South African Archaeological Society

A Unified Lithic Taxonomy Based on Patterns of Core Reduction Author(s): Nicholas J. Conard, Marie Soressi, John E. Parkington, Sarah Wurz and Royden Yates Reviewed work(s): Source: The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 59, No. 179 (Jun., 2004), pp. 12-16 Published by: South African Archaeological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3889318 . Accessed: 11/03/2013 18:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:15:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12

South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004

A UNIFIED LITHIC TAXONOMY BASED ON PATTERNS OF CORE REDUCTION

NICHOLAS J. CONARD1, MARIE SORESSI2, JOHN E. PARKINGTON3, SARAH WURZ4 & ROYDEN YATES'
'InstitutfAr Ur- und Frihgeschichte undArchdologie des Mittelalters,AbteilungAitere Urgeschichteund Quartdrdkologie, Tabingen,Germany.Email: nicholas.conard@uni-tuebingen.de. 2Institutde Prehistoire et de Geologie du Quaternaire,
UniversitWde Bordeaux 1, Talence, France. 3 Dept of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa. 'Dept of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa. 5 Division of Social History, Iziko Museums of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

(Received October2003. Accepted November 2003.)

have begun to realize that the language and interpretative concepts used by southernAfricanand continentalEuropean Theauthorsand threestudentsmetfor workshopson several researchersare nearly mutually unintelligible. To address occasions in Cape Townand Stellenbosch with the goal of these problems, the authorsand three students participated defining a taxonomicsystemfor chippedstone artefacts that in a series of workshops on lithic technology held at Iziko can be applied to materialsfrom the Early,Middleand Later Museums of Cape Town, Stellenbosch University and the Stone Age. The motivation for defining a 'unifiedtaxonomy' Universityof Cape Town. stemsfrom the need to develop a systemfor classifying multicomponent surface assemblages. The proposed taxonomy Taxonomy is only one of the methodological tools that of lithic to achieve a refinedunderstanding revises southern African systems by applying ideas and allow researchers methods from European approaches to lithic technology. technology. Classifying lithic artefacts does not constitute Given that much confusion exists on the classification of an end in itself, it should be seen as one step in the overall cores and core reduction, the lithic workshopsfocused on analysis of lithic artefacts in relation to patternsof human this class of artefact. Most of the variation encountered behaviour.A complete analysis should establish where and when examiningmaterialfrom Anyskop,Blombos, Geelbek, in what archaeological context the entire lithic reduction of raw materialto the discard Hollow Rock Shelter and Klasies River Mouth could be sequencefromthe procurement placed within the taxa of Inclined, Parallel and Platform of all classes of artefactstook place. Lithic analysis should between blanks cores. These categories form the basis of the proposed addressthe productionof and discrimination taxonomywith the additionaltaxa of Initial, Multidirectional, as well as the manufacture,use, maintenanceand discard IndeterminateBroken, Bipolar and Other being necessary of retouched forms. A taxonomy for cores and methods of for a small proportionof the cores thatfall outside the range knapping,as presentedhere, reflects only a small partof the of the threemain taxa. Blind tests using assemblages of cores potentialuniverseof lithic analyses. from Blombos, Geelbek and Anyskopyielded a satisfactory and lend credibilityto theproposed degree of reproducibility Platform Inclined A/B taxonomy.Thispaper also considers other key variables of cores including: the morphologyof end products, degree of reduction, numbers of striking and removal surfaces, and degree ofplatformpreparation. A/B

ABSTRACT

Keywords:Lithic artefacts,lithic technology,classification.

Parallel

Introduction
In recent decