grid 3. In Fig 5.38 the pond grid data is compared with

Assuming an even spread of artefact sizes across the area at the time of discard, the graph shows that smaller artefacts have been progressively washed downslope into the pond over time. Grids 1 and 2 are nearly similar, and our initial assessment that Grid 2 seemed visually to be ‘just outside the pond’ should be revised to ‘just inside the pond when full’. Whereas the first two categories in Fig 5.35 show greater percentages of smaller artefacts in Grids 1 and 2, categories 3-5 (size above 110) show the reverse. The graph provides a practical illustration of the limitations of surface runoff power. This subject is developed further below (page 141). An average flake at the ‘110’ size weighs between 60 and 70 grams. The slope at Grid 3 is 7°3’, at Grid 2 it is 3°20’ and Grid 1 is flat. This may be compared with the situation in the runoff experiment where clasts of 100 grams or more barely moved downslope no matter what the volume of flow, on a slope of 2-3°. It supports our hypothesis that while smaller artefacts, which at ZR

5.37 UR2 Average Rounding graph also showing the artefacts less rounded in Grid 3 129

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia The Edge Test data results for ZR2 (Figs 5.39a &b) show a dramatic difference between the Levallois, which are far less rounded (in fact much the same as we see at other sites), and the flakes, blades and blade cores. This is perhaps best seen in the Average Rounding graph. (There are no ESA artefacts at this site.) Obviously the Levallois element has largely escaped the inundation that the other artefacts were subjected to. The graph thus indicates fairly unequivocally an inundation phase at a time prior to the coming of Levallois humans at this site, and it reveals a flake and blade industry separate from the Levallois period. It shows blade items are not always contemporary with the Levallois. At this site, they came before.

5.38 UR2 Average Rounding data (lines with symbols) compared with flakes from KH3, ZR4 and ZR5 (continuous lines) flake values from three other sites in the Gorge, ZR4, ZR5 and KH3. Artefacts from the two grids in the pond show the greatest rounding while those from Grid 3 outside the pond are comparable with the other sites. It is thus clear from the Edge tests that clasts subjected to inundation lose mass at a greater rate than those only subjected to subaerial erosion. The age of artefacts within an inundated area is therefore only comparable with others in the same area. So the artefacts in Grid 3 cannot be dated relative to those in Grids 1 and 2 by Edge Testing. The flake industry of UR2 is of interest not because of its great age, but because of the scarcity of large tools. It underlines the belief that much of the daily routine of ESA and MSA peoples was serviced by the use of flake tools alone.

The existence of these artefacts so close to the river provides a useful commentary on palaeo-climates. The lack of water-damage on Levallois items is especially instructive as it implies a wetter period in pre-Levallois time that has not recurred since. The artefacts within this riverside plain show at least two separate periods (‘flakes/ blades’ period and Levallois period) when the site’s human occupants felt in no danger from flash flooding. A timeline can thus be reconstructed for the ZR2 site: 1 A period in the ESA with no traces of human presence. 2 A relatively dry phase when flake and blade-using people are present. 3 A wetter phase of considerable length when the artefacts are frequently inundated and chemically rounded. It is assumed that the site is unoccupied at this time even though the wider region may be occupied. 4 A drier phase when Levallois-using people reoccupy the site; the technology here is poor, similar to HG3 and 4 on

This site also shows how the field observations at UR2 verify the results from the runoff experiment conducted in Oxfordshire. 5.3.5.2 ZR2 At ZR2 the stretch of riverside terrace where the artefacts are scattered shows no trace of ponding, because the area was more likely a flood plain inundated at times of storm flood. Some of these artefacts appear to have been inundated sufficiently for accelerated rounding yet they have not been removed by fluvial action. The angle of slope from the river bed to the top of the main artefact scatters averages 2.05°, while the inclination of the streambed itself is 0.31° at this site. The energy needed to make large and mediumsized artefacts move downslope on these inclines has evidently not been reached at any time since the artefacts were dropped (see pages 141-2 on the runoff experiment). There is however a scarcity of very small artefacts at ZR2, suggesting the energy produced during inundation events was sometimes sufficient to remove many of the smaller artefacts.

5.39a ZR2 Average Rounding graph

130

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.39b ZR2 Relative Frequency graph the Plateau, and inferior to Levallois sites such as ND4 and 8. 5 The period after the Levallois up to the present when at no time is inundation sufficient to wear down the Levallois artefacts, and when there is no further occupation of this site.

otherwise) as could be assessed. The southern raw material zone contains most of the more heavily stained items. This underlines once again the lack of lateral displacement of most artefacts over long periods. Further work is planned to investigate the reasons for these local differences.

These observations are small pieces from a big, complex jigsaw no doubt, but better than nothing. 5.4 Sites intermediate between the Plateau and the Gorge 5.4.1 KH4 This site nestles in a south-flowing valley north of the Zebra River with the main Plateau edge is close by. Quartzitic sandstone raw materials are generously distributed in this area but locally are sometimes thin on the ground (Fig 4.67). Occupants, both ESA and MSA, were selective in their choice of sites which coincide with the denser deposits of surface raw material. Fig. 5.40 shows detail of the artefact distributions in the two main clusters. In the upper central area there is one intense cluster of seven struck and three unstruck Levallois cores, which would seem to imply a single event. The patination of artefacts with black manganese staining at this site shows an interesting localisation. Fig 5.41maps four grades of staining for as many artefacts (diagnostic or

5.40 KH4 Artefact scatter map

131

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.41 KH4 spatial differences in patination © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

5.42b Average rounding graph of ECHs and Levallois KH4 compared to an amalgam of other Gorge and Gorge margins site data (ZR4, ZR5, KH3)

5.42a KH4 Average Rounding graph. The values

are ‘topsy-turvy’ if interpreted as chronological

from

markers

132

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.43 KH4 Handaxes

133

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia However, the Edge Tests do not show localised spatial differences at KH4; artefact weathering divides according to typology not location. Unusually, the Edge Test graphs for this site (Fig 5.42a) cannot be taken as an indication of relative chronology, because they show the Acheulian items far less rounded than the Levallois, and both less rounded than the elongated core handaxes (ECHs). (The latter in this case include specimens whose Edge Test readings show a wide standard deviation). It is surely implausible that at this one site, there should be an Acheulian industry (of no great finesse, see Fig. 5.43) at a date far later than any MSA industry. Because we see these trends across the whole range of each type (admittedly the sample size is small), it appears as if one or other set of artefacts has been treated differently in some way from the others. In the broader picture, the eccentric items are the ECHs and the Levallois, both of which show by far the greatest weathering of any group, (see Fig 5.42b). This incidentally provides supporting evidence that ECHs belong with the MSA rather than with the ESA (see section under ECHs

page 14). Further work is required on this site before an explanation can be offered.

5.44a View from the south of the tributary valley containing the site of KH6

5.44b KH6 site showing its position at the edge of the detrital dome and the large KH7 hinterland

5.4.2 KH6 and KH7 Fig 5.44; 5.51b KH6 is the richest site for diagnostic artefacts yet discovered at ZR. It will be the subject of further detailed study in the future. The present report is thus liable to modification. It is considered here in conjunction with KH7, a much larger, partly-explored area surrounding KH6 on three sides. The site offers potential to shed more light on the chronological separation of the ESA and MSA occupations. The Acheulian material clearly comprises several separate epochs, from a crude hard-hammer series of weathered items, through less weathered pieces with some soft hammer work, to the least weathered phase comprising a few soft hammer pieces often of exquisite manufacture. Amongst the latter is artefact 1326, (Fig 4.71b) a somewhat smaller version of the ‘Mandolin’ from ZR4 (artefact 100),

5.45 KH7 Levallois flake 1524 with distal retouch on both sides. The retouch is functional, to make an appropriate cutting or scraping edge, not typological as if to imitate a handaxe 134

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.46 KH6 prepared cores with large sidestruck flakes similar to Victoria West technology. More examples of this type were seen at KH6 than at any other site

135

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.47 KH6/7 showing waypoints representing diagnostic artefact positions. The darker zones © Europa Technologies © Google © 2010 Cnes/Spot Image Image © Digital Globe

with no waypoints represent areas not yet explored.

some 6km further down the valley. Cleavers also occur from the middle and later phases. The Levallois element also comprises a wide range of qualities from crude hard hammer work to classic tortoise cores in relatively fresh condition. Some Levallois flakes have been retouched although not, it appears, in an attempt to imitate the Acheulian handaxe (cf ND4, page 179, Fig 5.45). Notable local variants include sidestruck pieces of Levallois-like appearance, which can be equated to Victoria West cores, (Fig 5.46) and a distinct profusion of small discoidal cores. The latter continue into the adjoining site of KH7, whereas the Levallois and Acheulian are seldom seen there.

large tools are still lying at the living space: dropping them away from home was not the norm.

Even without the Edge Test data, some broad observations can be made. The site is set within a large zone of quartzitic sandstone raw material (KH7). The KH6 site is small in relation to the total area of quartzitic sandstone, but the raw material is a more intense there. The surrounding KH7 area has only been transected not fully explored (Fig 5.47). Other pockets of artefact concentration may exist, but only sparse artefact scatters were noted in transects up to the foothills. Here, as at the site of ZR5 in the parallel valley to the southeast, the main occupation site was chosen close to the centre of the valley. The immediate hinterland towards the hills was frequently traversed, as one would expect, but it was not chosen for the living space. Within KH7, a few stray handaxes and other large tools are seen – reflecting the occasional act of butchery after which the tools used were discarded on the spot, perhaps through forgetfulness or because the carrying of meat took priority. But most

KH6 is bounded by shallow gullies on two sides, but these may post-date the site, because the zone of intense artefacts also extends to a stretch of ground north of the northern gully, but with an empty belt of land in between, as seen on Fig 5.44b. This situation would be consistent with the gully having cut through the site since the MSA occupation.

The KH6/KH7 area appears to have been occupied on multiple occasions, yet each time a strong preference for the same small spot was prevalent throughout the ESA and MSA. It is located close to the main watercourse in the valley, a wide braided stream (Fig 5.44a & b). The probable reason for the choice of site is raw material quality and abundance, doubtless supplemented by proximity to the river as a source of drinking water. Only the discoidal core industry seems to have spread more widely.

The KH6 surface scatters lie on a soil layer which is seen in section in these small gullies (Fig 5.48 Gully section). As this layer appears to have a depth up to 1.5 metres, we excavated three sample metre square holes, one to a depth of 80cm, within the gridded areas. The ‘soil’ actually comprises an amorphous mix of soil, sand, grit and small limestone clasts. No stratification is seen; the section would fit the description of a solifluction deposit. Only six small artefacts were recovered. Burial of artefacts is probably

136

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds 5.6.1 Environmental influences The dependence of the human occupants of Zebra River on prevailing environmental conditions – climatic, geological, topographic, floral and faunal – has been very evident in the above pages, even if our work has yielded no direct evidence, such as bones or plant remains associated with the artefacts. How far early humans were able to impose their own conscious choice of lifestyle on these conditions is a measure of their ‘human-ness’: whereas other life forms are largely or totally restricted to responsive behaviour, the ever-growing human brain was able progressively to free itself from this constraint. This phenomenon is still ongoing today: despite all our technology and accumulated knowledge, Nature can still quite easily defeat us by way of climate change, geological upheaval, or cosmic catastrophe. The Zebra River study offers special insight into this process of humanisation because many aspects of the ancient environment can be observed without having to remove a mask of superficial deposits. Here we examine some of the environmental issues associated with the human story. 5.6.1.1 The archaeologist’s contribution to palaeoclimatology at Zebra River 5.48 KH6 natural gully on the south side of the site. The student is pointing to a large Levallois core which appears to lie in situ near the base of the soil layer. The soil depth here is about 1.5 metres deep but has very poor stratification. Below it is the limestone bedrock showing signs of local folding

mainly a result of animal burrowing over hundreds of thousands of years (see page 110). 5.5 Acheulian variations In the gorge site of ZR4, variation in style and edge wear of handaxes was seen to indicate multiple visits, some overlapping or post-dating the Levallois period. The KH6 site almost certainly also offers strong evidence of multiple Acheulian visits, from the variations in style and amount of weathering. More will emerge from comprehensive analysis of the site and quantification of the variability must wait until that has been done. 5.6 Factors pertaining to the whole Study Area This section considers topics related to multiple locations, where observations from individual sites are brought together in overview. We begin with some environmental considerations, followed by issues concerned mainly with different aspects of the artefacts, and some time-related topics. Finally we review the literature relating to the !Kung who inhabited these parts in the latest period of prehistory, from which we draw inspiration to help model a hypothetical ESA scenario.

A recent paper by Laity and Bridges (2009) on the weathering characteristics of ventifacts on Mars and Earth shows that although wind-blown dust has next to no destructive effect on the surfaces of stones, wind-blown sand does great damage. Because of the proximity of the Namib Sand Sea (nearest point 70km from the site of ND4), the possibility of sand covering the Study Area for substantial periods has to be examined. Such evidence as we have strongly suggests this was not the case. If sand had accumulated in any quantity in the past half million years, some traces should remain, in cracks, rock shelters, or in palaeosols. But no sand accumulations have ever been observed in any of the fieldwalking in the Study Area, or in the excavations at Gail’s Cave, KH6, and ND4. Wendt did not mention sand in his excavation of his cave in 1972 (Wendt 1972). Additionally, almost without exception, all raw material scatters are accompanied by artefacts. That must indicate such raw materials have been exposed during at least a substantial part of the occupied prehistoric period. If sand had covered some of them while humans were present, they would now have no, or fewer, artefacts, but this is not the case. A further observation to support the lack of wind blown sand is the rarity of visible surface polish on artefacts and clasts at Zebra River. This phenomenon occurs often in sand desert environments and has been observed in the Namib Sand Sea. Fig 5.49 illustrates a typical heavily polished item from near Homeb in the Kuiseb valley, on the edge of the Namib Sand Sea; no such examples have been noted in the Study Area. This phenomenon is

137

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia material either in the cliffs or on the ribs of bedrock that occasionally break the surface on the Plateau. The daily lithic resource was loose surface clasts. Wind ablation (winnowing) has of course played a major part in keeping these surfaces swept clean. 5.6.1.2 Association of sites with water sources/courses Isaac (1977, 217) advanced the hypothesis that “the association of concentrations of archaeological materials with watercourses is a functional, anthropological association that reflects the propensity of prehistoric peoples to establish camps along the banks and beds of ephemeral streams”.

5.49 Wind polish on a quartzite artefact from near Homeb, Namib Sand Sea different from the mild desert varnish detected on two examples in the electron microscope analysis carried out for us by Dr David Waters (see Appendix 5), which are the product of wind blown clay particles. If sand had played a part in the weathering of artefacts, no better place to seek the evidence than at the mesa-top site of ND4, surrounded on three sides by an escarpment, where exposure to wind would be at a maximum. Yet here, we saw no polish, and also we noted the artefacts on the mesa top were no more rounded (in fact somewhat less) than those in the secluded valley below. Sand-charged wind erosion would seem not to have played a major role in weathering here, and as mentioned no sand was seen in the section dug at the site. From such observations, archaeology has the potential to contribute to questions about palaeoclimate. It may also offer evidence about vegetation cover. The near-ubiquitous coincidence of artefact scatters with surface raw materials at ZR indicates that at the time of occupation the terrain was clear enough of vegetation to allow outcrops and clasts to be visible to anyone wanting to make artefacts. The arguments advanced about the elongated core handaxes (page144 ) and the ‘hybrids’ of ND4 also imply visibility of earlier artefact scatters to the MSA visitors. The present vegetation cover is light enough to allow quartzitic sandstone surface clasts to be visible at close quarters (Fig 4.6) as well as at a distance except after heavy rain, when grasses obscure the ground (Fig 4.4 ND4 general view). We can imagine a similar situation during the occupation periods in the Palaeolithic. In areas of well developed, thick soils, where the prevailing trend is soil accumulation, the surface enrichment of clasts so widespread at ZR would not be visible and indeed might not occur, so the vital surface lithic resource would therefore be missing. The bedrock would also be buried under the soil. People would have been forced to look for raw material in cliffs or exceptional exposures such as in river beds. At ZR, we saw no evidence of quarrying for raw

This statement related to Olorgesailie, where the numerous individual sites include some close to a substantial waterway, a situation which is replicated at many Palaeolithic sites. However, at such sites questions often arise concerning how much the fluvial forces have disturbed the assemblage or removed parts of it. Zebra River’s 10,000 square km of Study Area provide a rare opportunity to assess to what degree Palaeolithic inhabitants lived close to streams. The results present a more complex picture. The dependence on stream proximity in the ESA (as represented by Acheulian artefacts) is largely confirmed: they are seldom found on the dry plateau interior where streams are small, sparsely scattered and in shallow basins. The main area of occurrence on the Plateau is only some 4km from its edge, at ND0 (page 51) where a brief visit yielded three handaxes of different styles and a cleaver. It would appear this may represent one of the brief forays of Acheulians on to the Plateau margins, but a more thorough search of this site might yield a clearer picture of the Acheulian here. Most Acheulian sites concentrate in the gorges of the Escarpment where the fluvial pattern is etched deep into the landscape, springs are more common, and water flow more plentiful. In the MSA proximity to streams is less imperative; although many MSA sites mimic the ESA ones, others are situated far away on high places on the Plateau tops where no Acheulians lived, as at ND4 and HG3/4. Even this is not the whole picture, because we see rare glimpses of Acheulian tools on the Plateau margins. Acheulians did come out of their valley territories at times, and we will come to examine the reasons for this below (see pages 180ff). When artefact scatters are located close to major streams, the places chosen tend to be a safe distance, or raised up, from the storm flood zone. This is seen at ZR4 where the occupants chose a raised river bluff rather than the lower riverside areas. Adjacency to small ephemeral streams is more immediate, as at KH3 and ZR5, although the exact course of these streams may have altered since the artefacts were laid down, as for example at KH6 (page 136). As noted above (page 78) no artefacts were found at the Zebra River Springs site. The presence of springs all along the line of the deep clefts of the Escarpment in Western Namibia would certainly have been an attraction to pull

138

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds humans into the Gorge, but these sites are unlikely to have been living spaces in the style of the great artefact clusters seen in more open areas, because they are invariably located in steep-sided narrow gorges (Fig 4.62). These springs also tend to be located far from the quartzitic raw material resources; they are deep into the limestones of the Gorge. At best we might hope to see stray implements left over from hunting or foraging. These ‘deep cleft’ springs are different from the more open area at UR1 in the valley of the Tsauchab river, where artefacts are found (page 91). 5.6.1.3 Clast movement in arid environments. Surface clast movement is the domain of geomorphologists rather than archaeologists and the author would claim no expertise here. Many studies have been made in this context but little could be found on the transport of artefacts by natural forces, (although the author observed experiments by the University of Liverpool in the Makapansgat Valley in Transvaal, when marked stones were placed in a stream and collected the following year, having travelled a surprising distance downstream). Yet this is a crucial question in helping to resolve the in situ nature of scatters, whether excavated near fossil streams or otherwise. One of the few studies concerned with surface clast movement in deserts was conducted on the Eastern Libyan Plateau in Egypt (Adelsberger & Smith, 2009), where variability in clast size and density did not appear to be a function of aspect or slope, but this observation was directed at natural clasts not artefacts. Thermal stresses were evident, signifying the influence of diurnal solar variation in breaking down clast surfaces. It was however concluded that the desert pavements were long-term stable surfaces where there had been minimal taphonomic effects on artefacts > 2 cm in diameter deposited over the last ca. 100 ka.

The geomorphological studies published on clast movement cover a range of environments, mostly not semiarid pavements. These studies show complex chemical and physical processes constantly at work imperceptibly shifting smaller particles around in the soil, often creating mosaic patterns of different clast sized material. ‘The entrapment of eolian dust, the infiltration of water, and the translocation of salts and clays into the soil occur at rates governed by the physical nature of the clast cover. As these rates vary discreetly at a scale of meters, so does the evolution of the near-surface soil and clast cover’ (Wood, Graham & Wells 2002). However, such forces have more effect on soil particles than artefact-sized items and are anyhow minimised in arid landscapes. The word ‘clast’ literally means ‘broken’ and thus in the geological context applies to pieces of detached stone of any size from grains upwards, but the relevant context here is artefactual clast, which raises the lower weight limit to minimal artefact size. In the absence of microlithic artefacts at ZR, the smallest diagnostic artefacts commonly encountered are greater than 50mm in size (usually much greater) and weigh at least 60 grams. Smaller flakes are commonly seen, but are usually not diagnostic. The subject of clast movement starts with the assumption that all clasts must be permanently static unless some force is present capable of moving them. Whereas in non-arid environments this force is commonly rain water combined with gravity, in arid lands the scarcity of rainfall very much curtails this process. Analysis of the effect of rainfall is discussed in the next section. Probably the most effective long-term agent for moving clasts on flat or gently sloping land at ZR is animal activity. Fig 5.51a shows an animal track cutting though the prolific site of KH6. Such tracks typically have continuity of a few hundred metres at most. Once made, an animal track might endure for many

5.50a Frost heave on a gravel path with soil below. The

5.50b In situ bedrock split into three parts through a

main photo shows gravel that has been uplifted about

combination of frost heave and progressive infilling of soil

vertical columns of freezing soil that form in the uplift

environment suggests a very long term stability of the

2.5 cms in a single night’s frost and the inset shows the process.

The photo simulates arid ‘surface enriched’

and plant debris.

To reach this advanced stage in an arid current land surface

terrain where a crust of clasts lies on a thin desert soil.

139

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.51a Animal tracks currently showing zebra

5.51b Bare patches of ground in stony areas are

footprints (but also used by kudu and other game).

usually created by large animals rolling in the dust

These tracks are long-term animal routeways gradually scraped clear of stones

hundreds of years on flat land unless animals make another track later that crosses it and therefore breaks up its continuity. (No studies could be found on the longevity of animal tracks). Over the span of prehistoric time, one can imagine much of the landscape might have been covered at different times by different tracks, although there would tend to be recurring patterns of frequently-adopted routes owing to the configuration of the landscape. Apart from the action of moving water in streams and in surface runoff, there are other mechanisms capable of moving surface stones. These are: animal activity (rolling, burrowing and track making (Vogelsang 1998, 45), bird activity (ground nesting), plant growth, freeze-thaw (clast splitting and frost heave Figs 5.50a, 5.50b), organic effects, and human agency. Wherever slope occurs, gravity also has the potential to move material. Mammals often roll in the dust, in the process clearing away the larger clasts to make a more comfortable space.(Fig 5.51b) This process only causes a short two-dimensional radially-outward displacement and does not shift clasts very far. Likewise burrowing animals especially warthog and baboon turn up buried material and bury surface material over small areas. In this case the movement is three-dimensional. Fig 5.52 shows soil disturbance made by warthog. A similar process happens on a smaller scale when birds clear patches on the ground to build nests. Faunal bioturbation of the thin soils has been shown to be significant in parts of the ZR environment. While KH6 yielded few buried artefacts, ND4 had a large proportion. The mechanics are discussed by Vogelsang (1998, 44-45) who says burrowing rodents can create holes up to 1.8 metres below the surface. Termites and ants have a strong bioturbation potential although obviously artefact sized clasts are too heavy to be moved by them. Soil can also be displaced by plant roots, both while growing and in decay. Archaeologists cannot rely on all their evidence lying on

the occupation surface, but generally the proportion of artefacts buried at ZR is small, and such burial is certainly not caused by the aggradation of sediments on top of archaeological surfaces, because ZR is emphatically a net deflation region. The role of ice may be significant. Frost, not unknown at Zebra River, splits rocks along porous cleavage planes (see Fig 5.50b) and in so doing produces a lateral displacement; frost formation in soil can lift it and cause lateral shift. Chemical changes in the soil can alter its density or volume and lead to the displacement of clasts lying on it. Finally vegetation, especially bushes and trees, can displace clasts as they grow up. How can we then claim that artefacts remain in situ? The answer is that all of these processes shift clasts only short distances in random directions. The net result of such forces is therefore little more than a slip-slop mechanism, whereby on flat or near-flat land clasts are ultimately not

5.52 Ground disturbed by warthog digging in the soil. They can dig quite deeply and cumulatively are capable of turning over the soil with an effect similar to deep ploughing

140

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds transported in any consistent direction and remain roughly where they started. It is not claimed that very much remains exactly in situ, only that the amount of displacement of the vast majority of artefacts is negligible in the Study Area. Another cause of movement is human agency. The patterns of clusters on the sites where there are raw material sources combined with a thin scatter of artefacts in the intervening areas at Zebra River suggest humans did occasionally transport a few of their artefacts away from the place of manufacture. Artefacts might be thrown in juvenile play, or carried a long way after they were made. It is easy to spot when artefacts have been moved by human agency rather than via the natural forces described above, when they lie in areas well away from the raw material source. Of course we notice now only those artefacts which may have been transported and dropped away from the living space, not those taken away and brought back again. But because of the abundance of raw material at ZR, tools would not have been so precious as they would be in an area of scarcity; humans may not have valued their tools very highly or bothered to curate them because of the ease of making another. Thus discard in transit was no real loss. If the carcass to be dragged occupied both hands, the tool used to cut it might be discarded, as mentioned earlier. Although none of these processes except human agency is capable of more than small displacement at any one time, given enough time, the cumulative effect will be more profound. None of the processes suggested here is in itself consistently uni-directional, and so the net result on flat land will be mixing and slight spreading rather than wholesale displacement. The widespread presence of stone scatters (including artefacts) still remaining in discreet clusters on flattish land shows the total effect of all these mechanisms is small. The grid study carried out at ZR5 (page 76) shows just how small.

5.53 Surface runoff after heavy rain in an Oxfordshire ploughed field.

by flat or low-angled hillslope hydrology (i.e. the carrying of clasts by a current on the surface). Yet at ZR the flat or gentle slopes are where the archaeological story is displayed. Very little practical work has been done on surface artefact movement (see for example Allen 1991) and none in arid landscapes. A controlled, if somewhat informal, experiment was carried out to assess clast movement by overland flow in a ploughed field in Oxfordshire, UK, on 30 July 2007, when 4.85 inches (123mm) of rain fell in a few hours on to already saturated soil, inducing saturated overland flow. This is similar to the amount of rainfall occasionally experienced in the ZR region of Namibia during isolated storms where overland flow can be high over surfaces with poor infiltration due to sparse vegetation and soil cover.

A further indication of the very slow progress of clast movement at ZR is the lack of quartzitic clasts in the ZR Gorge river beds. They are filled with the local bedrock, limestone (see for example fig 1.13. Although all clasts look like limestone in the bed of the river because of the tendency to whiteness caused by tumbling, close inspection on several occasions failed to reveal true quartzitic material. There were two exceptions: a very rolled handaxe from ZR1 (Fig 3.18), and a very large rolled handaxe from the streambed near KH4 (Fig 5.70f). Clearly, the rate at which quartzitic material from the surface is entering the streams in the Gorge is so slow it is hard to find any examples, thus supporting the premise that the quartzitic pediments are stable features.

The area measured had a very a low slope gradient (2-3 degrees). Flow velocity was 0.46 ms-1 and the average depth of water was 76mm (see Fig. 5.53). The water was fairly clear indicating that entrainment of particles as suspended load was negligible. Clasts in the soil comprised well-rounded quartzite cobbles and pebbles derived from a glacigenic sediment known as the Northern Drift. These are lithologically similar to those at ZR, but are more rounded due to prolonged glaciofluvial transport. Entrainment of clasts would be affected by the microtopography of the soil, as well as their precise location (e.g. in a rut or on top of a furrow), and the degree of packing (i.e.embeddedness in the soil). Such constraints would be less in the arid soils of ZR which are shallow, patchy and less cohesive.

5.6.1.4 The role of slope in clast movement: a runoff experiment

Selected clasts weighing from 20 to 500 grams were placed in the fastest flowing section of a channel-like feature. (In terms of stone artefacts, 110 grams would be the weight of a flake with a long axis length of about 6570mm.) Our results indicate that on low-angle slopes, only smaller clasts (less than 110 grams) placed on the surface (not packed or in a rut) were moved by overland flow.

Even in arid lands, heavy storms occur (see Fig. 1.13). While the large water-worn boulders in the stream bed themselves leave no doubt about the power of water to move them, it is more difficult to assess clast entrainment

141

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia the surface, overland flow alone, even under torrential thunderstorms, will not have been able to shift the larger of them. The ‘sliding scale’ of clast mobility, dependent upon size, slope and velocity (Fig.5.54), will progressively result in the preferential transport of smaller clasts by overland flow with larger clasts moving downslope through gravity processes rather than hydrological ones. A similar process acts in the formation of desert pavements, where selective removal of smaller material leads to ‘surface enrichment’ of larger clasts (the concentrated resource base for prehistoric tool makers).

5.54 Schematic diagram to illustrate the relationship

Our experiment amplifies the argument that at ZR a combination of hydrological and aeolian processes has led to the current disposition of stone artefacts, which on flat surfaces away from stream beds are quite likely to remain close to where they were dropped, even over long periods of time.

which clasts will move in flowing water.

5.6.2 The artefacts

of stream velocity, slope and clast size on the speed at

The diagram

takes no account of the smoothness of the stream bed which will also affect the clast speed

Clasts greater than 110grams in weight were not entrained. Entrainment of smaller clasts was roughly proportional to their weight, as might be expected, but the distance they travelled was influenced more by whether they fell into a rut than by their weight. On a slope of 0.5 degrees, no clasts heavier than 20 grams were seen to move no matter how they were placed. From this limited experiment, we conclude that slope gradient and clast size rather than volume of flow are the governing factors on clast entrainment by shallow overland flow. Whilst flow velocity is chiefly governed by gradient it is strongly related to flow resistance. Transport capacity is affected by surface roughness, vegetation cover, slope gradient, and drainage density. In addition, particle movement is related to size, shape and density. A simplified model is shown in Fig 5.54. Where flow is not concentrated in a stream bed, nor flowing as a sheetflood, the transport capacity of overland flow on flat surfaces is negligible. However, hydrological processes operating on hillslopes greater than 5 degrees, where overland flow leads to channel initiation, ravines and gullying are more likely to transport artefacts. Fortunately our study areas are not located within such features. For the situation at ZR, it can therefore be concluded that shallow overland flow on low-angle slopes is unlikely to transport clasts weighing over 110 grams (~70mm), no matter how much water is flowing. On slopes of less than 2 degrees the weight (size) of clasts that will move will progressively decline. This is but further corroboration of what was already observed in the field: clasts are still present in clusters on flat ground or with slopes less than 3 degrees, and they are less often seen in clusters on ground with slopes greater than 3degrees. Under such conditions, during the long period when artefacts have been lying on

5.6.2.1 The palimpsest problem The unusual situation of having virtually the whole archaeological palimpsest displayed in a landscape serves as a reminder of the enormous timespan it represents, and the impossibility of knowing in more than very broad terms the relative and absolute chronology. Artefacts lying side by side on a site may have been made the same day or many thousands of years apart. The Edge Test has refined this problem a little, but fine-grained chronology is still elusive. This problem has been discussed by Binford (1980, 1981), Stern (1993, 1994) and others. Until a method of dating surface artefacts from some cosmic decay process is discovered, it will not be possible to get a close focus on lithic chronology. But whereas Stern has provoked a sense of despair amongst archaeologists (e.g. McNabb 1998), the Zebra River study gives reason to think that surface studies can provide a perspective which complements that obtainable from excavation, using the techniques of Edge Testing combined with large scale site visibility. From the Edge Tests it has been possible to argue for a long phase of occupation continuity in ESA and MSA time, with substantial temporal overlaps of these two populations. Close study of artefact distributions offers the potential to separate different phases within individual sites, although this has only just begun at ZR. 5.6.2.2 Lithic resources – plenty more where that came from? One aspect of the ZR landscape visible today has certainly altered since the start of Palaeolithic time – the amount of natural unstruck lithic raw material has progressively diminished as humans worked through the resource. Yet amongst the artefacts at any site there are usually still plenty of natural clasts apparently not chosen for knapping (see for example photos of site surfaces Figs 4.6). This 142

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.55 A range of elongated core handaxes and borderline items, arranged in order of lengthwidth ratio. The range of length-width proportions varies greatly, but when displayed in tabular form and compared with Levallois cores, (Fig.5.60) the elongated cores have a tendency for greater length-width proportions, and the Levallois have a greater uniformity

143

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia A similar situation obtains in the adjacent area of KH7. These places seem to be potential zones where Palaeolithic man had not exploited the resources, but they are rare. Most of the good raw material zones had been tapped. Despite the abundance of artefacts, occupation at ZR had not fully exhausted the lithic resources by the end of the Palaeolithic, and as noted earlier, there was no need for humans to resort to the exploitation of the bedrock for their tools. 5.6.2.3 Elongated core handaxes (ECHs) Figs 5.55 &5.56

is not an inevitable situation. Over a period of a quarter of a million years all the natural quartzitic clasts could have been used up to the point where humans could no longer live in the area. We have not looked at this subject in any detail; a worthwhile approach would be to evaluate the remaining clasts at different sites to establish whether some are approaching exhaustion more than others.

The very existence of this tool form as representing a separate cultural phase may be questioned, because it has not been noticed before and it presents some challenging anomalies. On balance our contention that ECHs form a separate tool entity is upheld because (a) their morphology differs from classic Acheulian in nine measurable ways, (b) their distribution patterns differ from the Acheulian where the two occur at the same sites, (c) their Edge Test results show different patterns from both Acheulian and Levallois, (d) they differ markedly from Lupemban Core Axes, and at ZR there is no other evidence of any Lupemban presence (page 148). Their most important contribution is to indicate a transitional phase of early MSA that at certain sites appears to predate the classic late Acheulian.

In the area of ZR6 we noted (page 61), unusually, clasts of quartzitic sandstone lying in areas with few or no artefacts.

Some 80 ECHs have been noted at 15 sites throughout the Study Area, mostly in ones or two’s at each site, but they

5.56 Profiles of two elongated core handaxes

5.57 Distribution of elongated core handaxes in the Study Area

144

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.58 An elongated core handaxe from the Waterberg are commoner at ND4 (up to 35 examples) and ZR4 (up to 18). (Fig 5.57). A selection is shown in Fig. 5.55, and typical profiles are seen in Fig. 5.56. In the wider survey of central Namibia carried out in 2002, a very weathered ECH was found near the Waterberg Plateau some 450km north of ZR (Fig 5.58); therefore this tool type is not just confined to the Zebra River area. Because the elongated core type of handaxe can easily be confused with the classic handaxe or even the Levallois core, a definition is given here.

7. Invariably worked all round the butt (Acheulian handaxes are often not worked round the butt). 8 Tendency to lack bilateral symmetry in plan 9. Whereas handaxes and (to a lesser extent) cleavers vary in size from impractically small to impractically large, ECHs have not been recorded in extremes of size. They are nearly always of ‘handy’ size, and are never below 11cm in length.

An elongated core handaxe is an ovate-tending flattish biface usually between 11 and 15cm in length with two roughly similar faces worked all round and separated by a generally wavy edge. Flake scars indicate relatively few removals of variable shape, often large. However this definition may better be expressed in terms of their similarities to, and differences from, classic Acheulian handaxes and Levallois cores. This aspect is dwelt upon in some detail because it is important to establish whether Elongated Core Handaxes are truly a separate tool type.

A. General ovoid plan B. General slimness of profile C. Bilateral symmetry of profile D. Occasional tendency to slightly pointed tip

They differ from classic Acheulian pointed handaxes in the following ways: 1. Lack of consistent thinning or fine work at the tip 2. Lack of sharp point at the tip 3. Lack of weighted butt 4. Tendency to blunt wavy edges 5. Lack of small ‘handaxe trimming flake scars’ on the edges such as would be needed to refine the cutting edge (see fig 5.59a & b) 6. Preponderance of large (often long) flake scars such as would produce flakes and blades for use as tools

They are similar to classic handaxes in the following ways:

ECHs differ from unstruck Levallois cores in never having a ‘tortoise shape’ profile or large ventral removal, and more often in having an ovoid plan whereas Levallois cores tend to have a circular plan. Fig 5.60 expresses this as length ÷ width ratios, showing ECHs as more elongated but also much more varied; as a consequence they overlap with Levallois cores. Unlike Levallois cores, which by definition have an asymmetrical profile, ECHs tend to a roughly bilateral profile symmetry. In section most ECHs appear as in the lower photo in Fig 5.61. However ECHs and Levallois cores both tend to have wavy edges suggesting the benefit of a straight edge was not considered an important feature of these tools. In his ‘Levallois Volumetric Conception’ (Boëda, 1995) Boëda described six attributes for Levallois. These are listed in Fig 5.62 with comments on their relevance to ECHs.

145

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.59a Comparison of flake removal sizes on ECHs and classic Acheulian Handaxes. The artefacts are 10mm or less (black columns). At the foot of the Y axis the sequence number, length, breadth and total length plus breadth of each artefact is given. The latter gives rough relative sizes.

arranged according to the number of flaks scars of

5.59b Lengths of flake removals from Acheulian and Elongated Core Handaxes

146

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.61 Typical profiles of unstruck Levallois core (above) and Elongated Core Handaxe (below). See also Fig 5.56 5.60 Length ÷ Width ratios on Elongated Core handaxes and Levallois cores Characteristic of Levallois cores 1.Asymmetrical profile, with one more convex than the other (the ‘tortoise core’ shape 2.Hierarchical relation of the two faces – the ventral being the only one from which flakes are detached. 3.Flaking surfaces maintained in convexities to effect controlled removals.

Presence on ECHs No – the two halves are normally of equal convexity.

6. Hard hammer percussion.

Removals on ECHs vary from thin and quite invasive, suggesting soft hammer, to thick with prominent bulbar scars, suggesting hard hammer.

No, both faces have indistinguishable function.

No – the flaking surfaces are not well controlled; flaking may be centripetal or longitudinal, and cortex may remain on parts of either face. 4 and 5 relate to the fracture planes and striking ECHs do not have Levallois flakes detached. platforms of the detached Levallois flakes.

Fig 5.62 Application of Boëda’s Volumetric Conception to ZR EHCs The classic Levallois at ZR appears to show soft hammer work for fashioning the core, while detachment of the Levallois flake is probably, as Boëda says, hard hammer work, because of the bold strike with large bulbs of percussion. So it seems the makers of ECHs and Levallois cores had to hand both hard and soft hammers when at work, and were perfectly aware when each should be used. Another important difference between ECHs and classic Acheulian items, relating to points 1 and 5 above, is illustrated in Fig 5.59a &b. Graph (a) shows that the Acheulian tools, whether handaxes or cleavers, tend to have

a greater number of flake scars, and a greater proportion of them are 10mm or less in length. This reflects the different purposes of the two tools, the classic Acheulian being crafted for straight cutting edges with small refining scars and the ECHs having no such work done on them. There is an overlap in the middle of the graph. This may be a consequence of the difficulty of recognising small flake scars on the edges of rounded artefacts, bearing in mind that elongated core handaxes are usually well rounded. Some of the features counted as ‘scars’ on these may actually be natural edge damage, thus artificially inflating the count of small scars. On the Acheulian items, 41.8% of flake scars 147

In Fig 5.59 Graph (b), the data for length of removals for the same 14 artefacts is presented as a relative frequency graph. Here, the same general trend is apparent but it is also clear that Acheulian tools not only have more small removals but also more large ones. Not all the characteristics listed above are present on all ECHs. But if ECHs share characteristics with other LCTs and Levallois cores, it is fortuitous rather than planned, as becomes evident when we examine their purpose. The subtle distinctions make it hard to be sure in every case whether an item is actually an elongated core handaxe. In such cases, the Edge Test data is often helpful, as is the site context. As an example of how ECHs fare in the assessment of their differences from Acheulian handaxes, the 18 alleged ECHs from ND 4 are tabulated in Fig 5.63. In this table the Acheulian characteristics are listed and each artefact assessed against these criteria. The conclusions in the right hand column are based on these results together with the author’s visual assessment of the artefact. Most examples qualify as ECHs. One further comparison must be mentioned. In the Sangoan and Lupemban industries, which are often associated with forested landscapes within the tropical latitudes of Africa, certain elongated forms occur, named lanceolates, core axes, and picks. They are found alongside core scrapers, core choppers, polyhedrons, and spheroids, for example at Kalambo Falls in Zambia (Clark 2001). The ECHs from ZR can definitely be distanced from the Sangoan/ Lupemban Industrial Complex for the following reasons:

 

No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No ± No

 

Yes Yes Yes Yes ± Yes Yes No Yes Yes ± Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

abnormal size 15 cm CONCLUSION

Tip refined Butt worked No No No No No No No ± No No No No No No No No ± No

 

No No No No No No No No No No No No No ± tabular ? tabular +

 

± No ± Yes No No No No No No ± No Yes No No ? Yes Yes

Straight edges

weighted butt

Med size removals No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

 

± No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No ± No ± No ± No Yes No

 

853 1025 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1043 1046 1335 1768 1769

 

No.

 

 

 

are 10mm or less in length, whereas on elongated core handaxes only 24.6% are. In the graph an indication of relative size of the artefacts is given by adding length and width. Number of removals is not necessarily a function of artefact size. Small artefacts can have many removals (e.g. artefact 1070) while large ones can have few (e.g. artefact 32).

Bilateral symmetry

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

ECH ECH ECH ECH ECH ECH ECH ? ECH ECH ECH ECH ECH ECH ? ECH Ach ECH

Fig 5.63 Morphological test against Acheulian ZR4 ECHs. Bold Yes signifies that an Acheulian characteristic is present. Nearly all the ECHs have worked butts, but Acheulian tools vary so this characteristic is not an indication of Acheulian type. Rather it is an indication of the uniformity of worked butts in ECHs. Abnormal sizes are encountered in some Acheulian handaxes but not seen in ECHs. Only item 1768 appears likely to be an Acheulian item. characteristics on

1 None of the various forms of the elongated Sangoan/ Lupemban tools is similar to the ZR ECHs. Fig 5.64 shows typical Sangoan/Lupemban forms from Kalambo Falls for comparison. The lanceolates are more slender, much more carefully made, and with numerous finishing scars removed in the refinement of the edges. The core axes are more elongated and often with parallel sides, prepared ends (sometimes ‘double-ended’ as in the illustration,) and often with more attention to finishing, and with more removals, than ECHs.

Fig 5.64 A selection of Lupemban tools redrawn from Clark: Kalambo Falls, Vol III, to illustrate differences from ECH forms. (a) Lanceolate, (b) double-ended parallel sided core axe, (c) single-ended parallel sided core axe 148

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds 2 ZR is in an area of long term aridity. No Sangoan/ Lupemban has been noted from Namibia or any other arid region of Africa. 3 Artefact types associated with the Sangoan/Lupemban as listed above also have not been founds at ZR. Having shown there are measurable differences separating ECHs from classic Acheulian and Levallois artefacts, we can address the question of where they come in the ESA/ MSA sequence. At the three sites where Edge Tests have been carried out on ECHs, (ND4, ZR 4 and KH4) results show they are considerably more rounded than other diagnostic tools, both ESA and MSA (Fig 5.65). (The results from KH4 are not directly comparable, see page 134 above). Examples of ECHs from other sites, although not Edge Tested, always appear visually to be very rounded, and provisional results from KH6 show they are more rounded than Acheulian handaxes, with substantial numbers in the sample. Even though the Edge Test graphs for these three sites show clearly separate lines one above another, there is still a zone of overlap between categories. This is shown for example in Fig 5.66 for ZR4. (For clarity, the very rounded artefacts, numbering one ECH and one handaxe, have been omitted from this graph.) In Band A, only ECHs are seen. They are the most rounded of all the sampled artefacts at the site. Band B defines the extent of the overlap between ECHs and other types. It contains all types including half of the ECHs, but very few flakes and cores. Band C represents all the artefacts that are less rounded than any of the ECHs, and it contains the majority of artefacts. Some of the Acheulian handaxes are less rounded than the Levallois, as seen in Band C, and most are less rounded than the ECHs. Overlaps in Edge Test results between different categories implies a temporal overlap in these categories, but the magnitude of the difference between the ECHs and the other categories still implies ECHs are mostly older than any other group. The graph also shows there is an MSA presence sandwiched between different Acheulian occupations. The different distribution patterns on the ground between ECHs and other diagnostic types, e.g. at KH4 (Fig 5.40) and ZR4 (Fig 5.29) also suggest temporal separation of ECHs from these other types.

5.65 Average Rounding graphs for ECH’s at KH4, ZR4 and ND4 compared to other diagnostic types

At other sites throughout the Palaeolithic world, the ESA is most often seen in lakeshore and riverine environments (e.g Petraglia 2006, 405), and ZR is in agreement with this. If ECHs belong to the ESA, they should conform to this pattern. But at ZR, not only are ECHs found on some Plateau top sites, but they also occur there in conjunction with purely Levallois scatters such as at ND4, ND5 or OK1. OK1 for example appeared to be a tightly-knit MSA factory site. This inescapably ties ECHs to the MSA

149

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.66 ZR4 Average Rounding graph showing overlaps between ECHs and other types

rather than the ESA. Yet ECHs would be recognised as ‘handaxes’ by most archaeologists, even though we have pointed out the detailed differences between them and the classic Acheulian handaxe. So what is going on here? To understand this it is necessary to look at the possible functions of the ECH. 5.6.2.4 Purpose of elongated core handaxes The characteristics that bind ECHs as a distinct tool group suggest they must have been made with a specific function in mind. Honing to perfect a cutting blade was not a priority, as is seen from the lack of attention to the edges and the point. On the other hand an all-round worked edge of sorts was emphatically necessary in the tool function, as the universal working of the butt shows. It seems these characteristics did not come about by chance but were procedurally implanted in the minds of their makers. Priority seems to have been given to their being used initially for the production of flakes of a variety of shapes and sizes, presumably to perform a variety of tasks. Many elongated core flake scars are blade-shaped; possibly in some cases the elongation of the core was deliberate to enable the removal of long blades. In order to achieve these objectives, the two faces of the core

needed to be more or less symmetrical, (Fig 5.56) but other characteristics such as length or plan shape would simply emerge as a function of the knapping process and would not necessarily be standardised. That is precisely what we see in the examples we have (see Fig 5.55). On the premise that no part of the Palaeolithic tool making procedure was done without a purpose, the ovoid shape remaining after detachment of flakes would then be useful as a heavy tool. It could have been used for breaking bone or bludgeoning small mammals to death. The worked, yet not sharp, butt might be for ease of holding in the hand. But if we think of the purpose as pounding vegetable or other soft material, we may have a simple explanation for the greater rounding apparent from the Edge Tests. When pounding soft matter, their edges would have become rounded not because of weathering but because of use wear. Unlike heavy duty use wear, pounding would not remove spalls but gently grind down the cutting surface This is exactly the kind of edge seen on ECHs (see Fig 5.67). In this case, the Edge Test graphs may not be reflecting greater age but a different function for ECHs, and the place of the ECH in the MSA sequence need not be so eccentric. Nevertheless, the consistency of high edge rounding in ECHs from all sites where they have been

150

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.67 Typical edges of ECH’s. The arrows point to protruding parts where the rounding is This could be commensurate with pounding or grinding plant material.

most accentuated.

measured still allows the possibility that they represent an early stage in the MSA, perhaps separate from the classic Levallois. 5.6.2.5 Variation in ESA large tools From field observation alone it is apparent that several phases of occupation are represented in the ESA at ZR. We sought to test this with a more structured analysis, using the handaxes and cleavers from ZR5, where data was available to enable 52 tools to be tested. The results are shown in Fig 5.68. Here, the correlation between roundedness, hard/soft hammer work, and artefact quality (as judged by symmetry and number of removals) is tabulated. This exercise is not entirely free from subjective opinion (for example the roundedness of some items was assessed by eye when Edge Test data was not available, and the assessment of ‘quality’, although based on specific characteristics as listed in the caption, is still somewhat subjective). However, the results appear to corroborate the field observations. The following points are apparent: 1. Items employing hard hammer techniques alone are more rounded and of lower quality than those with soft hammer flaking scars. 2. All the cleavers (N=14) and ovate handaxes (N=5) showed signs of soft hammer work but only ten of the pointed handaxes (N=33) showed signs of soft hammer work. 3. The ten pointed handaxes with soft hammer work are less rounded and of better quality than the 23 hard hammer handaxes. 4. The cleavers and ovate handaxes show less rounding than the hard hammer handaxes but

only marginally less rounding than the soft hammer handaxes. There appears to be a separate early phase of pointed handaxes using hard hammer work producing low to moderate quality items, as seen on the left of the chart. However, two of these handaxes are sharp (196 and 197, as measured by Edge Testing), and several others are only slightly rounded. If roundedness is an indication of relative age, not all the crude/moderate handaxes necessarily belong to this early group. In succeeding periods, fine, moderate and crude pointed handaxes were made in parallel. That is to be expected, but the range of rounding across the total population of handaxes still points to a wide time range for their manufacture. The later pointed handaxes appear to be contemporary with the ovates and cleavers – and this phase we would equate to what is normally termed the ‘Late Acheulian’. As we have seen from the Edge Test graphs for ZR5 (Fig 5.17), this phase has a significant overlap in time with the MSA Levallois period. These observations, from the site of ZR5, are borne out by the observations from ZR4 (page 127, Fig 5.32) and are believed to be representative of the ESA as a whole at ZR. The three distinct types of Acheulian LCT are well represented at ZR. Ovates, pointed handaxes and cleavers were clearly made deliberately for different purposes, although because use wear is difficult to detect at ZR, their purposes cannot be discerned directly. (One clear instance of use wear was detected on item 60, a finely made and little weathered pointed handaxe from the Plateau site at ND0 (Fig 4.22 page 53); here, interestingly, the use wear is on the butt. It is of course not possible to draw any generalised conclusion from one handaxe; item 60 is simply an example of one person at one moment in time choosing to use the butt end of a handaxe to pound or

151

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Rounding

Quality

Artefact No

Rounding

Quality

Artefact No

Rounding

Quality

Artefact No

Rounding

Quality

Soft hammer

Artefact No

Soft hammer

Quality

Hard/soft hammer

Rounding

Hard hammer

Artefact No

Hard hammer

159 162 187 190 193 194 195 196 197 199 203

6 3 5 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5

208 301 1053 1054 1772a 1779a 1783a 1784b 1784c 1811 1827

3 5 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 5

5 5 3 3 4 5 6 4 4 4 5

183 188 225 286 1774b 1819

4 3 2 3 1 1

3 2 3 2 3 4

161 191 192 198 200 201 283 284 285 287 288 289

3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 1

1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 1

290 294 295 381 382 1052 1055 1327 1774a 1799 1784a 1828

1 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 2

2 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 3

Averages Average pointed handaxes all Average pointed hndxes hard hammer

Rndg 2.76

3.09 Qual 3.61

4.27

Avrgs

2.33

3.09

4.27

Average ovates Average pointed hndxes soft hammer

2.83 Rndg 1.80

Averages Qual 2.20 Average cleavers

2.20

2.30

1.88 1.96 Rndg Qual 1.93 2.00

ZR5 ESA large cutting tools assessed according to the following codes: 5.68.2=ZR5 ESA rounded; large cutting tools assessed to very the following codes : Rounding 1=sharp; slightly 3= rounded; 4= moreaccording rounded; 5= rounded; 6= extremely rounded RRounding ounding 1= sharp ; 2= slightly rounded ; 3=Test rounded ; 4= more ; 5= very rounded; 6= extremely rounded was assessed by eye where Edge results were notrounded available. Quality 1= very good (more was thanassessed 30 removals, good symmetry, weighted straight edges, thinned tip, then Rounding by eye where Edge Test resultsbutt, were not available . these qualities declining in five grades: Q uality 1= very good (more than 30 removals, good symmetry, weighted butt, straight edges, thinned tip), then 2= good; 3= moderate; 4= crude; 5= these very crude; 6= extremely qualities declining crude in five(under grades30 : removals, poor symmetry, butt weighted, edges wavy, tip not 2=not good ; 3= moderate ; 4= crude ; 5=thinned). very crude; 6= extremely crude (under 30 removals, poor symmetry, butt not Pointed handaxes are shown in Roman type, cleavers italic in ).bold weighted , edges in wavy , tipand notovates thinned Hard hammer/soft hammer indicates either both present or difficult to discern. Pointed handaxes are shown in Roman type, cleavers in italic and ovates in bold Hard hammer/soft hammer indicates either both present or difficult to discern. chop something.) So far as the Edge Test evidence goes, there is no temporal difference within the Late Acheulian between the three types – individual communities and craftsmen were capable of making each type according to requirements. ZR does offer some evidence about how raw material might influence tool type and size. At most sites sufficient large raw material clasts existed to make almost any size of tool, as we see from the random distribution of extra large LCTs and the frequent tools of lesser, but still large, size (e.g. lengths over 200mm). All large tools except cleavers appear to have been made from freestanding surface clasts, and not from flakes struck from massive bedrock. If handaxes were made on flakes, such flakes would first have had to be struck from extra large clasts, and would usually show a plano-convex shape or at least a substantial part of the ventral flake scar remaining. Cleavers, however, seem always to have been made on flakes, and the flake scar is still clear on the ventral side (e.g. Fig 4.68b item 1160). Ovates are usually so well worked that no trace of the original blank surface remains, so it is difficult to know whether they came from clasts

or flakes, but their often slim shapes are commensurate with flake-based work. Thus in the late Acheulian it would appear that flake based technology was fully grasped but only used for cleavers and, possibly, ovates. This differs somewhat from the conclusions of White (1998) who looked at Acheulian flint tools from 19 UK sites. He found that nodule shape, rather than an inbuilt mental template, influenced tool type and morphology. For example cleavers were easier to make on tabular flint while pointed handaxes could be made from massive nodules, so where tabular flint was available, more cleavers would be made. The ZR situation, where raw materials were of both massive and tabular form, enables us to see what ESA humans would choose to do when free from raw material constraints. It turns out that within the limits of the technological skills they inherited, (i.e. making pointed, ovate and cleaver forms) they made their large tools of a size and shape dictated by functional requirements. In this sense they were masters of their art. Where raw material was restricted, as in the tabular-only form at Kambes 1, one group of MSA inhabitants adapted their Levallois cores to have flat tops (page 59). White’s conclusion is

152

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds that ‘(Lower Palaeolithic) technology was predominantly organised around the situational use of very local resources’, responding mainly in a ‘tool-aided fashion’ to the environment. ZR would suggest the existence of a society a little more in control of its destiny. No elongated core handaxe shows clear evidence of being made on a flake, although many tend to slimness, which is commensurate with flake-based working. The key factor here however is that many ECHs show large cortical remnants on one or both sides. It is likely therefore that the makers of these items were unaware of MSA-style flakebased technology, but instead sought out tabular clasts to achieve the slim format. It may be concluded that the Acheulian at Zebra River began at a time before flake-based large tools were in use. A knowledge of flake-based technology was introduced towards the end of the Acheulian, when MSA peoples were also known to visit the region. It is theoretically possible that the late Acheulians picked this up from their MSA contemporaries. Wilkins et al (2010) describe a site in South Africa at Kudu Koppie where stratigraphically distinct ESA and MSA layers in a terrace both yield prepared core technology, the ESA in lesser proportions and of inferior technology. Similarly in recent work at Kanteen Koppie McNabb (pers comm) found Acheulian (especially cleavers), Victoria West and Levallois concurrently through the upper section of Unit 2 which was capped by sands containing Fauresmith artefacts. It appeared that cleavers, handaxes, Victoria West cores and Levallois cores were in contemporaneous production here. Yet our overriding opinion at ZR is still that ESA and MSA peoples were technically and probably anatomically two separate populations whose occupations partly overlapped in time but were not simultaneous. This opinion of course has no human fossil evidence to support it at ZR, but is based on the contrast in settlement patterns between the more restricted ESA and the widespread MSA, the different terrain types occupied, and the great contrast in tool function and technology between Acheulian and Levallois products. McBrearty and Brooks (2000) have discussed the relationship between the changes in ESA/MSA tool forms and hominin types and conclude ‘it appears that the major adaptive shift represented by the Acheulian-MSA boundary ca. 250–300 ka corresponds with a speciation event’. As we shall see below, the phenomenon of hybrid tool types (page 165) and the potential problems of concurrent occupation of two anatomically different populations (page 167) also have a bearing on this subject.

relative dates of these tool types, albeit an imprecise one, and the ‘complete canvas’ of the Study Area offers a unique chance to compare scatter patterns of both technologies. The Levallois style has attracted much discussion about technique but few have addressed the question of what such an elaborate manufacturing procedure was for. Whereas Acheulian tools seem to have a clear purpose – a straight edge which many consider was for butchering large game (as in the opinion of Roberts on Boxgrove in Southern Britain, pers comm), the Levallois cores and flakes do not share this characteristic. The dearth of straight-edged large tools in the MSA in Southern Africa is filled only by Levallois cores and flakes, long blades, picks, core axes and points, which seldom possess the refined cutting edge of the Acheulian tool. The decline of Acheulian toolmaking in Southern Africa after a mind-numbing 1 million years sends a loud signal about a lifestyle change of great significance, but was it speciation, climate change, or both, or something else that caused mankind to alter the familiar toolkit so dramatically? The subject is debated by Barham and Mitchell (2008, 264) who point out that the change to greater intensity and duration of glacial epochs that began around 480,000BP is not long before the first widespread signs of MSA tool cultures. Marean & Assefa (2003, 103) have also argued that the Acheulian/ MSA transition coincides with MIS Stage 8, when a series of warm-cold oscillations would have brought more bouts of climate change including drier conditions to much of Africa. One might suppose that any human group which had abandoned the handaxe type of tool was no longer doing what handaxes were made to do. If this had been butchering large game, then it would follow that this activity would no longer be a major part of the new lifestyle, especially as at ZR we see very few of the ‘convergent flakes’, so common in other prepared core technology contexts, that might have served as hafted projectile points to replace the

5.6.2.6 Why was the handaxe replaced with prepared core technology at ZR? As we have seen, the evidence for substantial overlap between Acheulian and Levallois technology is strong at ZR, and the existence of the two traditions in parallel for a long period is clear from other African sites. The ZR sites offer new evidence on the ESA/MSA transition for two reasons. The Edge Test data provide a new insight into the

5.69 Distribution of very large artefacts in the Study Area (open circles) 153

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.70 Six examples of very large artefacts from ZR. 154

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds LCTs of the ESA. Smaller game can be butchered using flakes; the large Levallois flakes and blades of the Study Area would be perfectly adequate to cut through anything up to small antelope size (Mitchell 1995) This observation is of course not confined to Namibia but may be applicable wherever the handaxe fades away into MSA-style tools. The subject is discussed further on page 178. 5.6.2.7 The extra large and exotically-shaped artefacts of ZR Artefacts of exceptional size or form are rare and widely spaced in the ZR landscape (Fig 5.69). They provide an opportunity to examine a Palaeolithic fringe activity and its bearing on human behaviour. 5.71 Artefacts 100 (the ‘mandolin’ , left) and 1326 (right) scaled so that their height is equal. In the centre the two are superimposed, revealing close similarity of plan shape.

Examples include: (Fig 5.70 ) At ND4 an unstruck Levallois core At OK1 an unstruck Levallois core (Fig. 5.70a) At NR2 a very large handaxe-like tool with a stumpy ficron-like point (unnumbered) (Fig 5.70b) At ZR5 a very large flake (unnumbered) (Fig 5.70c) At ZR4 artefact 100, ficron cleaver (the ‘Mandolin’) (Fig 4.49 page 42) At KH6 artefact 1326 a smaller ficron cleaver (Fig 4.71c page 48) At KH6 artefact 1273 a very large pointed handaxe (Fig 5.70d) Close to KH4 artefact 1090 a very large handaxe (Fig 5.70f) At UR1 a large pointed handaxe (unnumbered) in the possession of the landowner (Fig 5.70e)

4. The two artefacts share the same high standard of workmanship. 5. On each artefact at the point of waisting there are retouch scars as the maker has tried to thin the artefact using delicate blows. Here he (or she) faced difficulties, because in order to make invasive removals to thin the waist, a force would have to be used that would threaten to break the artefact in two. In both cases this has been avoided, but the price paid was short, step-fractured removals. (Fig 5.74). It illustrates a highly skilled level of judgement right at the technical limits of knapping in hard, intractable quartzitic sandstone.

The two ‘ficron cleavers’ appear to have started as cleavers but have then been progressively waisted to leave a ficronlike shape, yet retaining a portion of chisel-shape at the tip. The tranchet scars at the tip of item 100 are clearly only a small remnant of what was once a broader blade: they are flat, with no trace of negative bulbs, ripples, or other features. The two tools have the following points of similarity:

6. The cleaver-like end of artefact 100 has clear tranchet blows on both sides; superficially 1326 also has a chisel tip but this is made up of three separate removals all on the same side, so the evidence for it having started as a cleaver is less convincing and is only mentioned because its twin seems to be one. Both artefacts share similar shapes at the tip. It is possible the term ‘cleaver’ is not quite appropriate here and something else was intended at the tip on both tools, but it appears an ordinary pointed tip was deliberately avoided in both cases.

1. Plan shape. Fig 5.71 shows the two scaled to the same height and superimposed. They are almost the same shape. 2. Profile shape. Fig 5.72 shows the two artefact profiles, again remarkably similar. 3. The two are both relatively sharp. The Edge Test average rounding result for artefact 100 shows a low value (loss of mass averages 0.26) in relation to the other artefacts at this site (Fig 5.73). Artefact 1326 has a value of 0.50, but until the other values from KH6 are available this cannot be compared. By eyeball alone it appears to be fresh but not the freshest of the KH6 handaxes.

These similarities suggest the two items were made by the same hand. Why were such graceful forms made? Although both are worked all round the butt, they lack the slimness of the ovates or true cleavers; so hafting probably would not have been effective. They share the same characteristics of the ‘exotic’ with a number of large well-made handaxes throughout the Palaeolithic world, often one-off items in a larger collection of ordinary Acheulian tools. A couple of examples are shown, from Makgadikgadi pans in Botswana and Cuxton in the UK (Fig 5.75).

155

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.72 Artefacts 100 and 1326 in profile

156

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.74 Step fractures on one edge of the waisted part of artefacts 100 and 1326

5.73 The position of artefact 100 in the Edge Test sequence

5.75 One of the large handaxes from Makgadikgadi Pans in Botswana (a) © Ralph Bousfield and an exceptionally well-made ficron from Cuxton in the UK (b) © Francis Wenban-Smith 157

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia One of the final Acheulian communities to live at Zebra River, perhaps post-dating the MSA, (from the Edge Test evidence) would seem to have made these handaxes, not as heavy duty cutting tools but with some other function in mind. Certainly, the makers of these tools possessed a sense of symmetry surpassing the practical necessities of the purely functional, (see Winton 2004) and had the time and skill to create them. Together with other large exotic late Acheulian tools, they show cognitive development at the end of the Acheulian had advanced significantly from earlier times. The ‘mandolin’ and its smaller twin have implications for the condition of human society in the late Acheulian. The person or persons making these tools thought ‘outside the box’, in that we have no other parallel examples. Even if others remain to be discovered, these shapes are certainly rare. The vast periods of time when nothing seems to change in stone tool technology make the few points of innovation particularly important. Something unusual was happening at Zebra River when these were made. Sadly, we can only speculate what this might have been, both in terms its purpose and the level of late ESA intellectual development it indicates. The mandolin and its twin both seem impractical tools for heavy duty use, because their necks are too thin in relation to the bulk of the tool: the thickness in item 100 is 29mm and on 1326 just 16mm. Caution is needed here however – it would be prudent to replicate and test such shapes before pronouncing certainty on this. The waisted necks might have been made for hafting, but that would be a ‘first’ for the ESA. The rarity of the ficron-cleaver form indicates that it did not have a widespread, everyday purpose. Special occasions are implied. Does the cognitive level required to make ‘mandolin’ shapes imply that this community was also capable of other advanced thinking such as a sense of symbolism? Does the degree of control seen in the fashioning of these artefacts signify comparable command over other aspects of Acheulian lifestyles? What effect did the ‘mandolins’ have on the members of the group who witnessed their making? Do they signal a step forward in the growth of hierarchy in society, with the further implications that this has on social organisation, class, material ownership and the beginnings of wealth creation? Any of these would seem to be implied, but the evidence is circumstantial. There are certainties as well, however. The ‘mandolin’ maker was able to plan a complex sequence of operations, with the ability to pay attention to detail. He or she had patience, a good eye for symmetry, a clear sense of the objective in hand, good knapping skill and the time to complete the task. These are qualities more associated with sapiens than primates. Perhaps the main conclusion to be drawn from these two artefacts is simply that we should not dismiss the Late Acheulian as inferior to the MSA; rather, it may embody an element of more advanced cerebral development.

Nothing in the Levallois repertoire at ZR matches the mandolin episode in innovativeness. Yet the chaîne opératoire pursued in making a Levallois flake was supposedly more advanced than that for handaxe manufacture. It is as if the late Acheulian at ZR included a community with greater vision, but less technical knowledge, than the MSA peoples possessed. The other very large tools are in a different category. They do not share the same innovative theme. The pieces look as though they are made with no more than heavy duty functionality in mind, except that they are far too large and heavy to be held in one hand, and some, such as the largest of all, item 1273, are difficult to wield even with two hands. Once again they join a pan-Palaeolithic assemblage of similar tools, many from Africa. In both the Acheulian and Levallois the occasional necessity to use very heavy duty tools arose. This was fulfilled by a variety of forms – handaxes, large cores, or large flakes. The need might be coincident with the occasional butchery of very large carcasses, and the scarcity of the large tools may reflect the infrequency of this type of food sourcing. 5.6.2.8 Some implications of new tool types and local variants Africa is littered with local variants of tool types which themselves have a universality. For example Victoria West sidestruck cores seem mainly to be found in a limited zone in Southern Africa. Kombewa Flakes are a speciality of Kenya and Ethiopia (Schick & Clark 2003), and Howieson’s Poort is seen from Southern Namibia through South Africa up to Zimbabwe. Zebra River can certainly add to the list of local variants. They come in two categories: truly new classes of tool, and local variants of known types of tool, sometimes concentrated in a restricted area and not seen widely over the greater Study Area. These phenomena have mostly been noted site-by-site already, and are summarised below: The two new classes of tool are the so-called ficroncleaver, of which only two examples have been located, (see page 69) and the elongated core handaxe, which we believe is a type of tool not previously described. (see page 144). Local variants of existing tool types include: 1. Flat-capped pyramid cores at Kambes 2. (Fig.5.76) A site adjacent to the Naukluft escarpment which contained a number of pyramid cores of Levallois type but with flat caps to their dorsal sides. On close examination the raw material was seen to be tabular with strong laminar bedding planes evident in the rock. The thickness of the tabular rock was insufficient to obtain classic Levallois core proportions, so the makers adopted a pragmatic strategy: they worked the cores with the desired diameter knowing these proportions would result in flat caps. Several such items were found in close proximity, 158

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.76 Flat topped Levallois core from Kambes 2 north of Bullsport suggesting they were made at the same time, probably from the same seam of tabular raw material, and perhaps by the same hand. Minor loss of bulk from the dorsal side did not prevent Levallois flakes being removed from the ventral side. This is hardly a significant typological variant but illustrates how practical considerations could override what may have been embedded mental templates, when the need arose. This type occasionally turns up at other sites, where tabular raw material is present.

In parallel, at many sites there are ‘non-prepared’ cores – items that appear to be ad-hoc products seeking only the removal of flakes and the production of (in some cases) a chopper-like edge, but without any preconceived final shape in mind. HG4 on the Plateau is an example, where crude bifacial chopper-like forms are found. It is sometimes difficult to separate these from crude prepared core products, especially as some are discoidal in shape. 6. ZR 2 has a convergent core element which may or may not be contemporary with the prominent blade industry there.

2 ‘Scraper cores’ at ZR11. A cluster of these forms was seen in the upper reaches of the main Zebra River.

7. Discoidal cores. There was a greater concentration of discoidal cores along the Upper Zebra River area (ZR7-11) (page 78) and at KH6-7. (pages 136).

3. The unique long ‘knife’ from KH4, artefact 1021 (page 136). 4. The items termed ‘Rough Bifaces’ occur in sufficient numbers to merit a separate category. (Fig 5.77a & b). They all share the property of coarse workmanship but have wide variation in shape, size and amount of weathering. They are found widely in the landscape suggesting they do not all belong to the ESA. There are probably multiple explanations for them: many are clearly made in a hurry, some perhaps unfinished, others completed well enough for an urgent purpose, yet others by beginners, juveniles or incompetent workmen. They could, incidentally, all be useful as missiles for throwing. 5. Variation within the Levallois prepared core technology. The large, well-made pyramid cores and flakes such as at ND4 and other sites are not ubiquitous. At HG 3-4 and ND5 on the Plateau and at ZR2 and ZR10 in the Gorge, the Levallois is poorly executed on small raw material. The site at ND5 had no artefacts readily identifiable as classic Levallois, yet it did contain poorly made prepared cores (‘chopper-cores’?) with flattish ventral sides. At ZR10 in the Gorge, a similar hint of prepared core technology was seen, but no classic Levallois.

8 Victoria West cores form a discernible group at KH6, as described on page 173, and they have occasionally been noted elsewhere. 9 The ‘hybrid’ artefacts of ND4 (page 165). Reading any general interpretation into this diverse list is a complicated task, because there would have been many factors influencing the form tools took. Variation in form may reflect the degree of flexibility of the evolving human mind and can thus be one of the few markers of this evolution through the Palaeolithic, but it may be explained by stylistic differences which simply represent the work of different individuals or family groups over thousands of years. As Louis Leakey pointed out: “I am quite sure that from Acheulian times onward and probably earlier, the assemblage at any given living site was very considerably influenced by the toolmakers of that particular home and their skill” (Quoted by Isaac, 1977, 95). There appears to be a conflict in the evolving human mind between inherited (‘instinctive’, ‘intuitive’) skills which form a subconscious visual template held more or less by all individuals, and the practicalities of daily survival. This 159

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.77a Typical examples of Rough Bifaces

160

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.77B Typical examples of Rough Bifaces

161

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.78a Artefacts 75 (a) & 30 (b)

162

from

ND5 and 4

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds

5.78b Artefacts 133,149 & 153 from ND4 163

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.78c Artefacts 1717, 1723 and 1744 from ND4

164

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds is well illustrated by item 1 above where the concept of a pyramid core cannot be realised because of the tabular raw material, so rather than abandoning the pyramid core, it is made on flat-topped blanks. This produces a core with imperfect balance and bulk, diminishing the chances of removing a successful Levallois flake. Humans were well equipped to cope with this degree of variation, perhaps because it was simply an extension of the variation they saw in nature every day. The imperfect tool still did the job, but less efficiently. The critical point comes when variants turn into new types of product. This process may also owe its stimulus to variations seen in nature: tolerance of eccentric forms in everyday life leads to tolerance in tool shapes, leading to the discovery that a new one is actually more useful than the original template. Such moments may have been common, but the number of occasions when they led to permanent, widespread change would be exceedingly rare.

The list of variants described here underlines the uniqueness of each site at ZR. Uniqueness of typology implies a temporal uniqueness: arguably, few of the Palaeolithic sites in the ZR landscape are contemporary with one another; each community resided in isolation and had its own particular combination of people skills and customs revolving round a common group or family bond. 5.6.2.9 Hybrids from ND4? There is a puzzling type of tool found on the Plateau at ND4 and at the site of ND5 near by. As mentioned above (page 35) ND4 was seen to contain no Acheulian tools, except for artefact 31 (Fig 4.10B), a cleaver which was not found at the main site but on a narrow promontory far to the west (see Fig 4.5 page 39). A second very rounded cleaver was found at ND8 in the valley below ND4 (item 822), see Fig 4.12a, item e. But there are many thousands of Levallois artefacts. It is reasonable to conclude, in common with other Plateau sites, that there was no more than the very occasional visit from Acheulians to this area. So up here there were virtually no Acheulian tools available for re-use by MSA visitors.

Another aspect of the variant theme is seen in the alleged ‘hybrid’ tools of ND4 where there appears to be a deliberate effort to make an imitation outside the customary range. The significant number of unclassifiable tools in the ZR landscape is suggestive that even though humans may have possessed some kind of standardised formula for a particular tool, they still continued to choose to make forms without any apparent preconceived shape in mind, when the occasion demanded. An unexpected food-opportunity requiring the quick output of cutting tools and/or choppers, could switch the mindset to ‘random mode’ in order to gain speed of production. Conversely, standardised tools, especially those where great care was taken, were probably made ‘at leisure’, without the imperative of a sudden need. That in turn implies a lifestyle where people not only had leisure time, but also had learnt to organise, and take some control of, their daily activities.

Bilateral symmetry

Med size removals

weighted butt

Straight edges

Tip refined

small RT scars

Maximum length mm

30 75 133 149 153 1717 1723 1744 31

The characteristics of these alleged hybrids are shown in Fig 5.79, to which is added the two Acheulian cleavers from near ND4 for comparison. Artefact 30 was broken in antiquity but looks as if it was once a pointed axe. The table shows these artefacts having more characteristics akin to classic handaxes (bold Yes) than the ECH items evaluated from ZR4 (page 150).

Pointed tip

No.

There is however a group of ECH-like tools, seven so far from ND4 and one from ND5, which seem to possess characteristics somewhat closer to Acheulian technologies, especially in having pointed tips. They are items 30, 75, 133, 149, 153, 1717, 1723 and 1744. (Fig 5.78 a b & c). They look like pointed handaxes, yet they retain most of the characteristics of ECHs. In other words, they are hybrids.

Yes ± No Yes Yes Yes clvr

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes ± Yes ±

Yes Yes Yes No ± No No Yes Yes

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

± No Yes Yes ± Yes Yes ± Yes

No No No No No No clvr

Yes ± ± No Yes No ± Yes Yes

>120 139 c.110 178 131 148 156 111 121

Fig 5.79 Characteristicsof of ‘hybrid Acheulian/MSA’ artefacts Fig 5.83 Characteristics ‘hybrid Acheulian/MSA’ artefacts from ND4/5, compared from ND4/5, compared with the sole Acheulian cleaver (31) from with the sole Acheulian cleaver (31) from this area. Bold signifies Acheulian this area. Bold signifies Acheulian characteristics, ± signifies the characteristics, ± signifies the characteristic is partly present. ‘No’ signifies MSA characteristic is partly present. ‘No’ signifies MSA characteristics. characteristics. 165

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.80 Artefact 1315, retouched Levallois flake, from KH6 These tools were found amongst superabundant MSA artefacts. If they had been found in the Gorge area where Acheulian material is frequent, they might not have been so easily singled out as hybrids, because there we find crude Acheulian handaxes in a large range of shapes. This is by no means a cut and dried situation; the hypothesis of hybrid types is no more than that, but it appears to fit all the evidence we have. The alternative explanation, that these items were brought to ND4 by a party of Acheulians on a long distance trek, cannot be ruled out, but the evidence from ZR is that Acheulians did not carry their tools very far, and that they did not stray this far from the Gorge unless on a special mission. Moreover, as just demonstrated, these are hybrids not true Acheulian tools. If the phenomenon of MSA communities trying to imitate Acheulian tools is valid, they must have been driven to do so against their inherited custom. Did they encounter a need not met by their existing MSA toolkit? The purpose of these tools seems to have been to make more effective, straight, cutting edges than could be obtained on the essentially disc-shaped Levallois flakes. New MSA peoples arriving at ZR would have come from environments in South or East Africa which were almost certainly less arid. New environments may demand new toolkits. We do not really know what the MSA Levallois toolkit was for, or what the ECH was for, but this harking back to the Acheulian typology probably had something to do with the need to adapt to drier environments, where meat, including large game, played a greater part in the diet because plant food was less abundant. The corollary to this has a wider implication: the change from ESA

to MSA tools may reflect a change from dry to wetter conditions, when eating large game began to decline and vegetarian food became more important. It is easier and less dangerous to forage for plant food than to hunt, if plant food is available. Tryon (2006) and Tryon et al (2005) have reported on a site at Kapthurin in Kenya dated between 509 and 284kyr where artefacts described as ‘Levallois cleaver flakes’ are said to resemble variants of Acheulian large cutting tools (although none is illustrated). The Koimilot site at Kapthurin is said to span the ESA/MSA transition with early MSA tools showing a reduction in flake size. In Europe, the phenomenon known as ‘Mousterian of Acheulian Tradition’ includes small slim, cordiform handaxes, often beautifully finished, and often associated with Neanderthals. Neanderthals revived or reinvented an aspect of the Acheulian tradition, and adapted it, whether consciously or independently, to their own practical needs. At ND4 the MSA population (not of course Neanderthals) seems to have done a rather different thing, making hesitant imitations of an older technique rather than taking it forward. To add a final word on this subject, at KH6, a site with both handaxes and good quality Levallois, a number of Levallois flakes were observed to have substantial edge retouch. Such items bear a passing resemblance to handaxes (Fig 5.80). Although the retouch is always crude, and the cutting edge less than straight, it appears an attempt was being made here to refine struck Levallois

166

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds flakes as a routine operation, something that is rare at other sites. So far at KH6 no hybrid types of artefacts have been recognised, and the Levallois edge retouch here may be of an entirely different date to the hybrids of ND4. More work on this important site will no doubt amplify these observations. 5.6.2.10 The anthropological implications of MSA hybrids and other ‘transitional’ tool types Could the alleged hybrids, along with the elongated core handaxes, provide an insight into the MSA mind? How far was it capable of a technological gear shift from one typology to another? The morphology of the ECHs would suggest the answer is ‘not very capable’. Yet it appears these were the same people who were clearly capable of following the more elaborate chaîne opératoire involved in Levallois core technology (McNabb 2001, 2006, Lycett 2009). In turn this prompts the question whether middle Pleistocene humans had actually become, over several hundred thousand years, ‘wired up’ to specific technologies, which they inherited as much or more through genes than from learning through parental example. That, incidentally, would offer an explanation for one of the unsolved mysteries of the Palaeolithic – why certain typologies – notably the Acheulian handaxe - endured for so long. In order to prompt humans to make different, new, tool types, there must have been a significant change in the functional tasks in their lives. Experiment has shown that ovates are useful in the cutting of hide and flesh, handaxes perhaps for piercing and heavy duty work, and cleavers to cut bone and sinew (e.g. Winton 2004). One curious feature of cleavers and ovate handaxes is their tendency to be worked right round the butt. That should provide a clue to their use. Despite a reluctance by archaeologists to admit that ‘late ESA’ humans could conceptualise hafting, it still remains a convincing explanation for these tools. A worked butt would seem less easy to hold than a smooth cortical one, but would make for double-ended usage in a tool (Fig 5.81). It is perhaps significant in this context that the majority of cleavers and ovates tend to fall into the ‘late Acheulian’, (although they are occasionally encountered in strata over 1 million years old, as at Olduvai EF-HR in Bed II (Leakey 1971, 124-137)). The more we look at the so-called ESA/MSA transition, the less clear-cut it appears to be. The combined evidence of stone tools, occupation patterns (as seen at ZR), the geographic spread and range of dates of different ESA/MSA transitional sites in Africa (see page 174), and fossil hominin remains, gives an impression of slow, widely-spaced and episodic transitions which cut across the rigid terms ‘ESA’ and ‘MSA’. Africa still has too few sites where hominin remains are associated with ESA/MSA tools. One explanation to this puzzle, suggested by McBrearty & Brooks (2000), is the existence of multiple contemporary hominin lineages at this time. The tasks to which tools were put were of course not devised in Western Namibia but imported there by communities

5.81 Illustrating hafting of a cleaver from KH3 who had spread from the core areas of human evolution in East or South Africa. The continued use of the standard toolkits by ESA (and MSA) humans in this arid extremity of Africa can be interpreted in two ways. Either custom trumped environmental variation, or the environments of Western Namibia were quite similar to other parts of Africa. The latter is unlikely. Large parts of the Sahara and the Arabian peninsula, not to mention large parts of Europe, contain many of the same ESA and MSA tools we see in the savannah belt of East Africa. Only the tropical forest, and areas east of the Movius Line in Asia, seem to lack them. Obviously these tools served over a wide range of different climatic and environmental conditions. There were of course constants in these landscapes: game and plant food resources, although their exact composition would have varied. The consistency in tool types over long periods in many different climates offers a strong argument for a biological explanation for their persistence. As an alternative it has been argued there is only a limited number of shapes a tool can take, and any group faced with the same tasks would end up making similarly shaped tools in time. This argument is problematic. We have become so familiar with the common Acheulian and Levallois typologies it is tempting to think they must be the inevitable shapes for the Palaeolithic. But a cutting tool could take any number of shapes (Fig 5.82) The constants of meat and plant food procurement cannot be that constant in the vast time and space parameters of the Palaeolithic to limit the tool types to so small a range. There is something else determining the limited ESA and MSA repertoires. Especially, the elaborate chaîne opératoire required to make Levallois tools is surely not inevitable.

167

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.82 How it might have been? Some shapes that did, and others that did not, become prevalent in the ESA or MSA.

The process by which ‘wiring up’ might have happened is covered by an extensive literature beyond the scope of this book (see for example McNabb 2007 Chapter 13). At the least, nobody has suggested that each time an early human came to make a handaxe he or she began from scratch – some learnt or inherited knowledge is assumed. But anthropologists are cautious: Robin Dunbar (pers. comm.) writes: “I doubt that something like tool design would become so embedded that it is hardwired like an instinct. There has been a lot of work on cultural evolution in the last few years, and you can get considerable stability under appropriate circumstances through cultural selection processes.  I do not know whether that would be enough to maintain the fixity of handaxe design over so long a period (my guess is that ecological or use conditions would have to be very stable). But the whole issue is a puzzle I do agree. It has continued to defeat us all”.  Returning to the ‘hybrid’ theory, it illustrates an axiom which has accompanied humankind throughout time - that all humans have difficulty imitating things outside their current stylistic template. Man passes through cultural phases generating particular kinds of material goods which are not replicated outside the period. When man does attempt to imitate products of previous ages they are usually easily distinguished from the originals – witness for example the 19th century replicas of handaxes by ‘Flint Jack’ from Britain (Rieth 1970) or the ‘Cavino’ Renaissance

medals imitating Roman coins. So if modern man, with his larger brain size and much greater inherited wisdom, has difficulty with imitations, perhaps it is understandable that the necessary mental acrobatics to make handaxes were beyond MSA peoples. The ECH phenomenon, coupled with the different distribution patterns of ESA and MSA tools, and the possibility of hybrid forms at ND4, all pull in one direction in suggesting a fundamental anthropological division between ESA and MSA populations at ZR, even though there is strong evidence for temporal sandwiching between the two populations. Despite the speculation here that ESA and MSA minds had an element of ‘free thinking’ as evidenced from the alleged ‘hybrids’ and the ficron-cleaver tools, it is generally believed that most of these populations for most of the time possessed no real intellect comparable with modern Homo sapiens. That perversely may have given them an advantage. As sapiens developed levels of human hierarchy in the LSA, ritual grew to accompany it. Ritual can be corrosive of human efficiency especially if it is used as a means to retain power by the controlling elite rather than benefiting the populace as a whole. A lack of intellect amongst the ESA and MSA peoples meant they were unencumbered by ritual and could pursue an efficient economy that benefited all in the group.

168

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds 5.6.2.11 Purpose of Levallois cores and flakes At ND4 the only items which could be conceived as large cutting tools are furnished by large MSA flakes (either primary or Levallois), some of which can be over 300mm long and, perhaps, the cores from which they came (Fig 5.70 a & c). Although these large Levallois items are rare, if retouched to give a suitable cutting edge they would be adequate to cut through moderately thick hide such as that of an antelope. But in a way these large flakes, which turn up occasionally all over the ZR region, are almost too big to be useful as cutting tools, because they cannot be held in one hand. They are similar in this respect to the enormous handaxes found at UR2, KH4 and KH6 (artefacts 1090, 1273 and Urikos unnumbered). In both the ESA and MSA, it seems there was an occasional need to make very large tools. This subject is discussed above (page 168). The elaborate chaîne opératoire involved in making Levallois cores is unlikely to have had the sole purpose of producing large flakes of semi-predictable shape and size. One in four is found unstruck anyhow, even though there would often seem to be no reason why a flake could not be struck off. Once again following the axiom that pre-sapiens Palaeolithic humans could seldom afford to do anything with no purpose, Levallois cores surely had a clear function in their own right. The Levallois core actually has much the same functional potential as the elongated core: detachment of serviceable flakes and blades during the preparation of the form, and chopping or pounding either before or after the detachment of the final flake. But because both Levallois cores and elongated cores show very few signs of heavy percussive use on hard objects, (which would yield large spalls as opposed to the smooth edges produced by pounding vegetable material), their use as choppers would seem to have been, at most, restricted to lighter duties. The Levallois flakes were perhaps handy tools to be held between finger and thumb for the cutting and slicing functions associated with the butchery of smaller game or the processing of vegetable materials. We need not think of MSA tools as only having a function in the food process; as lifestyles became more refined, it is conceivable that plant processing would be required in the preparation of shelters, in making carriers and other utensils and perhaps clothing. Levallois tools would clearly be suitable for some of these tasks, such as softening or pummelling fibre, or scraping and softening hide. Another question might be asked of the Levallois sites on the Plateau. Could they after all not be living spaces but factory sites? This would fit with the intense exploitation of an area of fine quality of raw material, and it might remove the worry about a water source – the factory would ‘close’ at dusk and all would return to a living space where water was on site. The case fails, however, for several reasons. If a site were a factory alone, all we would see would be debitage, yet at ND4 the Levallois cores, both struck and unstruck, are abundant, as are the Levallois

flakes and ECHs. If the rounding on the ECHs is due to use wear, this would also indicate use at the site. Also, many of the non-Levallois flakes are amply large enough to have served as tools. Unless the factory was only visited for short periods, water would still be desirable in the heat of the day, so would still have to be brought to the site. Thus this explanation seems unlikely. 5.6.2.12 Victoria West at ZR and its links to the Levallois technique (Fig 5.46) Mention has already been made of the Victoria West style cores found at KH6 (page 136). The occurrence of two alleged Victoria West flakes in the finds of Viereck (1966) and Wendt (1972) (Vogelsang 1998) seemed to be perhaps a case of doubtful attribution as only one other example was seen in fieldwalking. However in 2009-10 at KH6, seven sidestruck cores were noted, and another had been found earlier at ND0. They may exist at other sites, although they are certainly not common. Likewise, sidestruck (Victoria West-like) flakes are present at KH6. Jansen (1926) and Goodwin (1929, 1934) both defined the Victoria West phenomenon (as seen in South Africa) as containing three variants – high backed, horse hoof and uncinate or hen’s beak. They were describing the various forms of Victoria West from a series of Acheulian sites, rather than claiming it as a distinct industry. The main areas where Victoria West occur are the central interior of South Africa, centred on the Lower Vaal River near Kimberley, some 950km from ZR. Sharon & Beaumont (2006, 181) seemed to think the technology was restricted to central South Africa, but they are reputed to have been found as far west as Nakop on the Namibian border (Brain & Mason 1955). Interest in this artefact type has received attention in recent years (Boëda 1995, Kuman 2001, McNabb 2001, 2006, Sharon 2007). Boëda (1995) is one of several authors who have suggested the Victoria West technique uses hard hammer for the removal of the side-struck flake, because these flakes are large, robust items often with prominent bulbs. The same could be said of many of the classic Levallois cores and flakes seen at ZR. Sharon (2007, 64) has discussed Victoria West as a distinct form that should not simply be bracketed with Levallois cores. As the ‘Victoria West’ items at ZR have not yet been Edge Tested, it is not possible to place them with certainty in the time sequence, but simply from their appearance they seem to be contemporary with the MSA. Their greater frequency at KH6 and scarcity elsewhere implies an industry of limited time and impact in this area. Lycett (2009) has applied cladistic modelling – a technique borrowed from biological science – to test whether Victoria West tools are taxonomically linked to the Levallois method of tool production. He found robust evidence that they are not a ‘proto-Levallois’ clade. In the context of ZR

169

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia this frees up any necessity to link the apparent Victoria West artefacts with the Levallois in time. Inizan et al (1999, 65-68) have described the different variants of the Levallois method as either preferential flake removal, where a single flake is removed, or recurrent flake removal, where more than one flake is removed. The latter method is subdivided into unipolar, bipolar and centripetal. At ZR the Levallois flake removals are mostly preferential, from near-circular cores. If the core is not circular, and the chosen point of percussion for the flake is on the long edge, a flake wider than it is long may result. If we could discern whether this is a deliberate act or just chance variation, we would know if there is a true Victoria West at ZR. At KH6 a few examples have such blatantly oval cores with sidestruck flakes that a deliberate decision can hardly be doubted, but there are numerous less well-defined examples where chance could be the explanation. So far

as our observations go, we conclude there was a Victoria West ‘sub-branch’ within the MSA timespan operating at KH6, but elsewhere it is as yet unproven. The evidence so far from ZR does not allow us to argue that Victoria West is a discreet ‘industry’. The forms seen here are not exactly the same as described by Goodwin (1929), although in any industry some typological differences may be expected (see below), perhaps motivated by particular types of rock and raw material sizes. 5.6.2.13 Blades and Blade cores – some general problems The category ‘blades and blade cores’ presents something of an anomaly. Just what constitutes a blade core as opposed to any other core needs definition. The definition of a blade core used here is: ‘A core, often tending to steep pyramidal or elongated shape, having multiple flake scars of blade proportions’. (At ZR there are several functionally different types of core – the blade core and the non-blade

5.83 The position of blades and blade cores in the Edge Tests at five sites

170

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds core, sometimes discoidal, which are made with different end products clearly in the mind of the maker.) The conventional definition of ‘blade’ is also unsatisfactory, being any flake whose length is more than twice its width (Bordes 1961). Although this places a clear mathematical definition above a functional one, it would have made no sense in the Palaeolithic mind. There are numerous flakes at ZR that just happen to be long, but may not have been used as blades. What archaeologists really should be asking is whether there was a genuine separation in the MSA mind between a flake and a blade. Categorisation should stem from this, rather than mathematics. The case is plausible because the Palaeolithic in Africa frequently contains ‘long blades’ and corresponding blade cores, some of large size, that are confined to the MSA and generally do not occur in the ESA. The task at ZR is to ascertain, using the Edge Test data, whether our socalled ‘blades and blade cores’, (hereafter referred to as ‘blades’) which have been chosen using more or less the mathematical definition given above, actually conform to a real archaeological category with a discreet place in the timeline, in the same way as elongated cores, or handaxes,

seem to do, or whether they belong to a wide range of periods. Within our category, blade cores are less than 10% of the total: over 90% comprise blades. Fig 5.83 shows the position of the blades in the Average Rounding graphs at five main sites. Taking the KH3 and ND4 graphs first, the blades lie between the flakes and cores and the Levallois/Acheulian artefacts. Here, flakes and cores are clearly from a wide range of dates but with a greater number of more recent date than the blades (i.e. the line is predominantly lower on the graph). The Levallois and Acheulian elements are substantially older, as shown by their markedly higher positions on the graphs. But there is substantial overlap. At these two sites it would appear blades run through almost the whole archaeological stratum but there are more of them in the post-Acheulian/ Levallois phase. At ZR4 the blade population is much more closely aligned with the Acheulian and Levallois, suggesting they are largely contemporary. The ZR2 site has been subjected to inundation prior to the Levallois period and it shows very clearly that blade

5.84 Artefact 1021, a large blade from KH4

171

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia and flake/core production occurred in pre-Levallois time, with a substantial part of the blade industry predating the flakes and cores. This is the most unambiguous of all the graphs, insofar as it proves beyond reasonable doubt that blade manufacture is a separate industry from the classic Levallois, and is practised earlier at this site. Blades are particularly abundant here and perhaps we are seeing a unique group of pre-Levallois occupants who simply use blades as their main tool. The graph for ZR5 is initially puzzling but the number of blades (seven) is insufficient to represent a trend and it should not be taken as indicative of anything regarding blades. At ZR we could find no discernible categorisation of blade forms, (perhaps because we did not pay sufficient attention to them). Orderly retouch was observed on some blades, though not a large proportion. Unlike some other parts of Africa, blade forms do not obviously take on specialised forms at ZR. The magnificent blade on a large cortical flake, item 1021, from KH4 (Fig 5.84), which has bold but carefully aimed retouch unifacially down one edge, is an exception. This unique artefact weighs over 1 kilo. The well-defined line of retouch produced a slightly concave edge. The Edge Test result shows affinity with the Levallois and the tool also conforms to the ‘large Levallois flake’ industry, having typically a small platform and an enlarged distal end, obtained by striking the blow so as to run along a natural cortical ridge on the dorsal side, thus gaining length. This is a technique frequently seen in the production of long blades. To hold the tool conveniently the user would have had to be right-handed with the heavier end held away from the wrist. This tool shows the maker had a clear concept that flakes could be worked to form a long cutting edge (see also Fig. 5.70a-f. It is interesting as a rare example of a ‘one-off’ type (unless we have missed others at the site). ESA and MSA artefacts generally show a homogeneity of style and concept implying that most hominin thinking was quite entrenched – “we do this because we have always done this”. The occurrence of a unique type of tool is important, because it shows how occasionally someone was thinking ‘outside the box’. That is a characteristic more associated with sapiens, yet our blade 1021 is not an LSA tool, being dark stained and rounded. In summary, the evidence from so-called blade and blade core forms at ZR suggests there are several separate episodes during which blades were made. The blades vary in intensity and form from site to site and in their position in the Edge Test sequence. The most intense blade site is ZR2 in the Gorge, but blades and blade cores accompany the MSA Levallois material everywhere and may have been a secondary product of these industries. Blades also comprise a proportion of LSA scatters. There are two possible conclusions: either our category is not reflective

of a discreet industry, or if such an industry existed it is separate from the classic Levallois which it certainly predates in part. It is reasonably certain that general blade production went on over a very large part of the time range at ZR, perhaps with a ‘classic’ Age of the Blade, as seen at ZR2, as a separate, early phase. 5.6.2.14 Flakes as tools Although the ratios of large tools to flakes vary greatly from site to site at ZR, the general trend is for the flakes to predominate. We have made the assumption above that many of these flakes were used as tools. Even from the relatively low ratio of one LCT to 3.6 flakes at ND4, it would appear as though tasks requiring small tools (i.e. mostly flakes) were more frequent than those requiring large tools. At the other end of the scale, at ZR1 the number of flakes is many times greater than the number of formal tools: of 1764 recovered from the grids, 1653 were flakes and 63 retouched flakes, but only one small Acheulian handaxe and two MSA items were noticed (see page 61). Although the presence of human retouch is seen on only a small proportion of flakes, many more show edge damage that might be of human making. It is contended that most flakes over 20mm in length were not just discards from some other tool-making process, but were in the vast majority cutting or scraping tools. LCTs (including large MSA items) and small tools represent two fundamentally different functional regimes in the Palaeolithic community. Because flake tools are far commoner, everyday tasks will have been accomplished mainly by the use of these. Small weathered tools from the ESA and MSA such as flakes have lost all trace of microwear, so offer little information about usage, but an obvious guess would be food processing. The vast majority of flakes at ZR are usually robust in dimension, i.e. relatively thick, unlike the typical trimming flakes produced from the manufacture of LCTs. At the Boxgrove Lower Palaeolithic site in southern Britain, a knapping scatter was discovered in situ containing over 1700 pieces of knapping debris over 5mm in length (Pitts & Roberts 1998, 175). Although it is possible for selected flakes to have been taken away and used as tools from this scatter, the vast majority lay where they were dropped in the knapping process and clearly had no further function. At ZR clear examples of debitage from LCT production have not so far been prominent in fieldwalking or gridding, yet they must have been there once (page 110). The scarcity of large ESA and MSA tools in relation to flake tools at ZR redresses the balance between the concept of the Palaeolithic male labouring heroically with only his stone tools in the slaughter of huge beasts, and the less romantic notion of a diet of plant food supplemented by small mammals. Flake tools would be perfectly adequate to handle butchery of anything up to the size of small antelope. The variation from very large to very small tools

172

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds suggests a balanced diet incorporating the occasional butchery of large mammals. The use of flakes as tools seems to have been even more predominant in the LSA at ZR. Apart from the abundance of flakes at the ZR3 Cave site (Winton forthcoming), there are plenty of LSA scatters in the wider landscape. If flakes represent a regular part of all Palaeolithic communities at ZR, the Edge Test results for flakes at any site would provide evidence of occupation continuity or discontinuity more closely than any other artefact type. More work on this aspect is planned. 5.6.3 Some aspects of dating 5.6.3.1 Occupation continuity and the ESA/MSA overlap The attempt to count the total number of artefacts at ND4 (page 105) prompted an extended discussion about the length of hominin occupation there. We can now draw these conclusions into a more general overview of the temporal occupation patterns in the Study Area. To summarise the picture so far, the lack of identifiable Oldowan artefacts at ZR means we cannot at present claim an early date for the first arrival of humans in Western Namibia. No absolute dates for the Acheulian can be obtained, but the Edge Test data present smooth graphs for ESA/MSA tools which are interpreted as indicating a continuity of occupation (though possibly with short breaks) throughout the timespan when ESA/MSA peoples were present. The lack of later MSA specialised tool forms indicates another lacuna from some point in the mid-MSA until the undiagnostic LSA of the caves, dated by Wendt to within the last 48,000 years and by us to the last 2800 years. This later gap may have originated with MIS cold Stage 6, and/or with the cooler parts of MIS Stage 5, which may have brought increased aridity to the area. The effect of the eruption of Mount Toba c. 74,000 BP may also have had a further constraining influence. The effects of Mt. Toba on human populations is still hotly debated (Petraglia et al, 2007, Williams et al, 2009, Robock et al, 2009, Thomas & Shaw 2002) but even if they were less than originally contended, a volcanic eruption with a magnitude of 8 may have been enough to cause a marginal area such as ZR to be abandoned. Having been driven out from ZR, MSA and early LSA humans did not reoccupy the territory, even though conditions may have been intermittently more pleasant, possibly because of a barrier such as the Kalahari. There are two aspects to temporal continuity. One is the total length of time that an area was occupied and the other is the question of overlaps in time between different anthropological groups. (As mentioned above (page 173) it is assumed that ESA and MSA peoples were from different anthropological groups, because of the very different imprints they made on the landscape.) The amalgamated Edge Test relative frequency graphs shown in Figs 5.11

and 5.85 shows how close some ESA and MSA categories appear to be in time, and there seems to have been a period during which both were present at ZR. That is reinforced by the observation that a high proportion of ESA sites are also MSA sites. If there were major gaps in time between ESA and MSA, is it likely that MSA occupants would have chosen exactly the same spots as their ESA forebears, when there were plenty of alternative spaces to choose from, at least to our eyes today? When we reconstruct a hypothetical ESA scenario (page 180), it becomes hard to see how two separate anthropological groups could have coexisted and remained aloof within the Study Area at exactly the same time, because both groups needed periodically to make contact with their peers to avoid interbreeding. The cross-lattice of territories required for two simultaneous operations of this kind would hardly be sustainable in an arid environment. A more likely scenario would see one or other group present for a chain of generations, perhaps unchallenged by the other. The circumstances needed to provoke a change of group from ESA to MSA or back almost certainly involved environmental change and possibly a period of human absence. The Edge Test data are nothing like fine-grained enough to hint at how many times the territory changed hands, although the results do indicate an early ESA before the overlap and surprisingly (from ZR4) a late ESA after the final MSA here. This epoch may be the time when the ‘mandolin’ was made. The evidence from ZR on this aspect of Palaeolithic society is supported from sites such as Kapthurin in Kenya (Tryon 2006, Tryon et al 2005), where tools of the Acheulian/ MSA transition as well as core-axes of Sangoan affinity are found in close proximity. Coming to the later MSA at ZR, smaller blades, retouched blades, scrapers, smaller points and retouched flakes, (as found for example at Apollo 11 Cave in the far south of Namibia) (Vogelsang 1998) are scarce or absent in relation to the numbers of large Levallois cores and flakes. Diagnostic Mode 3 artefacts aside from Levallois and simple unbacked blades are remarkably absent from ZR. ‘Levallois points’ are very few. No microlithic industries have been seen. Perhaps this part of Africa became cut off and the population either became extinct or perhaps simply became a detached backwater making Levallois items for much longer than elsewhere. If the absence of ‘later’ Mode 3 artefacts is truly an indication of population extinction, such change is very likely to have been caused by climatic deterioration. The most obvious would be the onset of the MIS Stage 6 cold period at c. 190,000 BP (Partridge et al 2004) and/or one of the subsequent cold periods within MIS Stages 5/4. As this would be the terminal point for surface scatters (as opposed to cave deposits) the Edge Test data would not, and does not, show a blip as a result. However, Vogelsang (pers comm. 30 July 2002) notes that in central Namibia sites with (later) MSA features can be

173

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia very late e.g. early Holocene, whereas in the Cape they terminate at 25,000-20,000 years ago. The evidence from the two cave sites which represent the final LSA period is itself somewhat contradictory. Although the two caves are only 2km apart, Wendt’s three dates ranged from 48,200 to 37,200 BP. Gail’s Cave (ZR3) gave dates of 2835 and 1160 BP. The Wendt dates may be too early. Not only were they taken in 1981 or before, when C14 dating was unreliable at this range, but also two of his dates were from burnt charcoal which might provide a date for the tree rather than the burning (Vogelsang 1998, 169). The Gail’s Cave dating was done in 2008, and excavation reached the bedrock without any trace of earlier archaeological material The simple conclusion seems to be that ZR was unpopulated during long periods of the late MSA and LSA, when in other parts of southern Africa, including the Apollo 11 cave, Howeison’s Poort and Stillbay tools were being produced. 5.6.3.2 Absolute and Relative dating It has been mentioned above that Edge Tests can only provide relative dating, and in order to pin this to absolute dates it is necessary at present to rely on the rather imprecise factor of tool typology as dated from excavated sites. The attempt to calculate the occupancy time of the MSA at ND4 can now be widened to embrace the whole ESA/MSA periods at ZR. To progress this further, we take the example of the core area (Fig. 2.2) close to the Escarpment edge, which has been most thoroughly explored. Here, within approximately 80 square km, 32 places were recorded as ‘sites’; 14 contained ESA artefacts, 29 contained MSA artefacts, and 19 sites had densities that could be interpreted as ESA/ MSA or MSA living spaces. That is one living space every 4.4 square km., obviously far too dense to have allowed parallel occupation in time. If groups were moving from one site to another in a seasonal rotation, the estimate of occupation time would increase in direct proportion to the number of sites in use through the season. Additionally, over long periods the space required to support the group would also vary as conditions changed. Clearly the number of permutations to be considered in trying to calculate occupancy times here is large. We would require more field data on the density of occupation sites over a wider area before a multivariate model could be constructed. But with the limited spatial data at our disposal, a single message is always apparent – occupation times at ZR do not fill the potential ESA and MSA timespans as recorded from other sites in southern Africa. What was happening during the rest of the time? To answer this it is first necessary to establish what we mean by the ‘rest of the time’. Dates for the ESA and MSA in Southern Africa have been obtained from various

excavated sites. Estimates of duration vary. In the African continent as a whole, Acheulian tools range from 1.65 million years (e.g. at Kokiselei 4 in West Turkana, Roche 2003, Harmand 2007, 13) to after 200kyr. But there is a tendency for refinement to increase as time passes, as exemplified by sites such as Olorgesailie (Potts et al 1999), where finely made handaxes are dated to between 990 and 625kyr. Clark (2001b) considered the ‘late Acheulian’ to occupy mainly the period 300-200kyr, but pointed out that at Bir Sahara in Ethiopia it is as early as 448 or 552kyr. Refinement of artefact quality may be linked to the introduction of the soft hammer from about 780kyr. (Sharon & Goren-Inbar, 1999). Clark (1993) considered tools found in Angola south of Luanda to be developed Oldowan. The earliest sites yielding hominin fossils in Southern Africa include Swartkrans Member 1 ( 2.0 Ma), Gondolin (~1.8 Ma), Kromdraai (1.8–1.7 Ma), Sterkfontein M5A (1.8–1.4 Ma), and Swartkrans Member 2 (1.7–1.1 Ma), (Herries 2009). Chazan et al (2008) placed the onset of the Acheulian at Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa at c. 1.6 million years, roughly contemporaneous with East Africa. There is a shift to larger flake and core tools from 1.7 to 1.4 million years BP. The earliest artefacts come from Sterkfontein, where Kuman & Clarke (2000) found Oldowan spheroids in Member 5 deposits dated to 2-1.7myr. These forms comprise relatively coarse pointed handaxes. From cosmogenic dating, the earliest Acheulian artefacts in southern Africa have been ascribed to a range 1.8-1.35myr at Rieputs (Gibbon 2009). The Acheulian itself is suggested to have ended before 200,000 BP by McBrearty & Brooks (2000): ‘Late Acheulian and early MSA dates cluster between 200 ka and 300 ka, and the Acheulian seems to have disappeared in most of Africa by about 200 ka’ . However A U-series date of ca. 174 ka was obtained on a late Acheulian occurrence at Rooidam, South Africa (Szabo & Butzer, 1979). Clark (2001b) noted sites in the Eastern Sahara where the Late Acheulian persisted as late as 100kyr. Prepared core technology is tentatively dated as early as 400,000 BP at Sidi Abderrahman in Morocco. It is widely believed to have begun prior to the late Acheulian, e.g. at Canteen Koppie (Mason 1962). The MSA at Florisbad in South Africa runs from 279,000 to 47,000 BP approximately (Kuman et al 1999). The earliest MSA in East Africa falls in the period 280-240,000 BP (McBrearty & Brooks 2000). Marean and Assefa (2003, 103) consider the MSA begins between 300,000 and 250,000 BP. The Levallois does not appear at Kalambo Falls in Zambia before about 100kyr, when it is contemporary with the early Lupemban (Clark 2001b). Clark (2001b, 16) also pointed out that the hominin associated with the Late Acheulian was archaic Homo sapiens, thus opening up the possibility that ‘modern’ conceptualization such as hafting might have its roots in the Final Acheulian. From the above summary of dates it is clear that although there is no consensus on the duration of ESA or MSA tool 174

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds industries, there is plenty of scope for contemporaneity between the late ESA and early MSA. That is certainly borne out from the relative dates from Edge Tests at Zebra River. Basell (2008) has examined the subject of refugia in the African MSA and LSA, contending that at various times human groups were forced by environmental degradation to flee to lakeshore or woodland margin habitats. These periods are equated to the cold MIS stages 8, 6 and 4, of which 6 (lasting from c. 190,000 to c. 130,000 BP) is by far the longest. She detects a crucial change from larger to smaller stone tools around 125,000 BP at about the time when sapiens is left as the sole human species in Africa. Taking into account the wide spans of dates given above, the possible range of dates for the ESA tools at ZR might theoretically stretch back to a million years or more, although from other considerations already discussed humans are unlikely to have arrived here so early. MSA tools at ZR would seem to begin some time before c.250,000 BP, and their termination may be linked to the onset of MIS Stage 6 c. 190,000BP, or at any time during the next 100,000 years. As we have seen, the Edge Test graphs point to an ESA/ MSA occupation of limited duration but without prolonged periods of absence breaking it up. Western Namibia could conceivably have been a region isolated not only by distance but more importantly by aridity, causing humans to arrive relatively late. It was also, according to the best estimates of palaeoclimatologists (Lancaster, pers comm) arid or semi-arid during much of the midand late-Quaternary. The onset of the cold period in MIS Stage 6 would possibly have increased the aridity here to the point of uninhabitability, thus driving the human population away again. The total occupation period may thus have been sandwiched between a late MSA arrival sometime after 300,000 BP and an early departure before 190,000 BP. Alternatively, another severe constriction in human occupation may have been caused by the eruption of Mount Toba in Indonesia c.74,000 BP. If the evidence for ESA/MSA overlap at ZR is upheld, the terminal ESA must fall within, or even slightly after, the MSA period. The earliest ESA at ZR cannot be determined but Edge Test results suggest a period of occupation not greatly longer than the MSA. There may be other reasons why our artefact count at ND4 spells out a potential occupation period short of what it could have been. There may have been many short periods of absence, which would not show up in the Edge Test graphs. The endemically arid lands of Western Namibia needed only a small swing to greater aridity to make them uninhabitable. The broad oscillations in temperature seen in ice core graphs mask numerous smaller fluctuations, which could have tipped the scales against survival in marginal areas such as this. In discussing the Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa, Beaumont & Vogel (2006, 224) found evidence for abandonment from c. 70,000 -12,500 BP,

roughly at the same time as the extension of the Kalahari sands, which they associated with increasing aridity during MIS Stages 4-2. Although this is not a short period of absence, it is an example of abandonment the likes of which must have been frequent in marginal locations such as Zebra River. In the case of ZR the evidence would not contradict abandonment at an even earlier time, during MIS Stage 6, and during subsequent Stage 5 geographic isolation may have prevented re-occupation. Even taking account of all this, we are still left with a relatively short period of occupation at ZR. There is one clear-cut observation relevant to this discussion: the specialised MSA toolkit of the later MSA as seen in other parts of southern Africa never reached ZR. ND4 and other sites were abandoned in mid-MSA time and the only artefactual evidence of a succeeding culture is the undiagnostic flakes and cores, which from their sharpness and their correlation with the excavated sites we attribute to the LSA within the last 25,000 years or so. The evidence for human absence from c.180,000 BP, or from one of the other adverse environmental changes after this, is thus strong. Another critical factor in this equation is how many sites there were in the territory of the group and how frequently people moved between sites (e.g. sporadically, seasonally, permanently, continuously). This also hinges on the amount of space required to support a social group. Groups may not have occupied the same site continuously for generation upon generation, instead moving seasonally or periodically to adjacent spots in the landscape, for example to gain access to water or game in the dry season, or in response to changing climatic conditions. Glynn Isaac’s words, written long ago in connection with the East African site of Olorgesailie, can be recalled here: “a model of life patterns that involved frequent movement of the base of operations but intermittent return to favored locations” (Isaac 1977, 218). For much of the time each site was empty, yet the region as a whole was ‘full’. Time would be shared between sites or regions. Ethnologists have noted such home base movement in the modern record of the !Kung (Forde, 1963, 27,), and in later prehistory (Wadley 1987). This is discussed further on page 179ff on the !Kung). One of the problems facing surface Palaeolithic archaeology is that nothing is preserved that can yet be dated by laboratory methods. The Edge Test begins to address this by providing relative dating of different typologies within individual sites. The typologies found at ZR have also been compared with similar typologies of known dates from other excavated sites in Southern and Eastern Africa. There are two other approaches to assist dating, stemming from Edge Test data. The first – the amalgamation of all Edge Test results for particular typologies into a single ‘mass’ graph, to compare their patterns - is clearly a very coarse and potentially invalid approach, given that inter-site comparisons have 175

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia weathering was at a constant rate). More Edge Test data would be needed to bring precision to this approach, but the principle would be as follows.

5.85 Average Rounding data for Acheulian (red) and MSA (black) in the Gorge sites

On the premise that weathering acts at a near-constant rate, Edge Test values can be calibrated on scale of absolute dates. To activate, it requires at least one known ‘absolute’ date for any artefact type in the population. The more reliable this date is, the greater the reliability of the scale. A possible ‘fixed’ date might be the point at which MSA people abandoned the Study Area. Once that is determined, all the valid MSA Edge Test data can be assembled in a banded graph of Average Rounding. Fig 5.86 models the method, but does not purport to resolve absolute dates. It plots the Levallois element from Fig 5.85. The latest MSA artefacts to be made will mostly be represented by the items at the left of the graph, let us say about 190,000 BP. At this end of the graph, the range of loss of section mass runs from 0.23 to 0.45, with an average of 0.34. So loss of 0.34 sq mm of section mass would represent 190,000 years of weathering. We can now translate the values of loss

5.86 Illustrating absolute dating hypothesis from the Average Rounding graphs. already been ruled out. It is of interest only to test whether, despite all the pitfalls, any general chronological trends still show up.

Loss of section mass Absolute date in sq. mm BP 0.1 50,000 0.2 100,000 0.4 200,000 0.6 300,000 0.8 400,000 1.0 500,000

Fig 5.85 plots all the Acheulian results in red and all the Levallois results in grey, from the Gorge sites of ZR2, ZR4, ZR5, KH3 and KH6. Recurrent themes include the ‘saucer’ shape and the smoothness of most of the curves. The chronological distinction between ESA and MSA is slight, but indicates broadly a later date for MSA artefacts. The differences may be negligible, and the overall view confirms the very substantial overlap between the two typologies seen from looking at individual sites.

5.87 Hypothetical resolution of Edge Test data

From the Edge Test data it should theoretically be possible to calculate the span of time during which artefacts were being made at ZR, because it is represented by the range of rounding from the sharpest to the most rounded, (assuming

absolute date from

176

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds of sectional mass into years BP, as in Fig 5.87. Reading from this table, if a group of artefacts shows a mean loss of section mass of 0.6 sq.mm, its terminal date will be 300,000 years BP. The start dates of any group would be less easy to estimate from Average Rounding graphs because there is a far greater tolerance in the range of values, and often fewer artefacts at the weathered end. When larger numbers of Edge Test results are available it may be appropriate to seek a means of ascertaining a fixed date for artefacts at ZR, either through contextual material in buried sites or from further advances in methods of dating surface clasts. 5.6.4 Towards an understanding of ESA/MSA lifestyles 5.6.4.1 Clusters and spaces and their implications for Palaeolithic lifestyles The pattern of artefact distribution art ZR offers a commentary on the lifestyles of Palaeolithic occupants. Let us just recap what this pattern typically is. Concentrated scatters of artefacts, ranging in density up to 80 per square metre, occupy sites typically 100-400 metres across, often coincident with good quality (and usually plentiful) raw material. These sites are not evenly spaced but depend on topography and raw material configuration. Where raw material scatters are grouped closely, with perhaps gullies or small streams separating them, sites are often also closely grouped. Raw material resources of lesser quality or quantity, when located far away from better material, are sometimes accompanied by dense scatters or may contain thin scatters of artefacts. In between all the dense scatters, occasional artefacts are seen, usually consisting of flakes, although diagnostic tools also occur singly, but areas with no raw material resource usually have even fewer artefacts or none at all. These patterns are repeated all over the Gorge and the Plateau, but there is a marked trend for the ESA to be near major streams (particularly in the Gorge), whereas MSA is everywhere. LSA scatters also occur, less frequently, in the same pattern, but with caves also included. As we have seen, there was no discernible exploitation of solid bedrock and no interest in caves until the later LSA. Whether ESA or MSA, these peoples lived in the open, and regularly selected their occupation sites to coincide with the best of the natural raw material. That did not necessarily have to be so – we could conceive of a human population surviving on a vegetarian diet without the need to cut anything with a hard object, making tools only of wood or other perishable materials. Indeed this may have been the case somewhere in the Palaeolithic, but we shall never know, because there will be virtually no trace of their presence. But archaeologists tend to believe this was not the normal case.

At Zebra River the lithic interest was solely in quartzitic sandstone; the limestones and shales in this environment were ignored. This was not always the case throughout Africa; Olorgesailie in Kenya is a good example of a ‘home base’ with very little lithic raw material on site: occupants had to obtain rocks from adjacent volcanic ridges at least 1 km away (Isaac 1977, 87). In this case the home base was clearly chosen for reasons other than immediate raw material availability. The scatter patterns seen today illustrate human thoroughness in searching the complete landscape before choosing where to locate their activity sites. The general presence of lithic raw material in an area can sometimes show up from a distance as a distinctive rust colour, provided one can reach a high enough vista point. Whether early humans could detect these subtle colour changes would have depended on the amount of vegetation coverage. After good rains, grasses obscure the land surface, making it impossible to ascertain the presence of any lithic resource until one is virtually on top of it. Our observation that prehistoric peoples located every nook and cranny of raw material resources suggests they lived in arid climates similar to today’s. Let us imagine a human group arriving for the first time in the Study Area. The environment would be new to them, rather as it was when we first arrived to seek surface scatters in 2002. At that time, the landowner told us of a place where he had found handaxes. He did not have a GPS location, only a verbal description. We walked to the place; we found no handaxes. The ‘place’ was ZR4, subsequently the findspot of some 25 Acheulian tools. It took us two seasons of fieldwork to locate them. This underlines the importance of knowing the landscape thoroughly in order to exploit its resources fully. Our new arrivals would have had to seek out all the resources – water, plant food, animal habits, lithics, a shady tree to shelter from the heat. Many of these resources would not be immediately apparent. ZR at least offered abundant lithic resources, so it would not be long before a site for this resource was located, but even here they were choosy – the densest artefacts scatters nearly always coincide with good quality raw material that is thick on the ground. But intimate knowledge of the whole landscape would take years to acquire. In our seven seasons of fieldwork we have walked only a small fraction of the total Study Area, but just like our Palaeolithic arrivals, we have learnt quickly where the most likely places are for the things we seek (admittedly with the help of Google Earth to speed things up!). We now feel ‘at home’ here because, in our own small field of stone tools, we have acquired the ability to predict. In the Palaeolithic, groups would have varied between the newly-arrived who had to discover everything afresh, and occupants of long standing, whose knowledge would be cumulative. It is assumed most occupants would have remained for long periods, and thus would have become fully acquainted with the environment. Chains of generations perhaps of several thousand years’ duration can 177

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia be envisaged, each passing on their landscape knowledge. For certain, most human groups at ZR became expert ‘geologists’ in the sense that they could tell what stones were best for knapping. The interpretation placed on these observations is that Zebra River shows humans customarily choosing specific places to live rather than wandering daily into large tracts of unfamiliar land. The dense clusters of artefacts which we call living spaces are argued to be self-perpetuating as a consequence of the slow build-up of stone tools which were used as an environmental resource by succeeding generations. This explanation is preferred over ‘butchery sites’ or ‘factory sites’. The term ‘factory site’, as separate from a living space, can be ruled out at ZR because no site has been observed with knapping debris alone. Also, all ZR artefacts are made from detached surface clasts, not ‘quarried’ from bedrock, as they are in some other African factory sites. Likewise, the dense clusters are clearly not one-off butchery sites, which would only require a limited number of tools. In the MSA, scatters are more widespread, but it still remains the case that we cannot discern different kinds of scatter that might represent solely butchery sites or other specialised kinds of site. They all seem to be roughly the same – high proportions of flakes together with variable proportions of diagnostic tools. From their composition, all sites, ESA and MSA, appear to have the same function. The use of clusters as caches therefore remains a strong possibility. The main argument against scatters being caches is that it means people had to go to a cache every time they wanted a tool. But caches were not the only source of tools – witness the low level scatters in the wider landscape. Where such tools lie close to lithic raw material resources they could have been made on the spot; where they are far from them they must have been carried. Hunting may necessitate parties travelling several kilometres from home, perhaps sleeping overnight if a distant objective was sought, such as a defile where animals could be ambushed. Did the hunters know before they began a foraging trip where they were going, what they expected to find, and therefore what tools to take? In other words were they capable of planning? Or did they just get up and go with no plan in mind? Just as large cats or wolves make a communal decision to work in teams while hunting, without the need for complex language, so we contend early humans must have felt a communal sense of purpose, an urge, to do something specific today, such as hunt large game. If so, the likelihood is that large tools were deliberately chosen and carried on such occasions. It has been argued above that large game kills may have played only an occasional role in hunting; much of the protein coming from smaller but nutritious animals such as porcupine, small antelope, or monkeys. Other useful products are also derived from these animals such as spines, sinews, teeth and skins. During the daily routines,

opportunities to take small game would not be overlooked, and for this purpose, the small tools seen in the landscape could have been made as necessary during the journey. Anyone who keeps a domestic cat will have seen that if given certain types of food, often raw meat or fish, it will annoyingly drag it off the dish and eat it from a place near by. Those lucky enough to have watched a kill site in the wild will have noticed smaller carnivores perform the same ritual. It is done in the interests of safety – away from the carcass there is less danger of having the quarry snatched by another carnivore. A classic example is a leopard carrying meat from a kill up into the branches of a tree. The chance of having a carcass to oneself for any time, whether it died naturally or was slaughtered by the hunting party, would be slim. Humans would be lucky to be the dominant players at large game kill sites – stronger animals higher up the pecking order may be present, or quickly arrive. Besides, most of the meat had to be taken home to the group. The most practical approach would be to detach portable amounts and drag them away, first to a safe distance perhaps to eat some, then all the way back home, where the toolkit was ready for the final dismemberment. LCTs would have only fleeting use at the kill site to quickly detach parts that human teeth could not cope with. This would explain why the vast majority of tools remain at the living site, while occasional ‘strays’ are seen in the wider landscape. Dense concentrations of artefacts are not an inevitable product of Palaeolithic society. We could imagine a situation where the distribution is much more even – meagre scatters where raw material exists, or indeed over all of the terrain. At the other extreme, we might imagine just one or two huge concentrations of artefacts and nothing else, or just a thin scatter, in the rest of the landscape. There is a large variety of options. So the particular pattern we see repeated throughout the Study Area must provide evidence of human social behaviour, as well as any changes through time from the earliest ESA visitors to the last MSA ones. If tools are equated with food processing, the existence of ‘living space’ sites containing tools sourced, used and dropped there suggests food consumption was carried out by groups in predetermined places. That is not a characteristic attributed to primates (Isaac 1989, 290). It must be a habit formed after bipedal humans evolved. The preponderance of dense clusters of artefacts suggests therefore that food sharing within the group was well developed at ZR by the time of the Acheulian. If food sharing had not been practised, but instead groups had eaten as they ranged, we would see an entirely different pattern, with small scatters representing single food processing events. Food sharing greatly enhances the advantage of man over other animals and has other implications for lifestyles. Because females are likely to have had young offspring to look after, they could not fully participate in the hunt. If they stayed at the living space, but food sharing was not practised, the females and small children would never get a share of the meat diet. There is another reason for assuming that a 178

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds division of labour between male and female precipitated the need for communal areas for social activities including food sharing. In a recent study, Pfaff (2011) has shown that significant differences in the modern human brain affect mating, parenthood, and aggression. The patterns of settlement revealed by the artefact scatters suggest these differences had arisen by ESA/MSA time. The dense artefact scatters indicate that food processing and sharing was done at the living space, where all of the group could participate. That is not to say females and their young did not forage for vegetable food, which may still have made up the greater proportion of their diet. The Palaeolithic day would likely have been divided between time for separate male-female tasks, and time for togetherness. The question of human mobility has to be addressed in interpreting these scatters. In many dug sites, stone tools are made of non-local material which has been brought some distance from the raw material source, for example in the Seacow Valley in the Upper Karoo (Sampson 2006, 97), Beds III and IV at Olduvai (Leakey 1971), Koobi Fora (Isaac 1976), or Montagu Cave (Keller 1973). Where the source of a raw material can be identified, the distance travelled between quarry and discard can be measured. At ZR a totally different situation existed, because the raw material is widely spread on the surface throughout the Study Area. So we cannot deduce anything about human mobility from the artefacts. The question of human mobility can however be addressed in other ways, which for the ESA are examined in the final analysis of settlement patterns described in the following section. In the MSA, the much wider distribution of artefacts led us to assume carriers were in use and so mobility was less constrained. In contrast to theoretical interpretations of many European Levallois sites (Winton 2004, 157, White & Pettitt 1996, 34) the mobility of people at ZR does not equate to wholesale mobility of stone tools. At ND4 although they are occasionally seen in the surrounding terrain, they are generally still concentrated on the mesa where they were made. The picture emerges of an MSA society moving often through the landscape, occasionally carrying a Levallois core or point, but reserving most of the tool manufacture and use for the living space. That is much the same picture as we see for the ESA, but just over a much wider territory. 5.6.4.2 Getting up close: drawing parallels from !Kung lifestyles Much has been written on the !Kung (‘Bushmen’, ‘San’) peoples who have convincing symbolic and technological continuities with the LSA occupants of Southern Africa. The !Kung territory extended to western Namibia including the ZR Study Area. Lee & DeVore (1976), Lee (1979) and Wadley (1987) amongst others, have all approached studies of the !Kung with an eye to the recognition of the lessons we can learn about their forebears in the LSA. Here, we examine some aspects of !Kung society that might reach back into the MSA and ESA. That of course is a

much bigger leap, because whereas the !Kung and the LSA peoples are all modern Homo sapiens, the MSA and ESA people are not, and we cannot count on the same thought processes from brains of smaller size and with a different inherited knowledge, whose lineage is long extinct. What can be done however is to note the observations of the !Kung on their responses to those aspects of the human condition and the environment that would also have been a part of ESA and MSA life. These include group size, breeding, bringing up children, dawn and dusk, the heat of the day, the chill of the night, seasonality, environmental change, human range, plant food and game resources, water sources, geology, topographic features, and, in the ZR region, aridity. We can then ask whether any evidence from the !Kung provides us with insight into how Palaeolithic society handled these things. The !Kung experience is thus acting as a prompter in practical matters for the Palaeolithic. The attempts to estimate length of occupation of ND4 from artefact counts (page 105) was to some extent influenced by an assumption about the size of the group. There is some variation in !Kung group sizes, but the minimum encountered was 22 (Lee & DeVore op. cit. 60) and the maximum 77 (Bleek op. cit. 114). Groups invariably consisted of several families, often interrelated. Groups chose partners from neighbouring groups. While these conditions may not have prevailed exactly in the ESA/MSA, the practical limitations to group size are environment- rather than time-dependent. There is a minimum size below which a group will struggle to survive. For example in chasing game, whether large or small, amongst the !Kung often only a fast-moving strategic network involving all the men in the group will achieve a kill. At the other end of the scale, the group is unsustainable if the numbers in it are too many to feed from the territory ranged. If environmental conditions were similar in the past as now, these parameters would only differ by the degree to which !Kung technology has advanced since the Palaeolithic. The size of the territory that can sustain a given population would thus be fairly constant through time. The !Kung know fairly exactly what territory is ‘theirs’ although they sometimes overlap with others and sometimes will need to pursue a dying animal into neighbours’ territory. They were recorded by Barnard (1978) as having 25 persons in a single group occupying 400 square miles (1036 square km). Lee & DeVore (op.cit. 43) found 460 individuals (not all in one group) occupied 5500 square km in the Dobe area on the Namibia-Botswana border. The land requirement per person in these two examples ranges from between approximately 12 and 44 per square km. Sampson & Sadr (1999) counted the number of Bushman ‘sites’ on the surface in the Seacow Valley in the Karoo as 16,000 in 5000 square km. That is not a statistic we can directly employ, because not all the sites were in use at the same time, and the length of occupation of each site is not known. However, at an average of 3.2 sites per square km 179

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia it must reflect either a high density or many generations of occupation, or both. The !Kung normally have two different types of ‘site’. The aggregated site is the main home base close to a permanent water source in the dry season when the group remains in one place for several months. This ‘home base’ will never be located closer than about half a kilometre to the waterhole, as they do not want to deter game from coming, or to be attacked by animals. The transit site is where they spend two or three days at a time in the wet season when they are hunting and gathering in the wider landscape (Wadley op. cit. 41). They prefer to have these sites not too widely spaced, as they act as small caches for material goods which reduce the carrying distance while on safari. Lee (1967) concluded that the !Kung found it inconvenient to exploit resources beyond about 4km from the home base, and uneconomic beyond about 10km. Although not a golden rule, this is a useful yardstick to keep in mind. !Kung sites differ from Palaeolithic sites in containing shelters to return to. There is virtually no evidence for shelters at Palaeolithic sites, but they may have been made of perishables (Isaac 1989, 149). However, as we have seen (page 108), Palaeolithic sites may have provided a resource equally important in the cache of stone tools stored there. At ZR we have as yet found no example of the large caches of handaxes seen in some African sites such as Isimila and Olorgesailie in Tanzania, Kariandusi (Kenya) or Amanzi Springs (South Africa). But large ESA tools and Levallois cores were generally retained in moderate density within artefact clusters, implying that they were re-used. ESA/MSA hunters would have had to respond to seasons, if they varied from dry to wet, in a similar way to the !Kung. They could not stray far from the permanent water source in the dry season but they would need to replenish their food resources as soon as rain allowed it – new plant growth in the wider territory would be exploited if water sources could be located near by. Springs and standing water are not the only sources of liquid refreshment for the !Kung. Various plants store water, notably the tsamma melon and the nara fruit which can provide enough water to survive in emergency conditions. Palaeolithic peoples would undoubtedly have been aware of such resources. Researchers who have lived amongst the Kade San report them commonly trekking 50km away from the home base because there was no closer permanent water source (Lee & DeVore op. cit. 112). However, others reported shorter treks. The size of the group territory would undoubtedly be governed by the ferocity and length of the dry season, which would determine the maximum population density sustainable in any area. In the ESA/MSA therefore, this factor would vary according to climatic changes over time: we cannot put an exact figure on it. Theorists have discussed two models of change in human society (Wadley 1987, 1). One emphasises the influence of external factors of environment, the second, while accepting a role for this, also points to the influence of

internal human conflict. However, environmental change is usually a root cause of human conflict, which thus becomes initially a consequence not a cause of change. In the ESA/MSA, it is difficult to believe that environmental change is not the main initiator of all human change. Thus the interplay between environmental situations and human activity is pivotal in understanding Palaeolithic society. One of the myths about !Kung society revealed by Lee & DeVore (op. cit, 112) concerns the term ‘hunter-gatherers’. They found only 19% of the Kade San’s diet was meat and 81% was plant food. They suggested ‘gatherer-hunters’ would be more appropriate. The proportions would vary, perhaps considerably, according to conditions, but the observation serves to place the role of meat in perspective. Although !Kung relish meat and pay homage to the hunter who shot the killer arrow, the location of meat is an unreliable dynamic, whereas the whereabouts of plant food is static and more predictable. For most of the time it is the latter that fills hungry stomachs. If we believe LCTs and large Levallois cores and flakes were used primarily in the processing of meat, that in turn would downgrade their significance in ESA and MSA society. But !Kung studies also reveal an important tool in food acquisition was the ‘digging stick’ (Lee & DeVore op. cit. 101). Although wooden tools were certainly used in the ESA (a few examples have survived, famously at Schöningen in Germany (Thieme 1997)), the ovate handaxe or the cleaver could also serve to perform heavier digging and cutting functions. The !Kung also make use of bone tools. For example a cut and polished gemsbok rib will cut certain plants adequately (Bleek et. al., 1937, 193). Archaeology has but few corroborations of the use of bone tools in this way in MSA time and none in the ESA; Dart’s proposal that shattered bones were used as weapons by Australopithecines (Dart 1925) was a one-off observation which in the fullness of time has not received international corroboration. A single wood throwing stick from Florisbad was mentioned by Clark (1955) but of last interglacial date. But because wood is more perishable it cannot be ruled out as a material for tools. If humans could make tools from the much more intractable quartzitic sandstone, surely they would not have missed the easier task of fashioning wood, though ironically in doing so they would have probably employed the sharp cutting edge of a stone artefact. Amongst the !Kung, it was widely observed that there was no craft speciality – all families in the group made their own tools, clothes and material goods. If the !Kung had not advanced to employing specialised craftsmen for certain skills, perhaps Palaeolithic humans likewise did not do so. 5.6.4.3 Reconstructing an ESA scenario The descriptions of semi-arid gathering-hunting customs learnt from the !Kung are now applied to help model a ZR Palaeolithic episode, to see what practical situations

180

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds might arise. This approach was first mooted by Isaac (1989, 215) who cited the work of Vita-Finzi and Higgs (1970). They laid out a method to elucidate prehistoric economies at Mount Carmel in Israel by ascertaining the resources within reach of the home base, which for practical purposes was taken as up to two hours’ walk from the base. They attempted to categorise different types of territory as seen through prehistoric eyes – the home base, transient sites, habitually visited territory and occasionally visited territory.

season for the rest of the year. The topography and geology as seen today is also assumed to have been broadly similar in ESA time.

The model selected here is set in the later ESA, focussing on a group inhabiting the site of ZR4 in the Gorge. The information gained from the !Kung is spliced into the evidence yielded by our the fieldwork. For example, based on the observations noted above on visibility of bedrock, together with the research into past climates in Western Namibia, (pages 12-14) the climate is assumed to have been similar to today’s, with a ‘wet’ (250mm rainfall but very variable) season from November to March and a dry

The territory of the ZR4 group may be broken into different (mainly seasonal) units: the main living space, a dry season area, secondary living spaces, a wet season Plateau range, and an extended range for special purposes (Fig 5.88). The total area of the territory is about 600 square km and the amount of space needed for each person is therefore 20 square km, although the intensity of use across the total space is quite varied.

We imagine a small group of some 30 individuals belonging to several separate but interlinked families – similar to the !Kung group size and structure. The essential requisites to enable this community to survive are water, plant food, possibly plants for other purposes, meat, and lithic resources for stone tools.

5.88 Hypothetical reconstruction of an ESA group based at ZR4

181

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia The main living space and the dry season area. The annual pattern of occupation for this group is determined by the variation between wet and dry seasons. A single living space is not sustainable for the whole eight months of the dry season (April to November). Rather, the group ensures that within its territory there are several permanent water sources between which they will circulate, staying at each for weeks or months, and radiating out from these bases in day-long forays to exploit all the food resources. We know Palaeolithic inhabitants did not continually wander to different places day by day because of the nature of artefact clusters and the scarcity of water resources in this region, as well as the testimony of the !Kung. We have placed the main living space site at ZR4, close to the seasonal stream bed of the main Zebra River, with an onsite lithic resource, and at the end of a tributary descending from one of the permanent springs in the locality, which is some 7km up a steep narrow valley behind the site. We could however have sited it at one of the other springs, or there could be no preferred living space, several being used according to their resources. None of the five permanent springs in the territory contains substantial artefact scatters, corroborating the !Kung custom that home bases are not set too close to permanent water. However, ZR 4 would seem to offer the most propitious conditions: the river here is not a congregation point for game but they pass through the valley and so there is a reliable potential source of meat often close to hand. Its location where the springhead valley joins the main Zebra River allows command of the valley route to the springs, but animals reaching the spring from other points are not disturbed. There may also be groundwater here on site for all of the wet season and well into the dry season as the river here has deeply gouged-out beds on the meanders. The surroundings are well endowed with lithic raw material, and the site is reasonably close to a wide variation in terrain types to maximise the variety of plants growing near to home. This living space is hypothesised as the location for social activity, domestic tasks, eating and sleeping, for several months of the year, mainly in the dry season. It is difficult to imagine life here without a rudimentary form of communication, whether it be termed ‘language’ or something less. Today, the baboons in the rocks above the site often make plenty of noise. That might be mildly akin to the chatter of ESA inhabitants. After some weeks of occupation, the immediate environs of the base will become over-exploited and daily sustenance will require regular forays into the Gorge and further afield. This will be done by detachments of small groups, leaving others in camp. There was once an abundance of quartzitic sandstone clasts within the area of the living space for artefact manufacture. This resource is still present but through long occupation it is somewhat diminished; the best clasts are now obtained

across the river on the other bank. Occupants collect there but they may make their tools in either location. In contrast to the !Kung, the ESA people, lacking the means to carry heavy loads, would not be able to bring large amounts of food back to the living space. They may have eaten more while foraging. That presents a problem for the sick and immobile and raises the question how far the group is prepared to go to sustain them in the living space. Nara and tsamma melons can be carried home, which will prevent immediate dehydration, but such a situation may not be easy to maintain; those who are immobile might be deemed ready to die and will not be fed. It is assumed the group has occupied ZR4 for long enough to assemble a detailed knowledge of the surrounding territory. In the dry season when water is restricted to a few places mainly in the Gorge, the group remains mostly within its confines (the ‘dry season area’). This area covers most of the Zebra River Gorge and its tributaries, an irregular shape extending 35km from east to west. It is a complex shape because, owing to the topography and geology, there are certain parts within the area that are seldom visited, such as raised areas of limestone rock where no lithic raw material or suitable plant food occurs. Apart from permanent sources of water, the dry season area has semi-permanent springs in several places which may last for weeks or sometimes months after the rainy season, and there are a few spots where groundwater lingers in the stream bed. These places enable mobility in the early part of the dry season. Dietary balance. The patterns of tool clusters at concentrated sites and strays in the wider landscape would align with a dual nutritional regime. The superabundance of flakes and flake tools on living space sites would represent the everyday processing of plant food as the staple diet, although these smaller artefacts may well have also been employed for non-nutritional purposes. The lesser number of larger tools would indicate the lesser part played by meat in the diet, as we have also seen in the !Kung lifestyle. The stray large items in the landscape would represent the tools taken on the hunt, perhaps left at butchery sites if a heavy quarry made it hard to carry them back. The large tools on the living space site indicate butchery-finishing there. Dismembering the larger carcasses at the kill site before dragging them away would serve three purposes – minimising rival carnivore attention in transit, breaking the carcass into manageable loads for transport, and avoiding excessive accumulation of meat at the living space that might attract the unwanted attention of carnivores. There is no archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic humans eating insects in their diet, yet it is well known that primates eat ants, and there is widespread evidence for prehistoric and indeed recent peoples in Africa including various nutrition-rich insects in their diet (Bodenheimer, 1951). (Some African tribes, such as the Pedi of South

182

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds Africa, are reported to prefer certain caterpillars to beef) (Quin, 1959). The likelihood of ESA people including insects amongst the food resources they habitually obtained from their environment is therefore strong. The secondary living spaces. Within the dry season area there are at least four other permanent springs which are likely to have served our group as supply sources for secondary living spaces. There is a game migration route in the Tsauchab valley, active at the end of the wet season, beginning in March. This is the time when the group might transfer the living space from ZR4 to the UR1 site on the Tsauchab River where one of these springs is located. It is a 30km trek through the valley of the Zebra River. The whole group would make this journey and stay about two months, depending on the quantity of game. This is the time for feeding up on protein before the long dry season. Suitable lithic raw material is scarce at this site; the group may take chosen large tools with them or they may seek cobbles in the river bed for tool making. After about May, food plant resources near to this living space become used up as the weather dries out and the heat grows. It is time to move again. The other permanent spring is located close to the site of NR5, in the Gorge margins. It is likely that the group would choose to visit this resource as part of their dry season routine, because it comprises a geological fault spring, unique in this part of Namibia, and has a particularly abundant supply of water. Although it attracts large amounts of game, the hinterland is not so well endowed with plant varieties and it is not in the main Zebra River valley. The group might spend a substantial time here because of the reliable water. Six kilometres from the main living space, at KH6, a special handaxe (item 1326) looking like a hybrid cleaver/ ficron was found. Another much larger version (item 100) was found at the ZR4 living space itself. Their close similarity suggests the same person made both tools. If so, it confirms the theory of multiple occupation sites for this group. The spatial separation of these two special artefacts suggests some kind of social activity involving symbolic tools took place at two different sites. As discussed above (page 158) despite their size, neither of these tools seems to have been made for heavy duty work, yet both are carefully finished. Herein may lie the beginnings of a more advanced cognition than is normally associated with the ESA. However, the KH6 site has no permanent water (so far as we can trace today) close by. The adjacent stream bed may provide groundwater during the wet season only. This might therefore be one of the wet season transient camps used by the group when ephemeral water is present more widely. It is also closer to the Plateau, enabling easy access within a day’s journey. The Plateau wet season range. During the wet season, if the rains are plentiful, the habits of the group alter accordingly. They may still keep their favourite living space at ZR4 in the Gorge, but they are now freer to move up on to the

Plateau area for longer periods, where different plant foods and game are found. They may break into several smaller (family) groups and only meet up after several weeks or months. For them the Plateau margins are an ill-defined zone, dependent on water resources and also the boundary of the territory claimed by another group living in to the north. There is abundant quartzitic raw material and tools may be replenished as needed at these transient camps, but because they are so briefly occupied, traces of them will hardly survive. The men might carry one or two LCTs with them. The field evidence suggests that the plateau margins were pretty well as far as ESA peoples got. Other groups. Because of the dissected and resourcevariable terrain and the proximity of near-waterless plateau lands to the north, there are no groups tangential to the ZR4 group. To the west, the Namib Sand Sea may have been populated by Acheulian peoples in the past (Shackley 1985) but their contact route was via the Tsondab valley which does not connect with the Tsauchab route. The nearest adjoining group to the north occupies the Narob valley some 40km away. There is therefore little regular contact, which gives rise to a problem - our group is in danger of becoming inbred. Special journeys. Contact with the Narob group can only be made when the rains have been especially good, ensuring food and water will be sufficient on the long trek. But some means of avoiding inbreeding has to be practised, so it is essential to make the journey occasionally, even though they have to trek far beyond their familiar territory. The science of inbreeding is of course completely unknown to these peoples but it is a part of their inherited knowledge that inter-group mixing is a desirable activity. Unmitigated inbreeding would eventually kill off the group, but the archaeological evidence at ZR shows repeated occupation rather than just a stray one-off visit ending in extermination. The visitors would expect the Narob people to receive them unaggressively. We cannot speculate how the deal is done, except to say it would not be in the interest of the host group to lose any young females with no recompense, so perhaps the visitors must bring women of their own for exchange. After all, the Narob group also needs to avoid inbreeding. Whereas normal foraging comprises a leisurely wander involving frequent stopping, searching and feeding, long treks might require a quicker pace with minimal exploration along the route. Even so, 40km will be a two day journey, or a week’s round trip including a stay with the Narob. In ESA time there is very little evidence from archaeology to show that humans regularly travelled more than 20 or 30 km. In this reconstruction we are arguing that a 40km journey was feasible in the right conditions, but clearly such a trip would leave no recognisable trace on the landscape. During the Tsauchab game migration, the group might extend its range along the river in following targeted game.

183

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

5.89 LSA scatter (light greenish clasts) at Gamis 3 on a bluff above the Narob River. Note the two large cores

Although they will not have had the poisoned arrows of the !Kung, their hunting strategy would probably be to seek out young or weak animals, as the large carnivores do. They may need to follow them for long distances and this would take them into otherwise unvisited territory along the Tsauchab. Environmental change. Sooner or later, changes in the environment will provoke the group to alter its routine, and to shift the living spaces to a different region, which may be tens or scores of kilometres away. The old living spaces will be left abandoned, the stone tools remaining on the ground, because it will not be possible to carry much over the long distance to the new home. The choice of the new home may be made by the elders of the group from knowledge gained in previous ranging, but if the environmental change has been negative and severe, the family may seek new, unexplored territory further afield. In this case serious uncertainties will arise owing to their unfamiliarity with the new environment. The group will only take these risks if compelled to do so, and they may make several tentative short-distance moves until they find a permanent place. The old area may remain unoccupied for only a short time, if another group moves in. In deteriorating conditions however, it may remain unoccupied for hundreds or even many thousands of years. Only when clement conditions return will the area be reoccupied. Multiply this sequence many times over, with variants, and the jigsaw begins to fill up. Conclusions. Reconstructing a hypothetical scenario of this kind is not intended to provide a totally accurate picture of the past. The exact location of the springs and courses of the rivers is immaterial in the reconstruction.

It is rather a model designed as a means to understand some of the practical issues that may have affected ESA life. It has prompted the drawing of a plausible territorial map large enough to support perhaps 30 individuals in line with the known !Kung population density range. Terrain, in terms of plant resources, topography and water access, is seen to vary greatly and can be broken down into several types. The living space or spaces and their environs must serve the population for much of the dry season. Several alternative living spaces may be used, and in the wet season the range extends on to the Plateau. The exercise picks up the influence of local eccentricities of the terrain that breathe life into what would otherwise be a totally theoretical model, for example in highlighting the problem with inter-group contact. Most of all, the exercise is a reminder of the dependence of early humans on the vital resources of their territory, the necessity for them to acquire an intimate knowledge of it, and the way they are forced to bend to its dictates. This reconstruction has woven in such threads of Palaeolithic evidence as have been obtained thus far from the ZR study and augmented them with !Kung lore. But the tapestry is still threadbare: we can never glean more than a small fraction of what we would like to know. Who, other than Palaeolithic archaeologists, would simply look at cutlery to try to reconstruct a society? Even though we believe that the cutlery (artefacts) played a central role in this society, the missing, perishable elements of the ZR Palaeolithic, even with the help of the !Kung, are forever lost. 5.6.5 The LSA at Zebra River Throughout this study, only occasional references have been made to the Later Stone Age (which includes the Holocene). Evidence of its presence comes in five different forms. It is scattered widely in the open air as solitary items distinguished from the ESA and MSA by their fresh, often greenish colour. Sometimes clusters lie in closelygrouped scatters from which a few refits have been noted (e.g. at KH3, page 123); such clusters probably represent single knapping events. It also occasionally occurs in the open in more intense scatters over wider areas such as seen at Gamis 3 (page 59) Fig 5.89 where the scale and extent of the material, together with large partly-exploited clasts, suggests activity within a living space. These sites have sometimes been chosen, as at GM3 and ZR15, on high overlooks, a factor which manifestly did not feature prominently in the strategy of ESA or MSA inhabitants. Stone blinds such as that seen on Mooi Rivier Farm (page 60) bear witness to the practise of ambushing game here. LSA Blinds are widespread in Southern Africa e.g. at Rooikamer in the Namib Sand Sea (Shackley 1985, 23). Occasional other stone assemblages have been met with that do not seem to be the work of 20th century white farmers; we have not made any in-depth study of these.

184

Section 5: Interpretation of the Finds Most importantly the LSA is present in the three cave sites examined, the first by Wendt (1976) and the other two by ourselves at ZR3 where we excavated, and at ZR13. In all of these places, the LSA has as yet yielded only one formal tool - a backed microlith of exotic raw material from Gail’s cave that would equate to those found elsewhere in South and East Africa: all items were flake-based. Some flakes are retouched and some are long enough to be described as blades, but all share the same crude, informal character. Wendt (1976) considered many of the artefacts in his cave to be of MSA date and his three C14 dates of 48,200, 43,100 and 37,200 BP are much earlier than the dates from Gail’s Cave (2835BP), although we suspect Wendt’s dates are unreliable, not through any fault of his, but because they are close to, or beyond, the limits of C14 dating in the 1970s. The description of the artefacts he found at his cave, including a strong presence of blades and facetted striking platforms on flakes, makes it possible that either late MSA or early LSA is represented. We have only very briefly examined the Wendt collection, which is housed in the National Museum, Windhoek. It is difficult on present evidence to assemble a firm case for an LSA /late Holocene presence at ZR earlier than the date obtained from Gail’s Cave, which would place it within the last 3000 years, (ie within the period of pastoralism in this region), but we have to keep an open mind on the antiquity of the LSA here. The artefacts themselves (Fig 4.44) suggest a society no longer employing stone in more than a peripheral role, which would of course place them in a time bracket that tallies with the C14 dates from the site, in a society more akin to that of the !Kung or similar societies that have survived into the present. depending instead on a multitude of non-stone implements of which we get a glimpse from the !Kung and similar societies that have survived into the present. We cannot be sure whether the open air sites are temporally parallel to the cave sites, although there is a superficial similarity in their artefact assemblages which would suggest they are not far removed in time.

185

SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Overview The Zebra River study confronts head on the challenge of gaining good information from surface scatters, and it may not be too much to claim that the results offer a new dimension to Palaeolithic archaeology. The prehistoric story of a substantial region, as recorded by its (nearcomplete) lithic element, is laid out upon a topographic surface some 110 x 80km in size that has probably altered only minimally since Palaeolithic time. This combination of artefacts lying where their makers left them within an extensive topographic setting, offers opportunities for a greater understanding of early human behaviour than is possible with the more restricted techniques of small scale excavation or desk-bound interpretation. Working amongst the valleys and plateaus that were a home to early humans, and moving through the very topographic landscape with which they were familiar, enables us to see through their eyes more easily, thus throwing into focus their daily existence as well as their likely strategies for family survival and life-enjoyment. The advantages of surface studies over excavated sites are balanced by substantial disadvantages, of which the chief are lack of contextual support and secure dating. On the one hand this reduces the amount of certainty about Palaeolithic behaviour, but on the other it provokes a reading of the past that can barely be contemplated from excavation. Many of the ideas and theories advanced in this report are no more than one person’s ‘best fit’ explanation from limited evidence. They may well be challenged, especially in the light of future fieldwork either at Zebra River or in other surface contexts, but their immediate purpose is to move the discussion forward. Zebra River is probably an atypical Palaeolithic environment in that the raw material resource is more or less continuous on the surface over an area large enough to support several discreet human groups. Of all the factors that governed Palaeolithic lifestyles – access to water, plant food, game and other necessities – the disposition of lithic raw material resources played the smallest role here, because of its ubiquity. Nobody had to walk far to find a suitable clast on which to make a tool. Bearing in mind the central role we believe that stone tools played in Palaeolithic society, this modified the strategies determining the way of life at Zebra River, allowing us to recognise the other factors that influenced the choice of living sites in the landscape. Apart from these things, the Zebra River study presents a unique array of typologies in comparison with other sites in south-western Africa. It is strong in Acheulian

and prepared core technologies, but devoid of later MSA and almost all the formal LSA repertoire. In other parts of Namibia, Palaeolithic finds show quite different assemblages, especially those at Apollo 11 cave (Wendt 1972, 1976). This might simply be an indication of the lack of uniformity in human occupation in the south-western corner of Africa during the Palaeolithic – populations inhabiting the Zebra River area may not have linked with their contemporaries in the lower Fish River area, and vice versa. We have seen that small communities of 20-50 people would become inbred unless there was inter-group contact, but how many small groups did there need to be to avoid this? Three different models of population linkage are shown in Fig 6.1. The ZR region, with the Kalahari separating it from other habitable parts during the more arid periods, is envisaged to resemble example (a), where non-tangential populated areas are individually large enough to sustain demographic virility through contact between a limited number of groups. In example (b), the population occupies a single area but the groups within it do not have total contiguity, while in example (c) they do. Other regions of Africa may have conformed to (b) or (c). The challenge to interpret surface Palaeoliths has involved developing methods to locate, record and date them. Traditional techniques of excavation are largely inappropriate in this new context. The new techniques employed are summarised in the next section. Hardness tests have verified the uniformity of the quartzitic sandstone universally used for lithic manufacture, but cosmogenic dating has not yet proved useful. To extract the maximum information from the Palaeolithic of Zebra River, the archaeologist must venture beyond the normal archaeological disciplines, into the fields of climatic and geomorphological history. It thus becomes a natural platform for interdisciplinary study, generating its own experiments, for example in the role of runoff in the transport of clasts. These experiments have shed new light on the vexed question of surface artefact movement, and observations in the field have overwhelmingly shown that on the typically flat surfaces of our study area most artefacts have not moved far. Likewise, a simple experiment to ascertain the accuracy of field sampling in the context of ZR artefact scatters has provided guidelines for the number of samples needed to yield accuracies within 5% or 10% of total populations. So often in Palaeolithic studies hints rather than firm conclusions are all that seem to emerge. Archaeologists have been criticised for barely doing more than making lists of things we don’t know, probably don’t know, or would like to know. Caution is imperative when there are so many possible permutations in the interpretation 186

Section 6: Conclusions

6.1 Three models of population group linkage of data, and caution makes for fuzzy conclusions. Our reading of the Palaeolithic at Zebra River employs bestfit manipulation of a limited assemblage of evidence. However, when predictions are seen to be verified, and interpretations begin to pull in a consistent direction, hints may turn from possibilities into probabilities and, dare we say it, certainties. It is hoped that Zebra River has moved this process along a little. Much has been said about the ‘Out of Africa’ concept, focussing on periods of human exodus over perhaps two million years. In contrast little work has been done on the expansion and movement of human groups within the African continent. Studies in this far southwest corner of Africa, in terrain that arguably varied from marginal to uninhabitable, may contribute to such work. Was it aridity or sheer distance from other human settlement that delayed movement into this area and hastened its exit? Did humans move out of Africa because it was ‘full’? Was it full in some parts yet not in others? As we amplify our studies

here, Zebra River has the potential to offer evidence on such questions. Finally, the new kinds of information emerging from ESA and MSA surface studies invite a re-assessment of the workings of the Palaeolithic mind. The hard evidence has been used here imaginatively to yield a more intimate vision of early man than might be possible without the benefit of the broad canvas of the Palaeolithic landscape. It is clear that occupancy was heavily dependent on a permissive environment. Because the evidence of climatic history in this region points to only marginal suitability for human occupation due to long-term aridity, the argument for lengthy human absence is persuasive. From the Edge Tests it appears such periods were, at certain times, extremely prolonged. From the limited evidence we have, a very tentative schematic timeline of occupation at Zebra River is shown in Fig 6.2. This table is but a hypothetical model; the dates and relative population densities should not be taken as definitive.

6.2 Timeline graph. Schematic diagram of proposed occupation phases at Zebra River. 187

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 6.2 What does Zebra River tell us that is new? A summary The Zebra River study argues that where surface material of Palaeolithic age is abundant but opportunities for excavation limited, information of a new kind can be retrieved, and this will substantially augment our understanding of prehistory. The rigorous acquisition of quantitative data is not compromised; the real challenge is how far its interpretation should be taken. Below, the new approaches and discoveries and the ways they can contribute to Palaeolithic archaeology are enumerated. 6.2.1 The surface concept Large expanses of ‘pristine’ terrain, both in terms of not having been altered by ploughing or clearing, and in terms of preserved fossil topography and in situ archaeology, are not confined to Zebra River, but can be found in many parts of the arid world. It is hoped therefore that our work will offer starting points for studies in other regions. 6.2.2 New techniques Harnessing satellite imagery. Thin vegetation cover allows satellite imagery to expose geology and, after digital enhancement and some ground experience, it greatly assists the location of artefact scatters. GPS mapping. GPS with accuracy of 1-2 metres enables the plotting of individual artefact locations and the production of scatter maps. The Edge Test. A new digital program has been devised to measure the loss of section mass from artefact edges to help in assessing relative age. 6.2.3 New Artefacts Elongated core handaxes (ECHs). An artefact type not previously recognised, that looks like a crude handaxe but has clear differences from the classic Acheulian. It is distributed amongst MSA sites but Edge Test data suggest, curiously, a date earlier than the MSA. The problem may be explained if the ECH was used for pounding vegetable material, so the edge rounding is as much a consequence of use wear as weathering, and the type finds its right place as a (possibly early) MSA tool. Ficron cleavers. Two Acheulian artefacts that appear to be waisted cleavers, found 6km apart, one very large but too delicate to use as a heavy duty tool. Questions arise about their purpose. The MSA ‘hybrids’. Eight artefacts from the purely MSA sites of ND4/5 that appear to be MSA imitations of Acheulian work, prompting discussion of how far mental processes for stone tool manufacture were embedded in early human minds.

Victoria West at ZR? AT KH6 and occasionally at other sites, sidestruck prepared cores resembling Victoria West occur. These, if truly VW, would be the furthest west that this tool type has been found. 6.2.4 New relative dates The ESA-MSA overlap. Edge Test results show ESA and MSA clearly overlapping in time, with some ESA sites apparently surviving later than any the latest MSA, but whether both were present here at precisely the same time is not proven. The Edge Tests also suggest that the bulk of ESA/MSA occupation occurred at ZR in a more or less continuous timespan rather than separate episodes punctuated by lengthy periods of absence. The ZR evidence suggests we should not dismiss the concept that Acheulian cultures outlived MSA cultures in certain places in Africa. Separate MSA periods. The site of ZR2 (page 64) provided evidence for a flake/blade industry earlier than the classic Levallois period. The contemporaneity of flakes and blades with classic Levallois is questionable from some of the Edge Test data at other sites as well. Also, certain MSA forms such as Levallois points and other convergent points are rare at ZR. These observations offer some clues about possible MSA chronology at ZR. From ZR2 we see an early flake/blade industry. Following this came classic Levallois toolmakers who either made very few pointed forms here, or they made none and there was a brief, separate, visit of peoples who made pointed MSA forms at a date which we cannot at present date relative to the rest of the MSA. The late MSA/LSA lacuna. Certain African industries attributed to the later MSA such as Sangoan, Lupemban and others, appear to be absent, as are formal LSA tools. We also have no trace of Howieson’s Poort. The predominance of Levallois cores and flakes and lack of classic later MSA tool types suggests that human withdrawal occurred in mid-MSA times. The absence of human occupation from this time until the very recent past is abundantly clear from the total lack of later MSA and early LSA tools. 6.2.5 Palaeolithic lifestyles Ubiquitous raw materials. Unusually ZR has a fairly even spread of lithic raw materials allowing occupants to choose their places of activity according to other priorities. The workable rock occurred in the form of natural clasts of convenient size, so there was no need to quarry material at the outcrops, though these too were readily accessible in many places. Meaning of scatters. The pattern of dense clusters and near-empty spaces in between in both ESA and MSA prompts the adoption of the term ‘living spaces’ as meaning places where people did many things. These patterns are mapped over a large area, allowing fresh insight into occupation strategies. A theory of self-perpetuating sites is proposed, governed by the presence of tools from previous

188

Section 6: Conclusions occupations which served as strategic caches. This helps to explain the nature of the ZR Palaeolithic ‘sites’ – clusters of artefacts in specific, regularly used places, representing occupation over long periods.

thinking on data collection and interpretation. Have we been looking at the right things in the field; have we been asking the right questions about them, and have we made the right interpretation of the analysis?

ESA and MSA contrasts. A picture emerges of ESA groups preferring to keep close to permanent water sources but using more of the Gorge and Plateau regions seasonally. The MSA occupants are more wide-ranging. Dense Levallois scatters in apparently waterless areas make a strong case for MSA peoples having water containers. These differences together with the contrasting tool types hint that the terminology ‘ESA’ and ‘MSA’ may well represent two anthropologically different groups at ZR.

A task identified in 2009, and begun in 2010, was a detailed analysis of the important site of KH6, where Acheulian and Levallois artefacts are abundant, but other forms such as discoidal cores and Victoria West-like sidestruck cores also occur. A much more thorough study of the non diagnostic flakes and cores also needs to be undertaken here. Further work is also needed on the anomalous site of KH4 where Edge Test results are puzzling.

Cave evidence. The excavation of Gail’s Cave showed no ESA or MSA presence, confirming the lack of interest in cave features until the late LSA. Local variants. Each site appears to have its own discernible signature despite the palimpsest situation, suggesting individual communities embraced pragmatic and skill-driven variation even though broadly governed by their inherited lithic traditions. 6.2.6 Contribution of ethnographic evidence Study of the customs of the !Kung who occupied these lands in late prehistoric time and more recently was undertaken to elicit practical situations which might also have existed in the Palaeolithic and guided activity then. We learn that plant food is likely to have been of greater significance than meat in daily diet. We learn too of the overriding importance of the seasons in this arid environment, forcing communities to change their mode of operation between wet and dry seasons. 6.2.7 Contribution to other disciplines A modest contribution to our knowledge of the landscape evolution of the Great Escarpment and the climatic history of the area has been a by-product of the intensive field studies. Non-fluvial clast movement has also been carefully studied and analysed. 6.3 What next? Our study has barely begun, in the sense that we have searched less than 10% of the Study Area. In total it probably contains more Palaeolithic surface sites than any other region so far explored worldwide, except perhaps the Seacow Valley in South Africa (Sampson 2006) or the Hunsgi and Baichal Valleys in Southern India (Paddayya et al 2006). The analytical methods adopted here are sometimes tentative and in some cases have certainly been performed on inadequate sample sizes. If the subject were to be taken further, both these aspects - method and sample size would surely be augmented, by further fieldwork and fresh

In the greater Study Area, more exploration is needed especially in the eastward flowing valleys of the Plateau – the Kamkas, Narob and the Khos (see fig 1.5) where more Acheulian presence is suspected. More Plateau sites need to be discovered and examined, to amplify the MSA-only scatters seen at ND4 and HG3 and 4. Another important question is whether Palaeolithic occupation ever entered the Naukluft Mountains to the west of the Study Area, where springs are common but the rock type is much more varied. Tufa deposits in the Zebra River Valley itself also offer an opportunity for direct dating and perhaps also the identification of plant remains. The Edge Test may have application in certain buried sites, if they are not fluvially disturbed and have experienced lengthy exposure to the weather after occupation and before subsequent burial. Zebra River presents an opportunity for more detailed examination of ESA and MSA large tool morphology. In particular we have not looked at the way Levallois cores and flakes differ within sites or from one site to another, although the gross visual differences have been noted. The presence of extremely fine, large Levallois cores alongside other less well made examples, e.g. at ND4, could be the subject of a separate study. One of the criticisms of Boëda’s Levallois Volumetric Concept (Boëda 1995) is that it does not explain the knapping sequences employed to yield the subtle shapes required for the successful removal of a controlled flake (Wilkins et al, 2010, 1280). There may be useful information about the influence of raw material quality, shape and size on how Levallois cores were fashioned, in an area where it appears that freestanding clasts were the sole source for stone tools. 6.4 It’s only a matter of Time The luxury of having a large, near-complete Palaeolithic landscape to view helps to focus on the concept of large timespans, which are difficult even for archaeologists to imagine. From the palimpsests of surface scatters, the great length and complexity of the Palaeolithic story becomes evident, and generalisation seems to become almost meaningless. Specific conclusions from closefocus work may not hold up in the wider timescale. Stand on one of our ZR occupation sites and try to imagine the

189

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia individual years that elapsed between the making of this artefact and that, and then try scaling this up to cover all the artefacts over 10,000 or 500,000 years, and the mind struggles with the magnitude of it all. Yet the very thinking of these thoughts brings us a step forward. The challenge to make complete sense of a nearcomplete environment will never fully be championed, but at least here is a new opportunity that prompts fresh approaches. There is also another matter of time. The desert regions of the world are so vast and thinly populated it is tempting to imagine they are safe from human disturbance. Yet the world’s exponential dash for minerals has left almost no part of the globe safe, least of all for archaeology. The very fact that human populations are thin in arid lands invites the wholesale slaughter of the surface, seemingly with minimal damage to mankind. The enormous areas of HGV tracks in the Sahara and elsewhere now visible even from satellite images show the numerous routes of exploration, many leading nowhere. Mineral extraction itself completely destroys any trace of the past. Where is archaeology’s voice amongst the commercial giants and who will listen to it? Most mineral exploitation in the desert is carried out by people who have no idea about archaeological heritage and are thus unaware of the potential damage. The archaeological community needs to stand up and be heard, and quickly. Already significant parts of Australia and the Sahara are lost. It will be only a matter of time before the priceless record of human heritage, which Nature has preserved for so long, is destroyed. If archaeologists can respond to the challenge, this need not happen.

190

Appendix 1 Recorded Artefacts: Inventory Artefacts within the Study Area were recorded in a variety of ways. While traversing, notes were made about the general situation in a field notebook, and GPS waypoints were often noted for stray artefacts not within an investigated site. Where detailed investigation was carried out, artefacts were numbered sequentially in order of discovery and recorded in an inventory. They were either studied and left on site or collected for further study. Those collected will be deposited in the Display Centre currently being constructed at Zebra River Lodge. Some artefacts collected for Edge Testing have been replaced in the field using the waypoint information to return them as close as possible to their original positions. Numbered artefacts returned to the field may not retain legible numbers for long; felt tip ink fades in bright sunlight. After this was discovered (by looking at artefacts that had been back in the field for a year), we tried to replace artefacts face down. The handful of artefacts collected in the 2002 expedition, not only from Zebra River but also from other locations, have been deposited in the National Museum, Windhoek, with the acquisition number B4306. The inventory is organised by site. Artefacts are referred to in the text by the inventory numbers. The lists do not necessarily represent true proportional totals of different artefacts within sites, because there was often a deliberate bias in recording towards diagnostic types. In some cases the bias was towards non-diagnostic items where that was the subject for Edge Testing. For example the inventory for ZR2 shows mainly flakes. No-one therefore should treat these lists as accurate statements of the nature and content of the industry at a site: they are simply lists of what we ourselves recorded, and much unrecorded material remains on the ground. The Inventory would be mainly useful for anyone continuing work at ZR. The Inventory reproduced here is a summary. Full details including waypoints, comments and photograph numbers are held by the author. The artefact descriptions are sometimes retained as written at the time of finding, especially where the items were left on site with no photographic record. Therefore they do not necessarily conform to our final categorisation of 29 types (page 21) which has evolved over a nine year period. The word ‘handaxe’ always means ‘pointed Acheulian handaxe’. The few ovate handaxes are described as such. The term ‘hybrid’ refers to the alleged hybrid ESA/MSA items from the sites of ND4 and ND5. ‘Blade’ and ‘Long Blade’ are used without strict morphological distinction although the latter usually means the length is well in excess of twice the width. The tables are arranged under sites on the Plateau, Gorge, Intermediate, and Other. Shading denotes artefacts excavated.

191

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

PLATEAU SITES ND4 No 4 5 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

Date 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

157 158 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432

Description Flake LSA Str. Lev. Core Core Hybrid biface Cleaver Elongated core hndx Elongated core hndx Elongated core hndx Waisted flake Struck Lev. Core Lev.Flake long blade Long Blade Long blade Bifacial chopper Discoidal core Long Blade Backed blade RT Struck Levallois core Unstruck Lev. Core Elongated core Flake w. dorsal scars Long blade core Long blade Struck Levallois core Unstr. Levallois core Elongated bifacial core Flake w.dorsal scars LSA core hybrid biface Long blade Struck Levallois core Unstr. Levallois core Elongated core Flake, dorsal long scars Blade core Long blade Struck Levallois core Unstr. Levallois core Elongated core on flake Cortical flake Unifacial blade core Long blade Struck Levallois core Unstr. Levallois core Hybrid biface Elongated biface Levallois flake, large Core Hybrid biface cortical flake LSA Flake LSA Flake LSA

192

2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Struck Levallois core Unstr. Levallois core Str Levallois core Str Levallois core Flake Str Levallois core Str Levallois core Str Levallois core Levallois flake Levallois flake Levallois flake Levallois flake Levallois flake Bifacial Core Bifacial Core Blade Core Flake Bipolar Blade Core Blade Levallois Flake Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Bifacial Core Bifacial Core Flake Cortical flake Cortical flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Cortical flake Cortical flake Flake Flake Asymm Flake Elongated flake Flake Pointed cortical flake Flake Pointed cortical flake Cortical flake Flake Flake Flake Struck levallois core Flake Asymm pointed flake Truncated flake Backed flake Levallois flake Debitage Flake Disc shaped flake

Appendices

533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

part cortical flake part cortical flake flake flake angular fragment long pointed blade cortical flake pointed flake flake flake flake cortical flake flake Lev flake Lev flake Lev flake Lev core unstr Lev core unstr Lev core unstr Elong Core Elong Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Levted Core Str Lev Core Excav. Flake excavted Excav. Flake excavted Excav. Flake excavted Excav. Flake excavted Cort flake excavated Broken flake excavted MSA core or ECH? Elongated Core hndx Str Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Levallois flake Elongated Core hndx Unstr Lev Core Levallois flake Str Lev Core Levallois flake Levallois flake Levallois flake flake Broken flake RTF Flake Str Lev Core

1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737

193

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Flake Debitage Debitage Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake debitage Flake Levallois flake RTF Flake Str Lev Core Flake cortical Flake debitage Flake Levallois flake RTF Flake Flake Flake Debitage Flake Flake Str Lev Core Flake Debitage Debitage Broken Lev Core Unstr Levallois Core Flake RTF Debitage Debitage Str Lev Core Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Hybrid biface Elongated Core hndxhju Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Hybrid biface Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Elong Core broken tip Flake cortical Levallois flake Levallois flake Str Lev Core Levallois flake? Flake debitage Flake debitage debitage Flake cortical Flake

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765

ND6 179 180

ND8

344 345 346 347 348 349 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 821 821a 822 822a 823 823a

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

2006 2006

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Flake Flake broken 2 pcs Flake debitage RTF RTF Debitage Hybrid on flake Flake deb Core Flake Flake deb Lev Flake Flake RTF Flake Flake Levallois flake Flake Debitage RTF micro Debitage Str Lev Core Debitage Flake Flake Debitage Levallois flake RT Elongated Core/Hndx

824a 825a 826a 827a 828a

OK1

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12a 12b 12c

OK2 13 14

HG3

1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377

RTF Disciodal core

Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Unstr. Levallois Core Lev Flake Elong core hndx Str. Levallois Core Cleaver Str. Levallois Core Elong core hndx Str. Levallois Core

HG4 1378

1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387

194

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core Str. Levallois Core

2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005

Unstr Levallois core Large RTF Prob Lev Unstr Levallois core Unstr Levallois core Bifacial core prob Lev Bifacial core prob Lev Str Levallois core Unstr levallois core MSA blade core flat tabular blade core

2005 2005

Unstr levallois core Str Levallois core

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

unstruck levallois core unstruck levallois core levallois flake levallois flake core struck levallois core blade core pyramidal core flaked flake flake unstruck levallois core unstruck levallois core levallois flake flake levallois flake flake unstruck levallois core crude pointed tool struck levallois core struck levallois core core convergent core convergent core bifacial chopping tool bifacial chopping tool bifacial chopping tool bifacial chopping tool levallois flake levallois flake levallois flake struck levallois core

Appendices

1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403

ND0 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 60 61 62 63 63a

ND2 14 15

ND3 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28

ND5 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

unstruck levallois core bifacial chopping tool struck levallois core levallois flake unstruck levallois core bifacial chopping tool levallois flake bifalcial chopping tool core Levallois flake pyramidal core on flake core bifacial chopping tool bifacial chopping tool core struck Levallois core

2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

Elong Core hndx Flat Lev. Core Vict West Large Lev. Flake? Flake Lev flake long blade/flake Large MSA flake LSA core Acheulian Pointed hndx Acheulian Pointed hndx Acheulian Pointed hndx Cleaver Str Lev. Core

84 85 86 87

2006 2006 2006 2006

Unstr Lev, core Levallois core Backed blade r/t Bipolar blade core

ND7 325

2007

Convergent Lev core

2002 2002 2002

Elongated Core Elongated Core Str Lev Core

2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002

Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Unifacial Elongated Core Unifacial core Elongated Core

2002

Elongated core hndx

2002

Levallois point

MR1 1405 1406 1407

MR3 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412

1413 1414 1415 1416

ON1 59

KK1 67

GORGE SITES 2005 2005

Str Levallois cor e RTF?

2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005

Elongated core hndx Bifacial core Levallois/ End scraper flake Unstr Levallois core Elong Core? Cleaver Cleaver Long triang. Blade Long triang. Blade

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

Hybrid biface Unstr. Levallois core Chopper Elongated core hndx? Chopper/core Blade Chopper/core Chopper like Lev. unstr. Core (failed)

ZR1 64 65 66 69 70 73

ZR2 44 45 46 47 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

195

2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002

Acheulian pntd handaxe Lev. Point LSA long blade Acheulian pntd handaxe Acheulian ptd handaxe Acheulian ptd handaxe

2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

Long Blade Flake w. later RT Scraper on flake Long blade core Long blade Long blade Long blade Long blade Blade Long blade Convergent flake Flake LSA Flake Flake

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 311 312 313 314 315 3`16 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 375 376 377 378 379 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 546 547

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008

Flake with notch Multiple platform core Discoidal core Discoidal core/scraper Discoidal core Flake, RT Large blade core Large core Blade core Blade core Pyramid core Flake Flake Str Levallois core Core Levallois flake Levallois flake Lev convergent Flake Flake Str Levallois core Bipolar blade core Lev Conv blade core Lev Conv blade core Lev Conv blade core Conv Levallois point Conv Levallois point Conv Levallois point Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Core Levall Convergent Core Levall Convergent Core Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade small flake small flake flake elongated flake blade levallois flake cortical flake small Lev? Flake blade convergent pointed blade part cortical blade convergent core on flake prepared core on a flake flake Long Blade 3. x 3.5 grid Long Blade

548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 865 866 867 868

196

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Flake Flake Flake RTF Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Convergent core Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake 5x2 grid Flake Flake Flake

Appendices

869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Str Levallois core Core Core Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake

928 929 930

2008 2008 2008

Flake Flake Flake

ZR3 Gail’s Cave

A complete list of the artefacts found in the excavated cave will appear in the forthcoming publication by Winton. Here are listed only the artefacts from the cave that were Edge Tested. CT = Cave threshold, C= Cave interior CT137 2007 Blade CT157 2007 Core CT169 2007 RTF CT174 2007 RTF CT186 2007 Core CT188 2007 RTF CT189 2007 Scraper CT193 2007 Core CT195 2007 RTF CT295 2007 Flake CT297 2007 Flake CT56-1 2007 Core on flake CT56-2 2007 Flake CT56-3 2007 Core CT56-4 2007 Flake C292 2007 Debitage C293 2007 Debitage C294 2007 Debitage C13 2007 Flake C66 2007 RTF

ZR4 71 100 101 102 103 104 105 129 130 131 132 308 354 355 356 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 433 434 435

197

2003 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Ficron Ficron-cleaver Levallois core Handaxe Handaxe Cleaver Handaxe Handaxe, unifacial Cleaver Handaxe Nose scraper Handaxe Flake Flake Rough biface Flake Flake Flake Flake Long blade Long blade Flake Long blade Long blade Flake

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 851 852 853 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Flake Blade, truncated Flake Blade, truncated Flake Flake Flake Blade Blade Blade Blade Debitage Flake Debitage flake asymm pointed flake small flake without bulb flake flake flake flake without bulb flake flake cortical flake proximal RTF flake backed pointed flake flake cortical flake Ovate Hndx Sm Pointed hndx Point/hndx roughout Hndx , point broken Lev flake small Point RTF Hndx flat butt Hndx tip broken Pointed hndx Elongated core hndx? Cleaver on flake large flake RT Rough biface Crude pointed hndx Cleaver, v. rounded Cortical flake Broken flake Elongated Core hndx El Core/ Unst Lev C? Handaxe El Core Hndx El Core/ Unst Lev C? El Core Hndx El Core Hndx El Core Hndx El Core Hndx Discoidal Core Hndx Unstruck Lev Core

198

1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1328a 1329 1330 1330a 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1336a 1337 1337a 1338 1339 1340 1340a 1341 1342 1343 1344 1344a 1344b 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1349a 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

El Core Hndx El Core Hndx El Core Hndx El Core Hndx El Core Hndx Struck Lev core/ Vict West Core Hndx El Core Hndx Unstruck Lev Core Crude biface Crude biface LSA flake Rough biface Chopper flake Core? Struck Lev core Levallois flake Ovate biface Levallois flake Unstruck Levallois core Struck levallois core Blade core Elongated core hndx Levallois flake Crude handaxe bifacial chopper Levallois flake? Core Struck Levallois core Struck Levallois core Handaxe Unstruck Levallois core Struck Levallois core Flake Struck convergent core ovate biface Handaxe Levallois flake Levallois flake Levallois flake Hndx on ?flake Levallois flake Rough biface Unstruck Levallois core Unstruck Levallois core Levallois flake Unstruck Levallois core double str ?Lev core prepared flaked flake Unstruck Levallois core Unifacial knife Crude biface/hndx Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx? Bifacial point Handaxe

Appendices

ZR5 159 160 161 162 183 184 184a 184b 184c 184d 184e 184f 184g 184h 184j 184k 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 225 251 252 273 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 294 295 296 301

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

302 307 310 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 380 381 382 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 1052 1053

Handaxe Unstr Levallois core Cleaver Handaxe Cleaver Long Blade Core Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake ECH RTF Handaxe Handaxe Levallois Flake Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Cleaver Handaxe Cleaver Ovate Handaxe Cleaver Handaxe Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Flake Str Levallois Core handaxe Ovate handaxe Blade Levallois flake Cleaver Handaxe Cleaver Cleaver Handaxe Cleaver Cleaver Ovate handaxe Cleaver Cleaver Cleaver Bifacial item/knife? Handaxe

1054 1055 1056 1327 1328

1772 1772a 1772b 1773

199

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010

Long blade Str Levallois core Flake Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Unstr Levallois core Cleaver Ovate Handaxe Debitage Debitage flake Flake Flake flake levallois? Flake levallois flake flake debitage flake Flake (cosmo dating) flake flake pointed flake flake flake flake flake flake flake flake flake debitage debitage Cleaver Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Ficron Handaxe Lev Core/Hndx R/out? Str Levallois Core Handaxe ECH Levallois flake

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1774 1774a 1774b 1775 1776 1777 1778 1778a 1779 1779a 1780 1781 1781a 1782 1783 1783a 1784 1784a 1784b 1784c 1785 1786 1787 1787a 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1794a 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Str Levallois Core Handaxe Handaxe Levallois core Levallois flake Levallois flake Levallois flake Unstr Levallois core Levallois flake VW? Handaxe Str Levallois Core Str Levallois Core ECH Levallois flake Levallois flake Handaxe Levallois flake Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Levallois flake Levallois flake Levallois flake Handaxe Levallois flake Str Levallois Core Levallois flake Str Levallois Core Unstr Levallois Core Levallois flake flake Handaxe Levallois flake VW flake Str Lev Core Levallois flake Cleaver Unstr Levallois Core Str Lev Core Unstr Levallois Core Handaxe crude Cleaver Unstr Levallois Core RTF/handaxe? Unstr Levallois Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Lev flake RT Handaxe Unstr Levallois Core Tanged point? Levallois flake Handaxe Levallois flake Str Lev Core Unstr Levallois Core Handaxe Levallois flake

1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828

KH3 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 253 254 255 256 257 258

200

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Levallois flake Unstr Levallois Core ? Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Handaxe Handaxe

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Cleaver Scraper on flake? RTF Levallois point Handaxe Blade Flake Flake Cleaver Blade Flake Flake Ficron ended cleaver Flake Blade Flake Handaxe Chopper core Core Unstr Lev core Flake Levallois flake Struck Lev core Struck Lev core Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Blade Blade Struck Lev core Struck Lev core Flake Flake Struck Lev core Rough biface

Appendices

259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 291 292 293 297 298 299 300 303 304 305 306 309 352 353 383 391 392 393 394 395 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Flake Levallois flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Flake Cleaver Struck Lev core Core on flake (RTF) Blade Struck Levallois core Unstr Lev core ECH Struck Lev core Blade Struck Lev core Cleaver Cleaver Handaxe Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Blade Convergent core ECH Blade Flake Flake Flake Flake Blade Flake Flake Flake Blade Flake Flake Blade Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake

462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477

ZR10 864

931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 944 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965

201

2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Debitage Flake Flake Flake Flake

Elongated core hndx Sm blade Med blade Med blade Med blade Med blade Med blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Point RTBlade RT Blade Med blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Lrg Blade Blade Blade

Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

ZR11

Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade

854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863

Flake Flake Flake Flake RTF RTF Scraper RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF scraper scraper Prep core ECH ECH Dscoidl core Dscoidl core Core Core Flake med Flake med Flake med Flake med Flake med Flake small Flake small Flake small RTF Flake small Flake small Flake small Flake small Flake small Flake small Flake small Flake small

202

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Denticul biface Biface Flake scraper Scraper on blade Scraper on flake Ditto Scraper Large scraper Core Flake scraper

Appendices

SITES INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN PLATEAU AND GORGE ZR6 357 358 359

KH4 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1071 1072 1073 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115

2007 2007 2007

Pyramid Core Flake Flake

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Scraper Handaxe Knife Elongated core tool Ovate prob Cleaver? Levallois core Pyramid core Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Str Lev core Str Lev core Elong Core Pointed Biface Hndx R/out? Pointed Hndx Str Lev core Pyramid blade core Enormous handx Lev Flake Pointed Hndx Pointed Hndx Str Lev core Str Lev core Str Lev core Unstr Lev Core Str Lev core Lev Flake Lev Flake Str Lev core Str Lev core Large Elong Core Str Lev core Unstr Lev core Unstr Lev core Handaxe-like Elong Core Lev Flake Str lev Core Elong Core hndx Elong Core hndx Unstr Lev core Handaxe Discoidal Core

1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584

203

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Hndx R/out Cleaver Handaxe Handaxe Ovate Handaxe Handaxe Ovate Handaxe RTF Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Cortical Flake RT Flake RTF Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Flake Cortical Flake RTF Flake Flake Flake Flake Long Blade RT Long Blade RT Long Blade RT Blade Blade Blade Blade RT? Blade Blade Levallois flake RT Grid1 VW core Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1636 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake

1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661

KH5 1020

KH6 1069 1070 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177

204

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake

2008

Handaxe

2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Conv flake Handaxe Flake, handaxe-like Long Blade Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Handaxe Handaxe Str Lev Core Lev flake RT Handaxe Str lev Core Cleaver with RT Str Lev core crude Conv Flake Rough biface Str Lev Core large Handaxe Lev Flake RT Handaxe Handaxe Fresh Hndx Handaxe Lanceolate Handaxe Hndx ficron-like LSA RT flake Cleaver Unstr Lev Core Hndx with meplat Handaxe

Appendices

1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Handaxe Handaxe Cleaver on flake Str Lev Core Str Lev Core v large Lev flake Handaxe on flake ovate handaxe Str Lev Core Lev flake Handaxe Ovate Hndx Ovate biface on sidestr Flk Str Lev Core Ovate Handaxe Rough biface VW core Str Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Handaxe Handaxe Unfinishd Lev Core? Str Lev Core small Unstr Lev Core large Str Lev Core Lev Flake Str Lev Core large Rough biface Prepared Core v rolled Handaxe Cleaver Handaxe Lev flake Str Lev Core Pointed Hndx Str Lev Core large Handaxe, rounded Unstr Lev Core Elong core hndx Hndx crude Sidestr Vic West core? Sidestr Vic West core? Lev Flake rounded VW core Str Lev Core Handaxe Handaxe Unstr Lev Core Rough biface Handaxe Lev Flake Lev Flake Unstr Lev Core Cleaver Vic West Sidestr Core Handaxe Unstr Lev Core

1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292

205

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Lev Flake Lev Flake Unstr Lev Core Vic West Sidestr Core Str Lev Core v large Handaxe Handaxe Rough biface Lev Flake Rough biface Handaxe Pointed Hndx Lev Flake Lev Flake fresh Rough biface Handaxe Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Vic West Sidestr Core Str Lev Core Elong Core hndx Blade Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Handaxe Blade Core/Bifacial tool Str Lev Core Lev Flake Handaxe Lev core 2 strikes? Handaxe Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Lev Flake Str Lev Core (Not used) Handaxe Biface (ptd hndx) Str Lev Core Handaxe Flake with later RT Hndx large, crude Unstr Lev Core Str Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Cleaver, Classic Str Lev Core Ovate Biface Handaxe Unstr Lev Core Lev Flake Handaxe Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Cleaver Handaxe

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Handaxe v fine Lev core str twice? Str Lev Core Lev Flake Handaxe Str Lev Core Lev Flake Lev Flake Unstr Lev Core Ovate Hndx Ovate Hndx Str Lev Core Lev Flake Str Lev Core Ovate Hndx crude Biface on Flake Handaxe Handaxe Str Lev Core large BIface, soft hammr Handaxe Cleaver, crude Handaxe on flake Ovate Biface, sm, sharp Handaxe mint sharp Handaxe Str Lev Core Cleaver Str Lev Core large Cleaver Handaxe Lev Flake Str Lev Core Ficron Large Hndx Hndx v flat, well made VW flake VW flake RTF Long Blade Debitage Flake medium Debitage Flake medium Bifacial core tool Long Blade RTF Large flake RTF Large flake Large flake Crude hndx Debitage Debitage Large flake RTF Bifacial core tool

1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501

206

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Large flake Large flake Core Bifacial core tool Core RTF Large flake Debitage Large flake Large flake Debitage RTF Large flake RTF RTF VW flake Core Not used Flake Flake Debitage Debitage Medium flake Large Flake Large Flake Debitage RTF Core Large Flake Debitage Debitage Debitage Large Flake VW core VW core Flake Flake Flake RTF Flake Large flake Large flake Large flake Large flake RTF Large flake Large flake Large flake RTF Large flake Large flake RTF Large flake Medium flake RTF Medium flake RTF RTF

Appendices

1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522a 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1829 1830

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

KH7

flake Large flake Medium flake RTF Large flake Large flake RTF RTF Medium flake Large flake Large flake RTF Large flake RTF Medium flake RTF Debitage Large flake RTF RTF Flake Tripolar blade core Discoidal core Discoidal core MSA blade RT blade Levallois point classic Discoidal core Discoidal core Discoidal core Core, Levallis? Discoidal core Discoidal core VW flake? Discoidal core VW flake VW flake VW flake RT VW flake RT VW flake RT VW flake VW flake RTF bifacial VW flake VW flake VW flake VW flake Large flake Large flake VW flake VW flake VW flake VW core VW flake Hammerstone Flake Debitage

1404 1417 1418 1419 1420 1522 1523 1524

2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

NR11448-5 1075 1076 1077 1078

2001 2009 2009 2009

KH11454-2 16 17 18 68

2001 2001 2001 2002

Subcordate Hndx Elongated Core hndx Elongated Core hndx Discoidal core Discoidal core Natural with RT? Large RTF Levallois flake

Conv flake Ovate Hndx Rough Biface Pyramid core Levallois? Lrge V.rolled RTF Cleaver Broken long blade core Pyramid core

OTHER SITES UR1 163 164 165 165a

UR2 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635

207

2006 2006 2006 2006

Handaxe v large Handaxe Limestone flake Worked point

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Blade Grid 3 RT blade grid 3 Core Grid 3 Core Grid 3 Core Grid 3 Core Grid 3 Core Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RT Blade Grid 3 RT Blade Grid 3 RT Blade Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 RT Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 Flake Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3

693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758

208

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 RTF Grid 3 Core Grid 3 Core Grid 3 Blade Grid 3 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1

Appendices

759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Blade Grid 1 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 Flake Grid 2 Flake Grid 2 Flake Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 Flake Grid 2 Flake Grid 2 Flake Grid 2 Blade Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 Blade Grid 2 Blade Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 RTF Grid 2 Struck Lev core Grid 2 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1

1065 1066 1067 1068

209

2008 2008 2008 2008

RTF Grid 1 RTF Grid 1 Flake Grid 1 Flake Grid 1

Appendix 2: GRIDS This table summarises the findings from all the grid squares in which complete counts of artefacts were taken. The sampling was 2: done over nine years during which the categorisation of artefacts was refined; the data for 2002 in particular Appendix GRIDS did not include all the categories finally adopted between sites. The last column indicates the variation in artefact density This table the on findings all theon gridthe squares in which of artefacts taken. sampling between sites.summarises Grids taken shalefrom bedrock plateau such complete as KK1 counts and KK3 clearlywere show the The presence of stray was done nine yearssites during which the categorisation of artefacts was refined; the data for 2002 in particular did not artefacts only.over In contrast, include all the categories finally adopted between sites. The last column indicates the variation in artefact density between sites. Grids taken on shale bedrock on the plateau such as KK1 and KK3 clearly show the presence of stray artefacts only. In contrast, sites

Site

date

sq m.

flakes

Cores all

ZR1 ZR2 ZR5 ZR10 ZR6 KH61 NT3 MR1 MR3 KK1 KK2 KK3 KH1 ND4 ND4ex2 UR23

02 08 07 08 07 10 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 05 10 08

1579 20.5 24 125 25 75 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 175 2 54

1863 87

38 0 6 0 0 74 13 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 27 0 0 Unspecified from one 5 x 5 grid, the other grid had none 3 0 0 0 0 9 45 3 0 Unspecified count of total artefacts, mostly flakes and small cores 23 1 20 1 1 89 23 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 102 0 15 24 5 -10 0 52 1 0 12 9 3 8 0 0 20 5 0 0 1 0 92 80000 0 0

KH4

10

125

21 308 6 6 7 3 19 2 55 243 30 66

hndx

Lev flake

Str Lev core

Unstr Lev core

RTF

blade

Only 50 flakes from each grid for Edge Tests

scrpr

deb

ECH

other

total

Per sq m

0 0 2

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1995 120 37 83 57 566 6 17 18 4 27 4 68 455 83 172 (410) 100

1.26 5.85 1.54 0.66 2.28 7.54 0.24 0.68 0.72 0.16 1.08 0.16 2.72 2.6 41.5 7.59

-- indicates not sampled 1 At KH6 in the three grids only the artefacts Edge Tested were numbered, therefore the artefact list shows fewer than the totals in the grid list The latter is complete. 2 The 2010 grid sample is the only one that comprised subsurface material from below a very dense surface zone. 3 At UR2 410 artefacts were noted in the three grids but only the 172 that were recorded for Edge testing are shown here.

210

--

Appendix 3: Edge test results ND4

No

Description

Filtered Mean

143 144

Elongated Core on a Flake Cortical Flake

3.06 0.97

33 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 137 138 139 140 141 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 533 534 535 536 537 851 852 853 1668 1714

Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx waisted Flake Struck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Long Blade Long Blade Bifacial chopper Discoidal Core Long Blade backed Blade RT Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Flake with dorsal scars Long Blade Core Long Blade Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Elongatede Bifacial Core Flake with dorsal scars LSA Core Elongated Core Flake with dorsal scars Blade Core Long Blade Struck Levallois Core Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Flake Flake Asymm Flake Elongated Flake Flake Pointed Cortical Flake Flake Pointed Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Flake Flake Flake Struck Levallois Core Flake Asymm pointed Flake Truncated Flake Backed Flake Levallois Flake Debitage Flake Disc shaped Flake part Cortical Flake part Cortical Flake Flake Flake angular fragment Excavated Cortical Flake Excavated Broken Flake Elongated Core Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx

1.28 1.30 1.48 1.08 1.33 0.54 0.51 2.16 0.78 0.31 0.95 1.75 3.36 0.59 0.49 0.98 0.97 1.57 1.82 1.29 0.53 1.15 0.45 1.23 2.06 1.51 0.43 1.12 0.65 0.51 0.16 0.66 0.29 0.22 1.30 0.54 0.38 0.28 0.16 0.52 2.07 0.18 0.75 0.73 0.46 0.79 2.06 0.88 0.18 0.11 0.58 0.57 0.55 0.30 0.29 0.35 0.91 0.59 0.72 0.18 0.31 0.57 0.98 5.79 2.40

146 148 149 150 151 152 154 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 351 403 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 814 815 816 818 819

Long Blade Unstruck Levallois Core Hybrid Elongated Biface Levallois Flake Core LSA Cortical Flake Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Flake Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Elongated Core Elongated Core Blade Core single platform Cortical Flake Bipolar Blade Core Blade Levallois Flake Elongated Core Flake Long pointed Blade Cortical Flake pointed Flake Flake Flake Flake Cortical Flake Flake Lev Flake Lev Flake Lev Flake Unstr Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Elongated Core Elongated Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Struck lev Core Excavated Flake Excavated Flake Excavated Flake Excavated Flake Unstruck Lev Core Lev Flake Lev Flake Lev Flake Lev Flake

1.14 1.74 1.49 1.03 2.44 0.60 0.17 0.51 1.03 0.31 1.03 0.84 1.23 0.68 0.35 0.81 0.78 0.75 2.46 3.11 0.90 0.42 0.54 0.36 0.60 1.38 0.43 0.40 0.29 0.38 0.45 0.67 0.45 0.42 0.79 1.07 1.32 7.17 1.34 1.14 2.04 2.09 0.99 1.54 1.80 0.73 1.58 1.03 1.57 1.98 1.87 1.28 1.59 2.40 3.20 1.97 1.78 2.61 2.48 1.78 3.57 2.14 0.98 0.63 0.88 1.89

211

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1732 1744

Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Hybrid Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Hybrid Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core, brkn tip Flake Hybrid on a Flake

5.50 1.28 1.01 1.97 4.74 2.12 1.67 2.65 4.83 5.19 3.89 2.46 7.41 4.50 1.87

Struck Lev Core Struck Lev Core Struck Lev Core Unstruck Lev Core Unstruck Lev Core Unstruck Lev Core Unstruck Lev Core

Lev Flake Struck Lev Struck Lev Struck Lev Struck Lev Struck Lev Struck Lev

Core Core Core Core Core Core

3.39 0.32 3.56 1.17 0.44 1.16 2.54

HG3

0.54 0.98 0.92 0.91 0.17 1.48 1.03

1357 1358 1359 1360 1362 1364 1367 1368 1369 1371 1373 1375 1376

Unstruck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Struck Levallois Core Prepared Flake Unstruck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Unstruck Levallois Core? Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core

0.52 0.58 1.62 1.43 1.29 0.73 0.32 0.63 1.10 0.62 0.84 0.31 0.42

Long Long Long Long Long

Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade

0.71 0.72 1.61 0.89 3.00

ND8 345 347 348 349 809 812 813

820 821A 822A 823A 824A 825A 827A

1378 1379

Convergent Core Convergent Core

0.68 1.78

553 554 555 556 557

1380 1381

Bifacial Chopping Tool Bifacial Chopping Tool

0.56 0.46

560 561

Flake Retouched Flake

1.78 2.20

1382 1383 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1397 1400 1401 1403

Bifacial Chopping Tool Bifacial Chopping Tool Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Bifacial Chopping Tool Struck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Unstruck Levallois Core Bifacial Chopping Tool Levallois Flake Bifacial Chopping Tool Levallois Flake Bifacial Chopping Tool Bifacial Chopping Tool Struck Levallois Core

0.63 0.39 1.02 0.53 0.35 0.34 0.65 0.86 0.35 0.65 0.64 0.61 1.02 0.99 0.66 0.51 0.66

546 547 549 550 551

Long Long Long Long Long

0.67 2.28 1.25 3.28 2.65

561-RT 562 564 565 566 567 568 570 571 572 573 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 584 585 586 587 588 589 590

Retouched Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Convergent Core Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake M Flake

0.55 0.49 1.17 1.47 0.90 1.37 0.98 1.64 2.46 1.54 1.12 1.98 0.86 0.76 0.86 2.61 1.61 0.70 2.38 1.58 1.57 1.91 1.43 2.00 0.73 0.94

591 592 865 866 867 868 869 870 872

M Flake M Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake

2.76 1.26 2.75 1.35 0.35 0.49 1.13 1.50 2.78

904 905 906 907 908 910 911 912 913

L L L L L L L L L

3.78 3.13 3.41 3.08 3.34 2.40 1.97 2.06 0.91

HG4

ZR2 Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade

212

Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade

Appendices 873 874 875 876 877 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 890 892 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 104 105 129 130 131 308 354 355 356 396 397 398 400 401 402 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 517 518 519 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1047 1329

Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake Flake L Flake L Flake L Flake L Flake L Flake L Flake Cleaver Handaxe with broken tip Unifacial Handaxe Cleaver Handaxe Handaxe Flake Cortical Flake Rough Biface Cortical Flake with distal retouch Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Long Blade Long Blade with dist. RT Point-Retouched Flake Flake Flake Flake with cortex Broken Cortical Flake Truncated Blade Cortical Flake Truncated Blade Cortical Flake Small Elongated Flake Small Elongated Flake Blade Blade Blade Cortical Blade Debitage Flake Debitage Flake asymm pointed Flake Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Bifacial Core Tool Bifacial Core Tool Side Struck Vict West C Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Unstruck Lev Core Bifacial Core Tool LSA Flake napping site Struck Prepared Core

1.31 2.16 1.57 0.50 1.63 0.56 0.94 1.29 0.72 2.92 0.78 1.85 1.90 2.94 2.09 5.72 0.79 0.33 0.61 1.61 1.64 1.55 1.45 1.79 1.13 0.44 0.13 0.76 2.03 0.73 0.67 0.72 0.42 0.52 0.20 0.92 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.33 0.24 0.11 0.17 0.04 0.47 0.30 0.29 0.18 0.27 0.34 0.39 0.71 0.37 0.72 0.59 0.16 0.06 0.14 0.85 1.19 1.11 1.55 0.82 0.63 0.48 1.49 1.12 0.48 0.40 0.41

914 915 916 917 918 819 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930

L Blade M Blade M Blade Struck Lev Core Core S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake M Flake

1.33 0.75 1.29 0.86 1.35 0.60 1.19 0.94 0.94 0.59 0.65 1.45 0.38 1.27 0.96 1.05

Ficron Ficron Cleaver Ovate Biface Handaxe Handaxe small Flake without bulb Flake Flake Flake Flake without bulb Flake Flake Cortical Flake Proximal Retouched Flake Flake backed pointed Flake Cortical Flake S-pointed Handaxe Crude pointed Flake Pointed Handaxe, tip broken Levallois Flake Point Retouched Flake RT Flake Handaxe, flat butt Pointed Handaxe,tip missing Pointed Handaxe, tip broken Elongated Core Hndx Cleaver on a Flake Large Flake RT Crude Biface roughout Handaxe Elongated Core Hndx Unstruck Lev Core Elongated Core Hndx Elongated Core Hndx Discoidal Core Crude pointed HX Bifacial Core Tool double Struck Levallois Core Prepared Flaked Flake Struck Levallois Core

0.21 0.26 0.19 1.10 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.29 0.20 0.12 0.25 0.23 0.58 0.41 1.30 0.68 0.57 0.45 0.64 0.47 0.55 0.48 0.44 1.18 0.36 0.25 0.87 0.47 0.79 0.41 5.01 1.20 0.90 0.54 1.02 0.65 0.60 0.31 0.40 0.42

pointed Handaxe Handaxe Unstruck Levallois Core Cleaver Handaxe

0.17 4.87 1.47 1.27 1.20

ZR4 71 100 101 102 103 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 532 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 1026 1027 1028 1030 1031 1033 1034 1035 1354 1355 1356

ZR5 72 159 160 161 162

213

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1339 1340 1341 1342 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1350 1351 1352 205 206 207 225 251 252 283 284 286 287 288 290 294 295 296 301 302 307 310 353 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 1055 1056 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1778a 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783

Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Unstruck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Blade Core Elongated Core Hndx Levallois Flake Bifacial chopper Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Struck Convergent Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Levallois Flake small Handaxe on Flake Unstruck Prepared Core Unstruck Levallois Core Prepared Flake large Cortical Flake large Flake Struck Levallois Core small Ovate Handaxe Large Long Blade Huge Levallois Flake Handaxe Cleaver Handaxe Cleaver Small Cleaver Small Ovate on a Flake Flake Cleaver Backed Bifacial knife Handaxe Long Blade Struck Levallois Core Cortical Flake Elongated Core Hndx Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Flake Flake Cortical Flake Flake Flake Flake Handaxe Ficron Unstruck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Struck VW Core Unstruck Levallois Core VW Flake Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake

0.54 0.37 0.55 0.51 0.29 0.64 0.86 0.27 0.48 0.59 0.48 0.60 0.45 0.92 0.27 0.58 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.43 0.57 0.87 0.24 0.49 0.17 0.66 0.40 0.92 0.61 0.56 0.75 0.46 0.53 0.63 0.55 1.68 0.60 0.62 0.40 1.83 0.20 0.31 0.20 0.29 0.43 0.35 1.14 0.28 0.36 0.52 0.34 0.35 0.56 1.39 0.40 0.94 0.74 1.47 1.65 1.14 0.35 0.97 0.80 0.71 1.26 0.77 0.49 1.14

183 185 186 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 373 374 380 381 382 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 1052 1053 1054 1808 1809 1810 1812 1814 1816 1817 1818 1820 1821 1824 1825 1826

214

Cleaver Elongated Core Hndx/ Ovate? large retouched Flake Handaxe large Levallois Flake fat sharp Crude Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe Handaxe with broken tip Handaxe Handaxe with broken tip Cleaver on Flake Handaxe Cleaver Ovate Biface Cleaver Handaxe Levallois Flake Point-Retouched Flake Flake Unstruck Levallois Core Cleaver Ovate Handaxe Cortical fragment Angular fragment Truncated Flake Flake Flake Flake Levallois Flake Levallois Flake pointed Flake angular fragment Backed Flake Flake Cortical Flake Flake pointed Flake Flake Flake Flake with some cortex Flake Cortical Flake distal truncated Flake prepared Flake Flake angular debris small Debitage Cleaver Pointed Handaxe Handaxe with broken tip Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core RT Levallois Flake Unstruck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core

1.49 0.88 1.01 0.29 0.58 0.73 0.77 0.31 0.68 0.48 1.22 0.37 0.39 0.88 1.03 0.82 1.01 0.67 1.11 0.60 0.46 3.16 0.35 0.38 0.72 0.43 0.21 0.32 0.50 0.67 0.49 0.32 0.42 0.37 0.64 0.39 0.47 0.54 0.30 0.62 0.29 0.84 0.35 0.12 0.56 0.63 0.21 1.02 0.30 0.15 0.33 1.18 0.90 0.61 0.66 0.86 1.44 1.05 0.51 1.13 0.89 1.13 1.63 0.37 0.26 0.59

Appendices 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1796 1797 1800 1801 1802 1807 947 948 949 950 951 953 955 957 958 959 960 961 963 964 966 967 977 978 979 980 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 Ad 992 1001 1002 224 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245

Levallois Flake Unstruck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Levallois Flake Unstr Levallois/VW Core, small Levallois Flake Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Levallois Flake Levallois Core VW-Flake Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core Unstruck Levallois Core, broken L Blade L Blade L Blade L Blade L Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Blade Flake Flake Flake Retouched Flake Scraper on a Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Scraper Scraper on a Flake Scraper on a Flake M Flake M Flake Flake Crude Biface Chopper Core Fresh Core Unstruck Levallois Core Huge Cortical Flake Probable Levallois Flake Badly Struck Levallois Core Struck Levallois Core Large Blade Long Blade Long Blade Blade Retouched Blade Long rolled Blade Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Flake Flake

0.43 0.98 0.80 0.75 0.63 0.69 0.60 0.72 0.71 0.60 0.62 0.74 0.61 1.53 0.46 1.00 0.59 0.79 2.46 1.65 1.08 0.82 0.92 1.46 0.73 0.77 0.79 0.85 0.64 0.52 1.07 1.39 1.32 0.64 1.28 1.24 0.21 0.71 0.68 0.29 0.73 0.6 0.77 0.62 0.93 0.46 0.78 0.91 1.13 1.16 1,75 0.13 0.73 0.16 0.18 0.27 1.59 1.47 0.42 0.83 0.78 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.42 0.05 0.32 0.24 0.14 0.20 0.43

ZR10 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017

M Blade M Blade M Blade M Blade M Blade L Blade L Blade L Blade L Blade L Blade Pointed Retouched Blade Distal Retouched Blade M Blade L Blade L Blade M Flake M Flake M Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake SRetouched Flake S Flake S Flake SRetouched Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake

0.36 0.3 0.4 0.75 0.27 0.65 1.15 1.21 0.96 0.72 1.14 0.41 0.74 0.82 0.71 0.24 0.48 1.36 0.73 0.84 0.55 0.65 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.49 1.5 0.72 1.05 0.45

Cleaver End scraper Retouched Flake Levallois point Small Crude pointed Biface Long Blade Flake, ventral side left Flake, ventral side right Cleaver Retouched Blade Retouched Flake Cortical Flake Ficron Cleaver Trimming Flake Retouched Blade Elongated Flake Cortical Flake Large Long Blade Long Blade Long Blade Blade Blade Blade Long Blade Flake Cleaver Struck Levallois Core Elongated Core on a Flake Large Long Blade Inverse Struck Levallois Core Inverse Struck Levallois Core Crude Biface Struck Levallois Core Blade Struck Levallois Core Sharp Flake

0.33 0.27 0.10 0.15 0.89 0.59 0.32 0.76 0.81 0.79 0.15 0.22 0.86 0.09 0.31 0.60 0.48 0.57 0.20 0.58 0.45 0.16 0.10 0.23 0.52 0.23 0.11 0.31 2.40 0.45 0.70 0.88 0.73 0.12 0.53 0.12

KH3 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 297

215

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 246 247 248 249 250 253 255 256 257 258 259 260 393 394 395 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122

Flake Cortical Flake Cortical Flake Long Blade Huge Blade Struck Levallois Core Flake Large Flake Struck Levallois Core Fat Crude Biface Flake Levallois Flake Cortical Flake Blade Long Blade Flake Flake with some cortex Backed Flake Blade with some cortex Flake Flake Blade Flake with some cortex Flake Partly backed Flake Distal truncated Flake Flake Pointed Flake Flake Flake with asymm point Flake with some cortex Cortical Flake Small Flake Flake with some cortex Lateral backed Flake Flake with some cortex Asymm pointed Flake Flake with some cortex Small Flake Disc shaped Cortical Flake Asymm shaped fragment Flake Pointed Cortical Flake Flake with some cortex Asymm backed Flake Hndx R/out Cleaver Pointed Hndx Crude Pointed Hndx Ovate Hndx Pointed Hndx Ovate Hndx

0.25 0.32 0.17 0.21 0.70 0.57 0.90 0.48 0.19 0.62 0.40 0.66 0.55 0.42 0.77 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.66 0.37 0.51 0.37 0.57 0.46 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.17 0.10 0.22 0.07 0.41 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.69 0.64 0.71 1.09 1.03 1.24 1.11 0.71

Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Pointed Hndx Pointed Hndx Str Lev Core Lev Flake RT Pointed Hndx Str lev Core Cleaver with RT Str Lev Core Crude Rough Biface Str Lev Core large

0.56 1.86 1.22 0.45 0.42 0.65 0.47 0.82 0.64 0.58 0.49 0.81 1.31 0.97

KH6 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1163 1164

298 299 300 303 304 305 306 309 352 383 391 392

Sharp Debitage Sharp Flake Sharp angular Debitage Sharp Flake Flake Part-Cortical Flake Angular Debitage Large broken Blade Convergent Blade Core Large Long Blade Flake Flake

0.13 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.26 0.99 0.39 0.21 0.22

Small Handaxe Knife Ovate hndx Strck Lev Core Hndx Pointed Hndx Pointed Hndx Str Lev Core Str Lev Core ELong Core Pointed Biface Hndx R/out? Str Lev Core Lev Flake Pointed Hndx Pointed Hndx Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Str Lev Core Lev Flake Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Unstr Lev Core ELong Core Str lev Core ELong Core Hndx ELong Core Hndx Unstr Lev Core Pointed Hndx Cleaver Unstr Lev Core Hndx with meplat Pointed Hndx sharp Hndx dumpy Pointed Hndx Cleaver on Flake Str Lev Core Lev Flake Hndx on Flake Rough Ovate hndx Str Lev Core Lev Flake Pointed Hndx tip broken Ovate Hndx Ovate Biface on sidestr Flk Str Lev Core Ovate Hndx Biface Struck Pointed lev Core Str Lev Core Unstr Lev Core Hndx Pointed Hndx Unfinishd Lev Core?

0.58 0.71 0.97 0.57 0.45 1.85 2.22 2.63 1.25 1.91 0.67 1.70 3.27 1.43 1.11 0.69 0.75 1.70 3.60 2.44 0.72 2.36 1.98 1.91 2.24 1.88 2.21 1.51 1.69 0.50 1.64 0.83 1.59 0.33 0.51 2.09 0.66 0.87 0.84 1.93 1.11 0.73 0.50 0.92 0.59 0.86 0.33 2.08 0.91 0.21 0.46 1.02 0.51 1.72 0.88

KH4 1020 1021 1023 1024 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1088 1091 1092 1093 1095 1096 1097 1098 1100 1101 1104 1106 1108 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199

216

Appendices 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1219 1220 1221 1223 1224 1226

Pointed Hndx Lev Flake RT Hndx v Crude Hndx Fresh Hndx Pointed Hndx sharp Lanceolate Hndx Pointed Hndx ficron-like Lev Flake Str Lev Core Pointed Hndx Str Lev Core large Handaxe, rounded Unstr Lev Core Elong Core Hndx Hndx Crude Sidestr Vic West Core? Lev Flake rounded VW Core Pointed Hndx Pointed Hndx Rough Biface

1.07 0.59 0.98 0.78 0.55 0.96 0.74 0.45 0.61 0.88 1.75 1.08 1.35 1.32 1.31 1.19 1.33 0.60 0.48 1.02 1.97 1.64

1200 1201 1202 1203 1205 1206 1207 1209 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1257 1258 1259 1263 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269

Str Lev Core small Unstr Lev Core large Str Lev Core Lev Flake Bifacially Worked Tool Prepared Core v rolled Poinjted Hndx Crude Pointed Hndx Crude Str Lev Core Str Lev Core VW Sidestruck Core Str Lev Core ELong Core Hndx Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Handaxe Pointed Hndx Handaxe Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Str Lev Core

0.63 0.60 0.82 0.59 0.45 1.15 0.70 1.33 0.44 1.03 0.49 1.09 1.77 1.75 1.24 2.10 1.70 0.76 0.59 0.77 3.31 1.02

1227

Pointed Hndx

0.70

1270

Lev Flake

0.33

1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1242 1244 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 678

Lev Flake Unstr Lev Core Cleaver Vic West Sidestr Core Pointed Hndx Lev Flake Lev Flake Unstr Lev Core Vic West Sidestr Core Str Lev Core v large Pointed Hndx Rough Biface Rough biface Pointed Hndx Lev Flake Lev Flake fresh Rough Biface Pointed Hndx Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Blade Core Core Core Core Core Retouched Flake Retouched Blade Retouched Blade Retouched Blade Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake

0.45 0.66 3.13 0.76 0.50 0.62 1.23 0.92 0.40 0.30 0.73 0.95 1.17 0.84 0.65 0.50 1.40 1.14 0.51 0.43 0.19 0.58 0.45 0.44 0.32 0.21 0.16 0.45 0.45 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.27 0.39 0.59 0.39 0.36 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.27 0.71 0.39 1.79 0.78 0.53 0.41

1271 1275 1326

Str Lev Core Str Lev Core Ficron

2.09 1.46 0.00

Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Flake Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Core S Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake

0.82 0.45 0.37 0.73 0.61 0.66 0.43 0.55 0.40 0.45 0.36 0.25 0.12 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.45 0.45 0.34 0.27 0.45 0.73 0.50 0.33 0.42 0.58 0.57 0.35 0.80 0.51 0.45 0.86 0.55 0.79 0.72 0.63 0.70 0.62 0.43 0.80

UR1 629 631 632 635 636 637 638 640 642 644 645 687 688 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 705 706 707 708 709 724 728 729 731 732 733 734 735 736

217

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia 679 680 683 684 685 686 745 747 748 751 753 755 757 761 762 764 765 766 767 768 769 771 773 774 776 778 779 781 782 783 784 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 797

Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Flake Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake S Flake S Flake S Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake L Retouched Flake L Retouched Flake L Retouched Flake L Flake L Retouched Flake M Retouched Flake M Retouched Flake M Retouched Flake M Retouched Flake M Flake M Flake M Blade S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake

0.38 0.35 0.23 0.74 0.18 0.33 2.65 0.74 0.51 0.33 0.50 0.38 1.85 0.71 1.68 0.76 0.33 0.74 0.68 0.82 0.50 0.48 0.63 0.53 0.54 0.74 0.66 1.25 0.60 0.33 0.87 0.53 0.44 0.80 0.73 0.60 0.50 0.66 0.37 1.14 0.55

739 740 741 742 743 744 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 807 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1068

218

Retouched Flake Retouched Flake S Flake S Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Retouched Flake S Blade S Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Retouched Flake Flake

0.81 0.85 0.53 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.56 0.45 0.93 0.61 0.69 0.42 0.75 0.62 0.46 0.31 0.66 0.34 0.50 0.59 0.54

Appendix 4: Assessing the accuracy of Edge Testing on small artefact numbers The sites Edge Tested at ZR often contained limited numbers of diagnostic artefacts, typically between 10 and 50 examples of individual artefact types within a larger sample of multiple types. We wished to ascertain whether such numbers would be sufficient to yield accurate proportions of different categories in the Edge Test, particularly in relation to the small numbers of eccentrically weathered items that seem to be a consistent characteristic in our sampling. There are wellknown formulae for assessing how large a sample needs to be to yield % accuracies, but the author could not find any readily applicable to what was being measured at ZR. The important question is how big our sample has to be to reflect the true proportion of eccentrically weathered items. To help assess this, a simple experiment was carried out to assess how large a sample has to be before varieties in a population approach a true reflection of their proportion in the total population. We counted the cumulative number of people with selected characteristics (such as male/female/children, to include one or more ‘rare’ types) passing a fixed point in a busy street, and recorded the results as they grew in number. Each experiment stopped when the sample reached 100, which was assumed to yield the ‘correct’ proportions of the different categories of people. A graph was plotted showing how the proportions of the categories changed as the sample number grew. From this it was possible to ascertain, for both common and rare types, at what point the accuracy reached 10% tolerance, and at what point it reached 5% tolerance, in relation to the ‘correct’ answer. Although applied to people in a street, the experiment would be equally valid for different types of artefact on a site. The measurement of common and rare variants within the sample is then assumed to act as a proxy for variations in artefact weathering. ‘Rare’ varieties such as children or people wearing green is thus a proxy for ‘abnormally weathered artefacts’. The assumption has validity because the range of weathering amongst artefacts has the same structure as the range of types in the sampled human population, with a few eccentrics, either sharp or very weathered, amongst a majority of ‘normal’ types. It is of course an imperfect parallel but the results give some guidance on the way accuracy increases as the sample size grows. Three such tests were carried out. In Fig 1, men, women and children were recorded, and the cumulative totals were noted when they reached 10% and 5% of final values. The men/women categories would represent large proportions of the population and the children represent a minority category. In Fig 2, the same three categories were assessed again, shortly after the first sample was taken. By measuring the same categories twice (Figs 1 and 2) it was revealed that a sample of 100 was actually not quite large enough to reach consistent ‘final’ percentages – see the variation in the final percentage figures on the right of the graphs. In Fig 3, four variables were introduced, including two ‘minority’ ones. Interestingly this did not much alter the points when 10% and 5% tolerance were reached. These experiments were clearly insufficient to give more than a rough impression of how many artefacts have to be measured before tolerances fall within acceptable limits. No experiment can mimic exactly what was being tested at ZR, because the range of weathering on artefacts may be affected by factors we cannot replicate in a modern experiment, such as proximity to a stream bed which might increase the chances of artefacts having spent some time in it, or potential for long term burial in the soil. But the experiment tested the progressive decrease of proportional error as a sample number increases. In terms of Edge Testing, the message gained from these street tests is that sample sizes below about 15-25 will give a reliability below 90%. Thus some of the Edge Tests carried out on diagnostic artefacts need greater numbers before really accurate conclusions can be drawn. Such tests must be regarded as general pointers only. Although Edge Tests on diagnostic artefacts usually invoked all the examples that could be located on any site, there were occasions when true sampling was carried out, for example when counting artefacts in grid squares. Here, the graphs are also useful in suggesting at what point the relative proportions of different categories will stabilise to 10% or 5% tolerance. Such grid square sampling was carried out at ZR1, ZR2, ZR10, KH4, KH6, ND4, HG3, HG4 and UR2.

219

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

220

Appendices

221

Appendix 5: Raw material and surface analysis of artefacts Dr. David Waters Department of Earth Sciences and Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, UK. Summary The worked artefacts analysed are made of very fine grained (0.05 to 0.1 mm grain diameter) sandstone. What makes these rocks able to acquire a sharp edge and to be suitable for tool-making is the high proportion of silica cement as overgrowths on sedimentary quartz grains (and in one case also crystalline carbonate cement), so that the rock fractures through the grains rather than through softer matrix around their boundaries. Sample B, collected from the threshold of Gail’s Cave site, has acquired a desert varnish, i.e. a thin, laminated coating, composed of manganese and iron oxide or oxy-hydroxide mixed with indeterminately fine-grained clay material. Chemical profiles across the varnish show compositional variations similar to those recorded in varnish profiles from North America that are believed to record past climatic cycles, and have been used to date both geomorphological features and man-made objects. Procedures The four samples investigated were: Sample A. Artefact No. 53, flake, ND 0 Sample B. Unallocated flake from the surface at KH3 Gail’s Cave threshold. Sample C. Unallocated flake from ZR1, with dark coating Sample D. Unallocated flat unworked pebble with a dark coating from ZR2. A thin slab was cut from each specimen, at right angles to the flat base, extending in from an external edge. Each slab was then cut in half, the inner part being made into a conventional thin section with a cover slip, and the outer part, together with any weathering crust, into a polished thin section for examination in the scanning electron microscope. Digital images of each thin section were obtained using a Nikon film scanner. Imaging of flat polished specimens in the scanning electron microscope is of two kinds: backscattered electron images show a brightness contrast that depends on the average atomic number of the material, so these not only show grain textures but reveal a qualitative picture of the chemical compositions of grains; X-ray maps are produced from the characteristic X-rays produced by particular elements in the specimen and show the distribution and concentration of an element in the specimen.

The JEOL JSM-840A scanning electron microscope was operated at an accelerating voltage of 20 kV, and a beam current of 6 nA. An Oxford Instruments Isis 300 energydispersive analytical system, calibrated with a range of natural and synthetic standards, was used for quantitative analysis with a live counting time of 50 seconds per spot analysis. Petrography All the samples are very fine sandstones with a typical grain size between 0.05 and 0.1 mm. The sedimentary grains consist of quartz with about 10-15% of sodic feldspar, a little white mica and a variety of heavy minerals, cemented by silica (quartz), clay or sericite (illite or potassic white mica) carbonate (calcite, ankerite) and Fe-oxide/hydroxide (goethite). Strictly, they can be described as subarkoses on the basis of their relatively little intergranular matrix, predominant quartz, subordinate feldspar and rare rock fragments. Samples A and B are very similar, with a rather indistinct bedding lamination, a grain size around 0.1 mm, and a silica-rich cement. Sample B is finer grained (about 0.05 mm), with a cement containing much carbonate. The unworked Sample D is distinguished by the greater proportion of Fe-rich clay matrix, and it lacks overgrowths of quartz and albite on the sedimentary grains. Representative views, allowing comparison of the overall microstructures, are shown in Fig. 1. Sample A, item 53, flake with bulbar scar from Plateau site of ND0 The backscattered electron image in Fig. 2a reveals a number of features of the microstructure. An illite-rich clay cement is present on some grain boundaries, but most quartz grains are cemented by quartz overgrowths on the original grains, forming a polygonal mosaic. At centre right, a sedimentary sodic plagioclase grain is cemented by an overgrowth of pure albite. A rounded mass of illite and quartz, centre left, is either a rock fragment or formed by breakdown of a K-rich feldspar. There are three small detrital muscovite flakes (bright laths). In Fig 2b, the optical micrograph shows silica cement (C) in the form of overgrowths on quartz grains, whose original boundaries are revealed by trails of opaque dust (B) that coated the sedimentary grains. The predominance of silica cement is likely to give this rock a clean conchoidal fracture and make it suitable for working into stone tools.

222

Appendices

Fig 1 Representative views of the four specimens. Each field of view is 4 mm wide by 3 mm high

Fig 2a Backscattered electron image of Sample A, artefact 53, at x300 magnification Fig 2b Sample A Silica cement (C) forming overgrowths on quartz grains whose original boundaries are visible at arrowed locations B. Specimen A, crossed polars, field of view ca. 0.2 mm.

223

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Sample D unworked flat pebble with dark coating from ZR2

Fig 3 Sample B Gail’s Cave backscatter photo at x 80 magnification

Sample D is distinguishable from the artefacts by the greater proportion of Fe-stained clay matrix, visible as grey material in the backscattered electron image (Fig 5), surrounding most of the grains. Quartz, very dark grey, in somewhat angular grains, is the dominant sedimentary phase. Also visible are lithic grains with bright Fe-rich material, a bright Fe- or Ti-oxide, and homogeneous dark grey tourmaline grains. Mineral chemistry A small number of spot analyses was made of mineral grains in certain of the specimens. These are listed in Fig 6.

Fig 4 Sample C at x100 magnification, backscattered electron image.

X-ray maps of selected areas in samples A and B were made to aid identification of grains and of phases in the cementing material. These established the presence of albite grains (difficult to distinguish from quartz both optically and with backscatter contrast), the presence of two carbonate phases in B (calcite as both grains and cement, Ca-Fe-Mg carbonate (ankerite) as cement), and revealed pure albite overgrowths cementing grains of Narich feldspar. The sets of X-ray maps are seen as Figs 7 and 8. FIg 6

Fig 5 Sample D backscattered image at x100 magnification Sample B, LSA flake from KH3 (Gail’s Cave threshold) The rock is composed mainly of quartz with some feldspar, muscovite, chlorite and calcite grains, and is cemented by silica, calcite, Ca-Fe-Mg carbonate (ankerite) and clay material. A typical view that includes the outer margin of the specimen is shown in the backscattered electron image (Fig 3). The outermost millimetre of the specimen shows voids resulting from the dissolution of carbonate grains and cement near the edge of the specimen. Sample C unallocated rounded flake from ZR 1 with dark coating The sedimentary grains are dominated by quartz with a mean grain size of 0.1 mm, cemented largely by quartz. In the backscattered image (Fig 4), grains with a black outline are albite and speckled grey grains are lithic grains rich in clay material. The relatively small amount of clay matrix also appears grey.

224

Appendices

Fig 6 Mineral analyses, as weight percent oxide and recalculated as cations per formula unit based on the given number of oxygens

225

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Fig 7 Electron and X-ray image maps of a selected area (width 0.35 mm) from Sample B. On the secondary electron (SE) and backscattered electron (BSE) maps, quartz and albite appear dark, carbonates grey, and Fe- and Ti-rich material white. On the X-ray images, warm colours indicate high concentrations of the element. Thus the Ca image highlights the carbonate cement, with red calcite and green/yellow Fe-bearing dolomite (ankerite). Albite appears green on the Na, Al and Si images. The K image shows one rounded detrital muscovite grain and scattered small muscovite/illite in the matrix. These also prominent on the Al image.

226

Appendices

Fig 8 Electron and X-ray image maps of a selected area (width 0.35 mm) from Sample A. In contrast to Sample B, Mica and clay making up detrital muscovite flakes, an altered grain at centre left, and clay matrix on some grain boundaries shows up on the K, Al and Mg images. Note the feldspar grain in the centre: the Ca image shows its original rounded extent, but the Na image shows the addition of an albite overgrowth to give its present polygonal outline.

this specimen contains no carbonate.

227

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Grain coatings: description and analysis Two of the specimens, C and D, have iron-manganese coatings partly preserved in the thin and polished sections, and could be studied in the scanning electron microscope (Fig 9a & b). The other two specimens, including the Cave threshold flake, have a lighter coloured patina but reveal no trace of Mn-Fe crust on sectioning.

2. However, there are differences between profiles obtained at greater separation. 3. There is significant variation in both the Mn and Fe content and the Mn:Fe ratio across the laminations. 4. There are smaller fluctuations in the contents of Si, Al and K, which normally vary in harmony.

The Mn-Fe coatings are best preserved in hollows and indentations in the surface. They are typically about 25 μm thick, and show an uneven lamination. They appear bright in backscattered electron images, owing to the concentration of elements of relatively high atomic number. The same material also penetrates into the specimen along fractures and grain boundaries. Also present locally on the specimen-side of the bright coating are areas of intermediate brightness representing modified matrix or altered feldspar grains in the rock.

5. Small but sharp spikes occur in the concentrations of Ti, Ba, Ca and P.

Although the material is not a single phase, but clearly a very fine-grained heterogeneous aggregate, bulk chemical analysis can be made with a focussed electron beam. The excitation volume in the specimen will be about 2 μm in diameter, and so will average the composition over the unresolvable grain size of the constituent particles. The spot analyses are listed in Fig 10. The major elements present are Mn, Fe, Si and Al, with lesser amounts of K, Ca, Ba, Mg, Ti and P. Allowing for the probable valence state of Mn (4+) and Fe (3+) for a coating deposited in the presence of atmospheric oxygen, the mean analysis total on the Mn-rich coatings is around 92%, suggesting a water content of up to 8%.

The grain coatings are very similar to examples of desert varnish described from other semi-arid environments. Compared to analyses from the literature (e.g. Dorn & Oberlander, 1981), the Zebra River varnish coatings tend to be richer in Mn and Fe, and poorer in Si, Al and K, but nevertheless show the same style of variation between these element groups, and contain the same suite of minor elements.

To document composition variation across the laminae, line profiles were analysed across a number of the coatings. This method provides an efficient means of semiquantitative analysis for a number of elements at high spatial resolution, by collecting X-ray counts of a particular energy while the electron beam is scanned along a line on the specimen. An approximate quantitative analysis for most elements in the line profiles can be achieved by scaling these intensities in comparison with spot analyses from known locations in the profile. Unfortunately there is a very significant overlap between the energy peaks for Ti and Ba, and these two elements cannot be discriminated in the line scans. An example profile is seen in fig 11, and the full set is assembled in graph form in Figs 12 and 13. In each sample, pairs of line profiles were run across coatings from the same indentation, and further profiles were taken from other locations a few millimetres away, with a view to examining the continuity of composition in the laminations.

The Mn and Fe are most likely present as oxides or oxyhydroxides. The covariance of Si, Al and K strongly suggests a potassic clay mineral (illite). The spikes in other elements suggest the presence of discrete small grains of minerals such as ilmenite (Ti) and apatite (Ca, P). Discussion: significance of Mn-Fe grain coatings

The origin of desert varnish has been much debated, but the modern view is that it represents a microbially mediated accumulation of wind-blown clay particles cemented by manganese and iron compounds (Dorn & Oberlander, 1981). The variation in proportions of clay and metal oxyhydroxides is predicted to be sensitive to the humidity of the climate, and thus the alternation of layers of differing composition potentially contains a record of past climate. In the last decade this concept has been elaborated into a technique for dating of materials and artefacts based on a comparison of the lamination chemistry with the known climatic record in certain areas of the world, notably the western USA and Mexico (Liu & Broecker, 2007). As far as the author is aware, no climatic calibration is currently available for southern Africa. Nevertheless the method would appear to have some promise, but only for materials resting on exposed surfaces, as the conditions for accumulation of desert varnish would appear not to be attained in cave sites.

A number of features are evident from these composition profiles: 1. Adjacent profiles show a satisfactory correlation of the compositional fluctuations, indicating that the laminae have local continuity.

228

Appendices

Fig 9a Sections through Specimens C (Fig 9a) and D (Fig 9b) from ZR1 and ZR2 show light areas where surface Note that under magnification these crusts do not form

concentrations of manganese and iron have accumulated.

even coatings but have penetrated minute crevasses in the surface

Fig 11 Location of the line profile in sample ZR-2, extending from a quartz grain to the outer margin of the specimen

229

Fig 10 Spot analyses of rock varnish from samples C and D

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

230

Appendices

Fig 12 Composition profiles across Mn-rich rock varnish from Sample C

231

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

Fig 13 Composition profiles across Mn-rich rock varnish from Sample D

232

Appendix 6: The Edge Test Program The program used to carry out the Edge Tests at ZR is currently unpublished and at the time of going to press was still undergoing development. The program was devised in 2003 in ‘manual’ mode where the operator has to draw lines on screen representing the straight edges of the flaking scars, terminating at the point where they begin to curve inwards at the apex, which represents the point where weathering begins (see the red lines on Fig. 1). This method has proved durable and fairly accurate, but it was found that each operator may draw the terminal points of these lines in slightly different positions. In a test, when two operators (TH and KvO) edge tested the same artefacts using the manual method, these differences were apparent but mostly of small magnitude, so that the conclusions drawn from the resultant Average Rounding graphs were not affected. Nevertheless an automated method was sought, that would decide the point of incurving without the need for human judgement. This gave rise to additional problems not yet fully resolved. While all the Edge Tests published in this report have been carried out by a single operator (KvO) and are believed to be consistent, the NAMPAL team feel that further refinement of the automated method may be desirable before publication. The program, either manual of automated, can however be made available to anyone wishing to carry out Edge tests by contacting the author at [email protected]

Fig 1 Edge test manual method of drawing flake scars on screen (red lines).

233

234

REFERENCES

Adelsberger, K., & Smith, J.R., 2009. Formation and development of desert pavement surfaces of the eastern Libyan Plateau, Egypt: Implications for archaeological surface survey. Geomorphology 107, 178-184. Aiello, L.C., 1996. Terrestriality, bipedalism and the origin of language. Proceedings of the British Academy 88, 269-289, Oxford University Press. Allen, M. J., 1991. Analysing the Landscape: a geographical approach to archaeological problems. In Schofield, A.J., (ed.) Interpreting artefact scatters: Contributions to ploughzone archaeology. Oxbow Books, 39-57. Aoki H., & Matsukura, Y., 2007. A new technique for non-destructive field measurement of rock-surface strength: an application of the Equotip hardness tester to weathering studies. Earth surface processes and landforms 32 , 12, 1759-1769. Avery, D.M., 1982/3-1983/4. Micromammals and environmental change at Zebrarivier cave, Central Namibia. SWA Wessenschaftliche Gesselschaft 38, 7986, Windhoek. Barham, L., 2000. The Middle Stone Age of Zambia, south central Africa. Bristol: Western Academic and Specialist Press. Barham, L., & Mitchell, P., 2008. The First Africans. Cambridge University Press. Barnard, A., 1978. Bushmen. British Museum Publications. Basell, L. S., 2008. Middle Stone Age (MSA) site distributions in eastern Africa and their relationship to Quaternary environmental change, refugia and the evolution of Homo sapiens. Quaternary Science Reviews 27, 2484–2498. Battarbee, R.W., Gasse, F., & Stickley, C.E., 2004. Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa. Developments in Paleoenvironmental Research, 6. Springer, Netherlands. Beaumont, P. B., & Vogel, J. C., 2006. On a timescale for the past million years of human history in central South Africa. South African Journal of Science 102, 217-227. Binford, L.R., 1981. Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. Academic Press, New York Bleek, D.F., Breyer-Brandwijk, M.G., Dart, R.A., Doke, D.M., Drenna, M.R., Kirby, P.L., MacCrone, I.D., Maingard J.F., & Maingard, L.F., 1937. Bushmen of the Southern Kalahari. Johannesburg. Bodenheimer, F. S., 1951. Insects as Human Food, W. Junk, The Hague. Boëda, E., 1995. Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Prehistory Press, Madison, 41–68.

Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux. Broecker W. S., & Liu, T., 2001. Rock Varnish: Recorder of Desert Wetness GSA Today 11 no. 8, 4-10. Brook, G.A., Cowart, J.B., & Marias, E., 1996. Wet and dry periods in the southern African rainfall zone during the last 300 kyr from speleothem, tufa and sand dune age data. Palaeoecology of Africa 24, 147–158. Brook, G.A., Cowart, J.B., & Brandt, S.A., 1998. Comparison of Quaternary environmental change in eastern and southern Africa using cave speleothem, tufa and rock shelter sediment data. In: Alsharan, A.S., Glennie, K.W., Whittle, G.L., Kendall, C.G., St., C. (Eds.), Quaternary Deserts and Climatic Change. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 239–249. Burke, K, 1996 The African Plate South African Journal of Geology 99, 341-409. Burke, K,  & Gunnell, Y., 2008. The African Erosion Surface: A Continental-Scale Synthesis of Geomorphology, Tectonics, and Environmental Change over the Past 180 Million Years, The Geological Society of America 201,0. 1-66. Burroni, D., Donahue, A., Pollard, M., & Muss, M., 2002. The surface alteration Features of Flint Artefacts as a Record of Environmental Processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 29,11, 1277-1287. Burrough, S.L., Thomas, D.S.G., Bailey, R.M., 2009. Mega-Lake in the Kalahari: a Late Pleistocene record of the Palaeolake Makgadikgadi system. Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (15–16), 1392–1411. Chase, B.M., & Meadows, M.E., 2007. Late Quaternary dynamics of southern Africa’s winter rainfall zone. Earth-Science Review. 84, 103–138. Chazan, M., Ron, H., Matmon, A., Porat, N., Goldberg, P., Yates, R., Avery, M., Sumner, A., & Horwitz, L.K. 2008. Radiometric dating of the Earlier Stone Age sequence in Excavation I at Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa: preliminary results. Journal of Human Evolution 55:1-11. Chiotti, L., Olszewski, D.L, Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S., Schurmans, U., & Smith, J.R., 2007. Paleolithic Abydos: Reconstructing Individual Behaviors across the High Desert Landscape in Hawass, Z., & Richards, J. E. (Eds.) The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, 169-83. Max Planck Society, Cairo. – see intro Christian, D., 2004. Maps of Time, an Introduction to Big History, University of California Press. Clark, J.G.D., 1969. World Prehistory. Cambridge University Press. Clark, J.D., 1955. Note on a wooden implement from the level of Peat 1 at Florisbad, Orange Free State.

235

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia Researches of the National Museum, Bloemfontein 1, 135-140. Clark, J.D., 1967. Atlas of African Prehistory. University of Chicago Press. Clark, J.D., 1993. The earliest cultural evidence of hominids in southern and south central Africa. In G. Sperber, (Ed.). From apes to angels; essays in anthropology in honor of Phillip V. Tobias, 1-15. New York, John Wiley. Clark, J.D., 2001(a). Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site Volume 3: the Earlier Cultures, Middle and Earlier Stone Age. Cambridge University Press, New York. Clark, J.D., 2001(b). Variability in primary and secondary technologies of the later Acheulian in Africa. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 1-18. Clarke, R. J., & Kuman, K. 2000. Stratigraphy, artefact industries and hominid associations for Sterkfontein, Member 5. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 827-847. Cockburn, H.A.P., Seidl, M. A., & Summerfield, M. A. , 1999. Quantifying denudation rates on inselbergs in the central Namib Desert using in situ–produced cosmogenic 10Be and 26Al. Geology 27.5, 399–402. Conroy, G.C., Pickford,, M., Senut, B., Van Couvering J., &  Mein, P., 1992. Otavipithecus namibiensis, first Miocene hominoid from southern Africa. Nature 356, 144 – 148. Corvinus, G., 1984. Südliches Afrika: Neue Forschungensue Altsteinzrit. Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleischenden Archäologie 4, 465-547. Corvinus, G., 1985. An Acheulian industry within the raised beach complex of the CDM concession area, S.W. Africa (Namibia). Quartär 35/36, 91-114. Dart, R. A., 1925. Australopithecus africanus: The manape of South Africa. Nature 115: 195-199. Davidson, I. 2002. The Finished Artefact Fallacy: Acheulian Hand-Axes and Language Origins. In Wray, A. (ed.) Transitions to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 180-203. Deacon, H. J., 1989. Late Pleistocene paleoecology and archaeology in the southern Cape. In P. Mellars& C. B. Stringer, (Eds) The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, 547–564. Edinburgh University Press. Deacon, H. J. (1993a). Planting an idea Deacon, J, & Lancaster, N., 1987. Late Quaternary Palaeoclimates of Southern Africa, Clarendon Press. Delacorte, M.G., 1985. The George T. Hunting complex, Deep Springs Valley, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7, No.2, 225-239. Dorn, R.I. & Oberlander, T.M. (1981) Microbial origin of desert varnish. Science, 213, 1245-7. Foley, R., 1987. Another Unique Species. Longman Forde, C. Darryl, 1963. Habitat Economy & Society. Methuen. Geneste, J. M. 1988. “Les industries de la grotte Vaufrey: technologic du debitage economie et circulation de Ia matiere premiere lithique.,” in La Grotte Vaufrey:

Paleoenvironment - chronologie activites humaines, vol. XIX. Edited by J.-P. Rigaud, pp. 441-518. Chalons-sur Marne: Ministere de la Culture et de la Communication et du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Goodwin, A.J.H., 1929. The Victoria West industry. Annals of the South African Museum, 27, 53–69. Cape Town. Goodwin, A.J.H., 1934. Some developments in technique during the Earlier Stone Age. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, 16, 77-102. Goudie, A.S., & Eckardt, F. 1999 The Evolution of the morphological framework of the Central Namib Desert, Namibia, since the early Cretaceous Geografisker Annaler 81A 443-458. Hardaker, T., 2004. Present-day lower Palaeolithic land surfaces in Britain: two examples from the Upper Thames. Lithics 25, 22-38. Hardaker, T., 2005. The Namibia Palaeolithic Field Research Project (NAMPAL) 2002. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 60 (181), 20-23. Hardaker, T., & Dunn, S., 2005. The Flip Test - a new statistical measure for quantifying symmetry in stone tools. Antiquity 79, no 306. Hardaker, T., & MacRae, R.J.,2000. A Lost River and some Palaeolithic Surprises: New Quartzite Finds from Norfolk and Oxfordshire. Lithics 21, 52-59. Harmand, S., 2007 Economic behaviours and cognitive capacities of early humans between 2.34 MA and 0.70 MA in West Turkana, Kenya. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgesdhichte 16, 11-23. Herries, A.I.R., Curnoe, D., and Adams, J.W., 2009. A multi-disciplinary seriation of early Homo and Paranthropus bearing palaeocaves in southern Africa. Quaternary International 202, 1-2, 14-28 Hughes, J.K., Haywood, A., Mithen, S.J., Sellwood, B.W., & Valdes, P.J., 2007. Investigating early hominin dispersal patterns: developing a framework for climatic data integration. Journal of Human Evolution 53, 5, 465-474. Inizan, M-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H, & Tixier, J., 1999. Technology and terminology of knapped stone. Nanterre. Isaac, G. Ll., 1976. Plio-Pleistocene artefact assemblages from East Rudolf, Kenya. In Coppens, Y. ClarkHowell, F., Isaac, G.L., Leakey R.E.F., (eds). Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin, 552564. University of Chicago Press. Isaac, G. Ll., 1977. Olorgesailie, University of Chicago Press. Isaac, G.Ll., 1978. The food-sharing behaviour of protohuman hominids. Scientific American 238(4), 90108. Isaac, G. Ll., 1989. The Archaeology of human origins: papers by Glynn Isaac, edited by Barbara Isaac. Cambridge University Press Isaac, G. Ll., & Harris, J.W.K., 1975.   The scatter between the patches.   Paper delivered to the Kroeber

236

References Anthropological Society Annual Meetings, Berkeley, California. Jansen, F.J., 1926. A new type of stone implement from Victoria West. South African Journal of Science 23, 818-825. Keller, C.M., 1973. Montagu Cave in Prehistory. University of California anthropological records 28, 1-150. King, L. C., 1951. South African Scenery. Oliver and Boyd Klein, R.G., 2000. The Earlier Stone Age of Southern Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 55, 107122. Kleindeinst, M. R., 1962. Components of the East African Acheulian assemblage: an analytical approach. In Mortelmans, G., & Nenquin, J., (eds) Actes du IVe Congrès panafricain de préhistoire et de l’étude du quarternaire / préparés par Georges et Jacques Tervuren, Belgium. Kuman, K., 1994. The archaeology of Sterkfontein past and present. Journal of Human Evolution 27, 471-495. Kuman, K., 2001. An Acheulean Factory Site with Prepared Core Technology near Taung, South Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 56, 8-22. Kuman, K. & Clarke, R.J., 1997. Stratigraphy, artefact industries and Hominid associations for Sterkfontein Member 5. Journal of Human Evolution 38, 827-847. Kuman, K., & Clarke, R.J., 2000. Stratigraphy, artefact industries and hominid associations for Sterkfontein, Member 5. .Journal of Human Evolution, 38, 6, 827-847. References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article. Kuman K., Inbar, M., & Clarke R. J., 1999. Palaeoenvironments and Cultural Sequence of the Florisbad Middle Stone Age Hominid Site, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 14091425. Laity, J.E., & Bridges, N.T., 2009. Ventifacts on Earth and Mars: Analytical, field, and laboratory studies supporting sand abrasion and windward feature Development, Geomorphology 105, 202–217. Langbroek, M., 2004. ‘Out of Africa’, an investigation into the earliest occupation of the old World, BAR International Series 1244, Oxford. Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-63. Cambridge University Press. Lee, R.B., 1967. !Kung Bushman subsistence. An inputoutput analysis. In A.P.Vayda, Human ecology: an anthropological reader. New York. Lee, R.B., 1979. The !Kung San: Men, women and work in a foraging society. Cambridge University Press. Lee, R.B., & DeVore, I. 1976. Kalahari hunter gatherers: studies of the !Kung San and their neighbours. Harvard Liu, T., Broecker, W.S., 2000. How fast does rock varnish grow? Geology 28, 183-186. Liu, T., & Broecker, W.S., 2007. Holocene rock varnish microstratigraphy and its chronometric application in the drylands of western USA. Geomorphology, 84, 1–21.

Liu, T., Broecker, W.S., 2008. Rock varnish microlamination dating of late Quaternary geomorphic features in the drylands of western USA. Geomorphology 93, 501523. Liu, T., and Broecker, W.S., 2008. Rock varnish evidence for latest Pleistocene millennial-scale wet events in the drylands of western United States. Geology 36, 403406. Lycett, S.J., 2009. Are Victoria West cores “protoLevallois”? A phylogenetic assessment. Journal of Human Evolution, 56.2, 175-191. MacCalman, H.R., 1962. Gungams, an early Middle Stone Age site in the Windhoek District. Cimbebasia 3, 2-13. MacCalman, H.R., 1963. The Neuhof-Kowas Middle Stone Age, Windhoek District. Cimbebasia 7, 42-54. MacCalman, H.R., 1972. The Otjinungwa Valley site: a Middle Stone Age occurrence on the South West Africa/Angola border. Cimbebasia (B)2, 66-80. MacCalman, H.R., & Vierick, A., 1967. Pepperkorrel, a factory site of Lupemban affinities from Central South West Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 22, 1967, 41-50. MacRae, R. J., 1988. Belt, Shoulder Bag or Basket: an Enquiry into Handaxe Transport and Flint Sources, Lithics 9, 2-7. Marean, C.W., & Assefa, Z., 2005. The Middle and Upper Pleistocene record for the biological and behavioural origins of modern humans. In Stahl, A.B., (ed), African Archaeology. Blackwell, UK Maslin, M. A. & Christensen, B. A., 2007. Tectonics, orbital forcing, global climate change, and human evolution in Africa: introduction to the African paleoclimate special volume. Journal of Human Evolution 53, 5, 443-464. Mason, R.J., 1962. Prehistory of the Transvaal. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Matmon, A., Bierman, P., & Yehouda, E., 2002. Pattern and tempo of Great Escarpment erosion, Geology 30 (12), 1135-1138. Mc Brearty, S., & Brooks A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453–563 References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must this article. McGinley, M, (ed.) 2008 Encyclopedia of Earth. McNabb, J., 2001. The shape of things to come. A speculative essay on the role of the Victoria West phenomenon at Canteen Koppie, during the South African Earlier Stone Age. In: Milliken, S., Cook, J. (Eds.), A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 37–46. McNabb, J., 2007. The British Lower Palaeolithic: Stones in contention. Routledge. McNabb, J., 1998. On the move. Theory, time averaging and resource transport at Olduvai Gorge. In Ashton, Healy & Pettitt, (Eds.). Stone Age Archaeology: Essays

237

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia in honour of John Wymer, 15-22, Oxbow Books, Oxford. Mendelsohn, J., Jarvis, A., Roberts, C., & Robertson, T., 2002. Atlas of Namibia, David Philip Publishers, Cape Town. Mills, H.,1986. Downslope movement of in situ clasts on forested hillslopes, Virginia. Interscience 11, 451-66 Mitchell, J.C., 1995 Studying biface utilisation at Boxgrove: Roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. Lithics 16, 64-69. Mitchell, P., 2002. The Archaeology of Southern Africa, Cambridge University Press. Mirazon Lahr, M., Foley, R., Crivellaro, F., Maillo Fernandez, J., Wilshaw, A., Purdon, A.,HalladayGarrett, C., Veldhuis, D., & Mattingly, D., 2010. DMP XI: Preliminary results from 2010 fieldwork on the human prehistory in the Libyan Sahara. Libyan Studies 40, 335-354. Moore A. E.,1999. A reappraisal of Epeirogenic flexure axes in Southern Africa. South African Journal of Geology 102 no 4, 363-376. Newcomer, M., 1971. Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology 3, 85-94. Paddayya, K., Jhaldiyal, R., & Petraglia, M.D., 2006. The Acheulian quarry at Isampur, Lower Deccan India. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon, (Eds.). Axe Age: Acheulian toolmaking from quarry to discard. Equinox, London. Parsons, A.J., & Abrahams, A.D., 2009. Geomorphology of Desert Environments. Springer, London. Partridge, T.C., & Maud, R.R., eds., 2000. The Cenozoic of Southern Africa, Oxford University Press. Partridge, T.C., Scott, L., & Schneider, R.R., 2004. Between Aghulas and Benguela: Responses of Southern African Climates of the Late Pleistocene to current fluxes, orbital precession and the extent of the circum-Antarctic Vortex, in R.W. Battarbee, F. Grasse & C.E. Stickley (Eds.). Past Climatic Variability through Africa and Europe Vol 6. Dordrecht. Perry, R.S. & Adams, J.B. 1978. Desert varnish: evidence for cyclic deposition of manganese. Nature 276(5687):489-491. Petraglia, M.D., 2006. The Indian Acheulian in global perspective. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon, (Eds.). Axe Age: Acheulian toolmaking from quarry to discard, 389-414. Equinox, London. Petraglia, M.D., Korisettar, R., Boivin, N., Clarkson, C., Ditchfield, P., Jones, S., Koshy, J., Lahr, M.M., Oppenheimer, C., Pyle, D., Roberts, R., Schwenninger, J.-L., Arnold, L., & White, K., 2007. Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinent before and after the Toba super-eruption., Science, 317 (5834), 114-116. Pfaff, D., 2011. Man & woman: an inside story. Oxford University Press. Phillipson, D. W., 2005. African Archaeology, 3rd edition, CUP Pitts, M., & Roberts, M., 1998. Fairweather Eden. London Plummer, T., 2005. Discord after discard: reconstructing aspects of Oldowan hominin behaviour. In Stahl,

A. (Ed.) African Archaeology, 55-92. Blackwell Publishing. References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article. Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A. K., & Ditchfieldp P., 1999. Paleolandscape variation and Early Pleistocene hominid activities: Members 1 and 7, Olorgesailie Formation, Kenya Journal of Human Evolution 37, 5, 747-788. Quade, J., 2001 Desert pavements and associated rock varnish in the Mojave Desert: How old can they be? Geology, 29 no.9, 855-858. Quin, P. J., 1959. Foods and Feeding Habits of the Pedi. Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg. Rieth, A., 1970. Archaeological Fakes. Barrie & Jackson, London. Robock, A.; Ammann, C.M.; Oman, L.; Shindell, D.; Levis, S.; Stenchikov, G., 2009. “Did the Toba Volcanic Eruption of ~74k BP Produce Widespread Glaciation?”. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: D10107, 9 pp Roche, H., Brugal, J.P., Delagnes, A., Feibel, C., Harmand, S., Kibunjia, M., Prat, S., Texier, P-J., 2003. Les sites archaéologiques plio-pléistocenes de la formation de Nachukui, Ouest Turkana, Kenya. Hilan synthétique 1997-2001. Comptes Rendus Palévol 2: 663 673. Rose, L., & Marshall, F., 1996. Meat eating, hominid sociality and home bases revisited. Current Anthropology 37: 307-338. Sampson, C. Garth, 2006. Acheulian quarries at hornfels outcrops in the Upper Karoo region of South Africa. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon, (Eds.). Axe Age: Acheulian toolmaking from quarry to discard. Equinox, London. Sampson, C. Garth, & Sadr., K, 1999. Khoekhoe ceramics of the Upper Seacow Valley. South African Archaeological Bulletin 54, 3-15. Scherz, E.R., 1970. Felsbilder in Südwest-Afrika, Teil 1: Die Gravierungen in Südwest-Afrika ohne den Nordwesten des Landes. Fundamenta A7, Koln/Wien Schick, K.D., 1987. Modelling the formation of early Stone Age artefact concentrations. Journal of Human Evolution 16: 789-808. Shacklelton, R.M., 1955. Pleistocene movements in the Gregory Rift Valley. International Journal of Earth Sciences 43, 257-263. Shackley, M., 1985. Palaeolithic archaeology of the Central Namib desert: a preliminary survey of chronology, typology and site location. Cimbebasia Memoir No. 6. Sharon, G., 2007. Acheulian Large Flake Industries: Technology, Chronology and Significance. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1701. BAR Publishing, Oxford. Sharon, G., & Beaumont, P., 2006. Victoria West: a highly standardised prepared core technology. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon, (Eds.). Axe Age: Acheulian toolmaking from quarry to discard, 181-199. Equinox, London.

238

References Sharon, G., & Goren-Inbar, N., 1999. Soft percussor use at the Gesher Benot Ya’aqov site? Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 28: 55-79. Sheppard, P.J., & Kleindienst, M.R., 1996. Technological change in the Earlier and Middle Stone Age of Kalambo Falls (Zambia) African Archaeological Review 13, 3. 171-196. Soriano, S, Villa, P, Wadley, L., 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the MSA of Southern Africa: The Howieson’s Poort & post-Howieson’s Poort at Rose Cottage. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 681703 Stokes, S., Haynes, g., Thomas, D.S.G., Horrocks, J.L., Higginson, M., & Malita, M., 1998. Punctuated aridity in Southern Africa during the last Glacial Cycle: the Chronology of Dune Construction in the Northeastern Kalahari. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 137, 305-332. Sturge W.A., 1912. The patina of flint implements. Proc. Prehist. Soc. E.Anglia, 1 (2), 1912, 140-157. Szabo, B.J., & Butzer, K.W., 1979. Uranium-series dating of lacustrine limestones from pan deposits with Final Acheulean assemblages at Rooidam, Kimberley District, South Africa. Quaternary Research 11:257260. Thieme, H., 1997. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385, 807-810. Thomas, D.S.G., and Shaw, P.A. (2002) Late Quaternary environmental change in central southern Africa: new data, synthesis, issues and prospects. Quaternary Science Reviews, 21(7): 783-798. Tryon, C., 2006. “Early” Middle Stone Age lithic Technology of the Kapthurin Formation, Current Anthropology 47,2, 367-375. Tryon, C., McBrearty, S., & Texier, P-J., 2005. Levallois lithic technology from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya: Acheulian Origin and Middle Stone Age Diversity. African Archaeological Review, 22 No. 4, 199-229. Tyson, P.D., & Partridge, T., 2000. Evolution of Cenozoic Climates. In T.C. Partridge & R.R. Maud, eds., op.cit. Viereck, A., 1957. The archaeology of Neuhof-Kowas, South West Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 12, 32-36. Viereck, A., 1966. Streiflichteraus der Vorgeschichte im südlichen Teil von Südwestafrika. Mitteilungen der S.W.A. Wissenschaftlichen Gelleschaft 9, 1-12. Vita-Finzi, C., & Higgs, E.S., 1970. Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 1-38. Vogelsang, R., 1998. Middle-Stone-Age Fundstellen in Sudwest Namibia, Heinrich Barth Institut, Koln. Vogelsang, R., 2008. The rock shelter “Apollo 11”: evidence of early modern humnans in South-Western Namibia. In Limpricht, C. & Biesele M. (Eds.) Heritage and Cultures in Modern Namibia - In- depth Views of the Country.183-193. A TUCSIN-Festschrift. Windhoek-Goettingen.

Wadley, L., 1984. On the Move: a Look at Prehistoric Food scheduling in Central Namibia. Cimbebasia (B) 4 (4): 41-50 Wadley, L., 1987. Later Stone Age hunters and gatherers of the Southern Transvaal BAR International Series 380, Oxford. Ward, J.D., Seely, M. K., & Lancaster, N., 1983. On the antiquity of the Namib. South African Journal of Science 79, 175-183 Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2004. Handaxe typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. In M. Pope and K. Cramp, (eds), Lithics 25 (Papers in Honour of R.J. MacRae): 11–21 Wendt, W.E., 1972. Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Research Programme in South West Africa. Cimbebasia B2 (1), 1-61. Wendt, W.E., 1976. Art mobilier from the Apollo 11 Cave Southwest Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 31, 5-11. White, M.J., 1998. On the significance of Acheulian biface variability in Southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64: 15-43. White, M.J., and Pettitt, P.B., 1996. Technology of early Palaeolithic Western Europe: innovation, variability and a united framework. Lithics 16, 27-40. Wilkins, J., Pollarolo, L. & Kuman, K. 2010. Prepared core reduction at the site of Kudu Koppie in northern South Africa: temporal patterns across the Earlier and Middle Stone Age boundary. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1279-1292. Williams, M.A.J., Stanley H., Ambrose S.H., van der Kaars, S., Ruehlemann, C., Chattopadhyaya, U., Pal, J., & Chauhan, P.R., 2009. “Environmental impact of the 73 ka Toba super-eruption in South Asia”. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 284 (3-4): 295–314. Winton, V., 2004. A study of Palaeolithic artefacts from selected sites on deposits mapped as Clay-with-flints of Southern England. BAR British Series 360. Winton, V., 2011 Excavation of LSA hearths at Gail’s Cave, Zebra River Gorge (ZR3), Tsaris Mountains, Namibia. Journal of African Archaeology.forthcoming Wood, Y.A., Graham, R.C., & Wells, S.G., 2002. Surface mosaic map unit development for a desert pavement surface., 2002. Journal of Arid Environments 52, 305– 317.

239

Acknowledgements I am indebted to the members of the NAMPAL team who have given their time and energy, often paying their own passage, to help in this project, whether on single visits or recurring: in the beginning the late Dr. John Wymer, Dr. Anthony Sinclair and Steve Dunn who made up the team in 2002; Karen van Opstal who has not only carried out all the Edge Test analysis but also made a significant contribution in the field and to the way the research has gone, as well as finding time to reenergise us when heat and tedium threatened; Steve Dunn again for writing (and re-writing) the Edge Test program and for fieldwork on several subsequent seasons. I thank our other field participants Gabrielle Kennaway, Marion Melkert, Anzel Veldman, Thomas Shapwa, Rachel Bynoe, Julia Kaulinge, Menethi Hiyavali, Neil Sloane and Gail Saunders for their hard work and enthusiasm, and the various farmers who allowed us access to their land, especially Allan WalkdenDavis of Neuras, and Emke of Mooi Rivier. To our hosts Rob and Marianne Field and Jana Veres at Zebra River Lodge (and latterly Peter and Elke Young the new owners of the Lodge) we are all grateful for support, comfort (a word that seldom goes with archaeology) and sustenance. In 2010 we were escorted to ‘Ralf’s Cave’ by the Zebra River Guide, Ralf Schneider, who discovered it. We are indebted to our sponsors, the British Academy and the Percy Sladen Foundation, for financial support. Special thanks to Dr. Vicky Winton who painstakingly directed the excavation at Gail’s Cave and whose report is published as a separate monograph. To our contacts in Namibia – Dr. Goodman Gwasira and Dr. Eugene Marais of the National Museum in Windhoek, and Joh Henschel in the Desert research institute in Gobabeb – we are grateful for advice and interest. To Dr. Beatrice Sandelowsky at the National Heritage Council, Windhoek, many thanks for warm encouragement and visiting our site in 2008. Beatrice also arranged for the participation of students from the University of Namibia and allowed the author to deliver a series of lectures about our work at Zebra River to the History Faculty in the University. Thanks to Professor Derek Roe and Professor Nick Barton of Oxford University who have tirelessly refereed my grant applications, and to Dr. Anthony Sinclair and Professor Larry Barham of the University of Liverpool who generously extended honorary associate status to me in the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology. I am grateful to Dr David Waters at the University Museum, Oxford, for analysis of quartzitic rock samples, to Dr. Derek Febel of the University of Glasgow for his attempt at cosmogenic dating, and to Dr. Heather Viles and Hong Zhang of OUCE, University of Oxford, for hardness tests on selected artefacts. Dr. Lynda Yorke of the University of Aberystwyth provided valuable comment on the Oxfordshire runoff experiment. Nick Lancaster and Tim Partridge provided guidance on climate history in the area. Professor Philip Tobias kindly gave me the benefit of his experiences in Namibia in the 1950’s. I am especially grateful to Karen van Opstal and Professor Derek Roe for kindly reading the manuscript and making numerous suggestions both as to content and expression, which have saved me from many slips. Final responsibility for the end product is of course the author’s alone. Professor Roe also generously agreed to write the Foreword to this report. Finally my greatest thanks go to the late R.J. (Mac) MacRae, friend and mentor, who guided me in the early days and introduced me to the archaeological fraternity. Mac encouraged me to make the first trip, and without him, the NAMPAL project would never have come about. The illustrations, maps, photos and drawings have been prepared by the author. Illustrations making use of Google Earth imagery are acknowledged as required by Google Earth in the captions that accompany the figures. Illustrations making use of other copyrighted material are acknowledged with thanks as follows: Fig 1.9 Mendelsohn, Jarvis, Roberts & Robertson, 2002. Atlas of Namibia, page 42. David Philip Publishers, Cape Town. Fig 5.75a Dr Ralf Bousfield, Jack’s Camp. Makgadikgadi Pans, Botswana. Fig 5.75b Professor Francis Wenban-Smith, University of Southampton, UK.

240

INDEX Bold indicates main entries, italics indicates illustrated items

Acheulian 18, 19, 21, 22, 43, 45, 53, 55, 59, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70-74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 97, 109, 112, 114, 115-118, 124, 133, 136, 138, 147, 148, 149, 151-158, 159, 162-164, 166, 167, 171, 173, 174, 183, 186, 188, 189 - ability to choose typology freely, 152 - absence from the Plateau, 165 - date of, 174 - decline of, 153 - definition of, at Zebra River, 19 - evidence of symbolism in, 158 - handaxes compared to Elongated Core handaxes 144-148 - location of, at Zebra River, 3, 22, 54 - recognition of individual workmanship in, 159 - separate occupations during, 69, 108, 115, 125- 126, 134, 137, 151, 157 - stylistic variation 125-127, 137 See also Late Acheulian African shield 2, 7 African Surface, the, 7 Amanzi Springs, S Africa, 180 Angola 174 Animal activity 20, 123, 139, 140 Apollo 11 Cave 3, 16, 17, 18, 173, 174, 186 Art mobilier 17 Arabian peninsula 1, 167 Artefact burial 17, 31, 33, 40, 41, 84, 104, 105, 106, 110, 140 - clustering 10, 20, 21, 31, 59, 78, 89, 95, 110, 131, 139, 141, 142, 177-178, 180, 182, 188, 189 - colour 15-16, 19, 33, 34, 41, 58, 65, 67, 77, 80, 98, 109, 113, 123, 131, 184 - density in scatters 178 - movement see clast movement - sample sizes see Appendix 4 - types at Zebra River 3, 21 Aspect, affecting Edge Test results, 32 Average Rounding graphs 99-100 Baichal Valley, India, 189 Baker’s Hole, UK, 105 Berg Aukas, Miocene hominoid teeth at, 18 Biface, use of term, 19 Bioturbation, faunal, 140 - of the soil, 110 Bir Sahara, Ethiopia, 174 Blades & blade cores 3, 19, 33, 41, 43, 49, 51, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 78, 102, 103, 110, 112, 123, 124, 130, 170, 171, 172 - dating of, 171-172 - definition, 170-171 - retouch on, 172

Boëda’s Levallois Volumetric Concept 115, 145, 189 Bone Cave, Botswana, 12 Boxgrove, UK, 95, 153, 172 Bushmen, see Kung Butchery 31, 95, 102, 107, 108, 115, 136, 158, 169, 172, 178, 182 C14 dates 18, 174, 185 Carriers for artefacts 169, 179 Cave of Hearths, Makapansgat, 1, 139 Cave sites and rock shelters, at Zebra River, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 66, 67, 68, 80, 98, 99, 112, 113, 114, 121, 123, 124, 137, 174, 185, 189 Chaîne opératoire, in Levallois, 158, 167, 169 Choppers and chopper cores 17, 21, 30, 55, 92, 98, 159, 165, 169 Chronology see dating Clast movement 20, 122, 139, 141, 186, 189 Clast size 139 Cleavers 17, 41, 43, 53, 59, 83, 108, 109, 114, 115, 138, 152, 165, 167, 180, 183 Climate change 9, 12, 13, 17, 33, 96, 102, 137, 153, 228 Conflict, human, 96, 180 Containers, use of, 108 Convergent points & cores 17, 22, 23, 33, 62, 66, 68, 78, 83, 102, 120, 153, 159, 188 Core Area (Focal Area) of study at Zebra River 15, 16, 21 22, 35, 174 Cosmogenic Dating 7, 34, 174, 186 Cross-site comparisons 113 Curation 106, 108 Data recording 26, 27 Dating 3, 4, 18, 30, 33-34, 68, 137, 142, 173-177, 185, 186, 189, 228 - absolute, 2, 99, 114, 176 - cosmogenic, 34, 174 Debitage 19, 67, 95, 105, 106, 107, 110, 169, 172 Deflation see Surface enrichment Desert pavements 13, 34, 138, 142 Desert varnish 33, 34, 98, 99, 138, 222-229 Diagnostic, use of term, 19 Diet in the Palaeolithic 166, 172-173, 177, 178, 179, 189 Digging stick 180 Discoidal cores 21, 88, 136, 159 Division of labour, between male and female, 179 Drive and Search 1, 4, 57 Drotsky’s Cave, Botswana, 12 Eastern Sahara, late Acheulian in, 174 ECHs see Elongated core handaxes Edge Test 4, 40, 98, 99-104, 112-3, 123, 125, 127, 130131, 134, 142, 144, 149, 150, 152, 153, 155, 157, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 187, 188, 189, 211-218, 233 - as a means of dating artefacts, 3

241

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia

- definitions of the numerical results, 101 - digital program, 28-33, see also Appendix 6 - method of display, 99 - results see Appendix 2 Elongated core handaxes 19, 41, 44-47, 48, 49, 54, 58, 59, 69, 84, 91, 101, 102, 103, 107, 110, 124, 125, 134, 138, 144-151, 167, 188 Environmental change 95-96 Environmental influence on early humans 95-96, 137, 173, 180, 184 Equotip Hardness Tester 96 Erosion rates 7, 10 ESA/MSA overlap 108, 110, 121, 144, 153, 166, 167, 173, 175, 188 Excavations: Gail’s Cave 68 - KH6 136 - ND4 110 Exotic rocks 21, 22,185 Factory site (Ou Kamkas 1) 49 Fauresmith industry 18, 153 Ficron cleavers 1, 3, 69, 87, 155-158, 168 Fieldwalking 3, 25 Fish River 9, 17, 186 - Acheulian presence at, 59 Fish River geological subgroup 9, 10, 21, 22, 57-59, 98 Flake-based technology 153 Flakes 3, 11, 19, 20, 22, 30, 92, 100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 110, 113, 124, 129, 152, 158, 182, 185, 188, 189 - as evidence of occupation continuity, 173 - as tools, 107, 172 - retouch on, 41, 107, 172 - small, 110 - see also Levallois flakes Flash flooding 13, 91, 128, 130 Flip Test for artefact symmetry 34 Florisbad, S.Africa, 174, 180 Fluvial damage 10, 11, 13, 31, 91, 104, 114 Focal Area of study at Zebra River, see Core Area Food sharing 178-179 Freeze-thaw and frost 140 Frost heave 20, 139, 140 Gondolin, S. Africa, 174 GPS, use of 25, 84, 188 Great Escarpment, African, 2, 3, 7, 23, 188 Grids 27, 40, 48, 51, 61, 65, 75, 76, 84, 92, 93, 105, 122, 128, 129, 210 Grid square techniques 26, 41 Group size 105, 179, 181 Hafting 167, 174 Hammerstones 122, 123 Handaxe roughouts see Rough Bifaces Handaxes see Acheulian, Ovate handaxes, Pointed handaxes Hard Hammer technique 134, 135, 147, 151, 152, 169 Hardness tests 3, 96, 97, 98 Home base see Living Space Howeison’s Poort industry 174, 188 Hunsgi valley, India 189 Hunter-gatherers 180

Hunting blinds 60, 184 Hybrid ESA/MSA artefacts 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 188 In situ artefacts 1, 2, 3, 20, 101, 139 Imitation tools see hybrid ESA/MSA artefacts Instinct, as an explanation for toolmaking traditions, 167168 Intellect in pre-sapiens humans 168 Inundation of artefacts by water 65, 92-93, 128-130 Isimila 19, 180 Kalahari Desert 16, 18, 173, 175 Kalambo Falls 148, 174 Kamkas River 48, 49, 57, 110 Kanteen Koppie, S. Africa, 153, 174 Kapthurin, Kenya, 166 Kariandusi, Kenya, 180 Kenya 1, 22, 60, 158, 166, 173, 177, 180 Kill sites 178, 182 Kokiselei 4, West Turkana, Kenya 174 Kombewa flakes 158 Koobi Fora 20, 95, 179 Kromdraai, S. Africa, 174 Kudu Koppie, S. Africa, 153 Kuibis and Schwarzrand Geological Subgroup 10, 57, 59 Kung (!Kung, San, Bushmen) peoples 4, 17, 20, 105, 179180 Landscape evolution of the Study Area 7 Language 20, 178, 182 Large Cutting Tools 19, 148, 152, 155, 169, 172, 178, 180 Late Acheulian 4, 59, 69, 126, 144, 151, 152, 158, 167, 174 Leeb hardness scale 98 Leisure time 165 Levallois 19, 35, 42. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 58, 62, 66, 69, 84, 89, 103, 110, 115, 119, 120, 124, 153, 159, 167173, 188 - cores with flat tops 59, 152, 158 - flaked flake, 115 - flakes, 22, 41, 48, 56, 102-104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 113, 115, 136, 166, 169, 172, 180 - points see Convergent points - purpose of cores an flakes, 169 - preferential method, 115 - retouched flakes, 166-167 - unstruck cores, 47, 48, 49, 59, 91, 102, 110, 131, 145, 147, 155, 169 - variants 159 - wide range of dates, 104 Limestone as raw material for artefacts 11, 21, 91, 92 Lithic resources 142 Living Space 20, 175, 177, 178, 180, 182 - as tool cache, 108 Local variants in stone tool typology 22, 23, 136, 158-159, 189 LSA summary 184 - at Gamis, 3, 59 - at Kyffhauser 3 and Zebra River 5, 123 - at Urikos 1, 92 - at Zebra River, 15, 80 - use of term, 20

242

Index Lupemban/Sangoan 114, 148, 149, 174, 188 Makapansgat, S. Africa, 139 Makgadikgadi Pans, Botswana, 12 Mandolin, nickname for artefact 100, ficron-cleaver 69, 73, 74, 125, 155, 158, 173 Mega-Kalahari, formation of, 13 Migration of early populations 95 Migration, human, 95, 183 Mineral chemistry 224 MIS Stage 4: 175 MIS Stages 4-2: 175 MIS Stage 5: 3, 12, 13, 173, 175 MIS Stage 6: 3, 12, 173, 175 MIS Stage 7: 12 MIS Stage 8: 153 Mobility, human, 179, 182 Modes, in lithic terminology, 19 Mount Carmel, Israel, 181 Mount Toba, Indonesia, 4, 173, 175 Mousterian of Acheulian tradition 166 Movement of surface material see clast movement Movius Line 167 Munsell colours 33 Nakop, Namibia, 169 Namib Sand Sea (Namib dunes) 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, 98, 137, 183, 184 Nara fruit 180, 182 Narob valley, Zebra River, 22, 59, 183, 184 Naukluft Mountains 6, 9, 13, 189 Neanderthals 166 Occupancy time 105, 107, 121, 174 Oldowan 3, 18, 21, 95, 173, 174 Olduvai, 20, 60, 95, 167, 179 Olorgesailie 19, 22, 60, 99, 108, 114, 138, 174, 175, 177, 180 Ostrich eggshell 68 Out of Africa concept 187 Ovate handaxes 17, 19, 70, 85, 114, 151, 152, 155, 167, 180 Palaeoclimate 138, 175 Palaeosols 137 Palimpsests 4, 20, 142 Patination 33, 99, 131, 132 see also artefact colour Pediments in the ZR landscape 8, 9, 10, 12, 75, 141 Point-to-point technique 25 Pointed handaxes 54, 64, 83, 114, 145, 151, 152, 174 Population density 179-180 - in ESA and MSA, 105 Population movement 95, 183 Pre-Acheulian at Zebra River. lack of, 19, 92 Precessional cycles 12 Predicting scatter locations 24 Prepared core technology see Levallois Production rates of stone tools 105 Quarrying for raw material 11, 91 Quartzitic sandstone 10, 21 - analysis of see Appendix 5 Quiver Tree site (ZR12) 94 Ralph’s Cave 80

Raw material analysis 33, see also Appendix 5 Raw material resources 142-143, 152, 177 - ubiquity at Zebra River 186 Refits 20, 78, 123, 184 Refugia, in Africa, 175 Relative Frequency graphs 101 Resharpening of artefacts 32, 106, 108 Retouch on artefacts 20, 31, 41, 83, 86, 107, 108, 109, 134, 136, 155, 166, 169, 172, 173, 185 - in Edge Test process, 31, 32 Re-use of tools 107, 108 Rieputs, S. Africa, 174 Rift Valley, African, 96 Ritual 168 River terraces 13, 24, 55, 61, 64, 91, 130 Rock varnish see Desert varnish Rooidam, S. Africa, 174 Rose Cottage Cave 16 Rough bifaces 19, 85, 125, 159, 160, 161 Rounding on artefacts 28, 30, 65, 97, 103, 114, 125, 128130, 132, 150, 151, 169 Runoff 3, 10, 20, 129, 141-142 Sahara 1, 2, 34, 167, 173, 190 Sample numbers 32 Sample traverse technique 25 San peoples see Kung Sand, wind- blown, 14, 33, 105, 137-138 Sangoan 114, 148, 149, 188 Satellite imagery 10, 11, 16, 24-25, 55, 56, 57, 81,88, 94, 102, 111, 121, 122, 127, 132, 136, 188 - Enhancement of, 3 - interpretation of, 24 Schöningen, Germany, 180 Scraper cores 159 Seacow Valley, S. Africa, 22, 179, 189 Shale bedrock 14, 25, 51, 54, 57, 58, 59, 89, 108 Sidestruck cores see Victoria West Sidi Abderrahman, Morocco, 174 Site occupation 175, 178 Sites in the Study Area (main references) - Gamis sites 59 - Glukhauf sites 57-58 - Harughas 1,3,& 4 49, 110 - Harughas 2 59 - Kabib sites 58 - Kambes sites 59-60 - Kamkas sites 57 - Karab sites 57 - Kyffhauser 1 & 2 91 - Kyffhauser 3 75, 110 - Kyffhauser 4 81, 131 - Kyffhauser 5 91 - Kyffhauser 6 84, 134 - Kyffhauser 7 88, 134 - Lahnstein sites 57 - Marion Reitz 1 57 - Mooi Rivier sites 60 - Neuras sites 88-89 - Nomtsas sites 58-59

243

New approaches to the study of surface Palaeolithic artefacts: a pilot project at Zebra River, Western Namibia - Nudaus 0 51 - Nudaus 1 54 - Nudaus 2 54 - Nudaus 3 54 - Nudaus 4 35, 101 - Nudaus 5 55 - Nudaus 6 55 - Nudaus 7 57 - Nudaus 8 41, 101 - Nudaus 9 57 - Ou Kamkas 2 57 - Ou Kamkas 1 48, 110 - Ouinos sites 59 - Spitskop Lake 60 - Urikos sites 91-93, 128 - Zebra River 1 62 - Zebra River 2 64, 128 - Zebra River 3 (Gail’s Cave) 68 - Zebra River 4 68, 124 - Zebra River 5 75, 110 - Zebra River 6 80 - Zebra River 7, 8 & 9 78 - Zebra River 10 78 - Zebra River 11 78 - Zebra River 12 94 - Zebra River 13 80 - Zebra River 14 80 - Zebra River 15 80 - Zebra River springs 7 - Types of, 178 Slope, role in clast transport, 34, 141-142 Slopes, role in artefact movement, 20, 24, 34, 49, 106, 110, 129, 130, 139, 140, 141 Soft hammer removal 41, 134, 147, 151, 152, 174 Soil cover at Zebra River 14, 106, 141 Soil, chemical processes in, 139 Spheroids 21, 148, 174 Springs, freshwater, 13, 22, 59, 78-80, 88, 91, 92, 138, 139, 182, 183 Staining see artefact colour Sterkfontein 18, 21, 174 Stillbay culture 114 Subaerial erosion 13, 28, 30, 32, 130 Surface analysis of artefacts 33, 98, see also Appendix 5 Surface enrichment 1, 11, 13, 14, 60, 102, 138, 140, 142 Surface scatters, alleged problems and advantages, 2 Swarktrans, S. Africa, 174 Symmetry in handaxes 34, 86, 98, 115, 145, 152, 158 Tabular raw material 54, 57, 59, 152, 165 - for Elongated Core handaxes 153 - for Levallois cores 115, 152, 158, 159 Taphonomic effects 139 Tracks, animal, 140 Transport of material goods in the Palaeolithic 102, 166, 178 See also carriers Tsamma melon 180, 182 Tsaris Mountains 6 Tsauchab River 7, 11, 91, 92, 128, 139, 183 Tsondab River 12

Tswaing Crater, S. Africa, 12 Tufa deposits 13, 78, 80, 189 Unclassifiable tools 165 Uplift, geological 2, 7-9, 11, 12, 128 Use wear on artefact edges 30, 53, 104, 115, 150, 151, 169, 188 Vaal River, S. Africa, 169 Variation within artefact types 158-159, 165 Vegetation of the Study Area 7 Vegetation cover, in the Palaeolithic, 138 Very large artefacts 84, 104, 141, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 169, 172 Victoria West technique 4, 18, 19, 23, 84, 135, 136, 153, 158, 159, 169-170, 188, 189 - cladistic modelling applied to, 169 Waterberg Plateau, artefacts from, 145 Weathering 3, 9, 20, 31-34, 48, 53, 99, 103-106,107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 134, 137, 138, 176, 219, 222 - abnormal, on artefacts, 30 - and rock hardness, 96, 98 - by wind-blown sand, 138 - in Edge Test process, 28, 30 - on buried artefacts, 110 - on hammerstones, 122 - through submersion, 101 Wendt collection of artefacts 185 Wendt’s Cave, Zebra River 11, 18, 19, 22, 68, 114, 137, 173, 174, 185 Wind 13, 32, 33, 104, 105, 110, 137, 138 Wind polish see Desert varnish Wonderwerk Cave 21, 174, 175 Wooden tools 177, 180

244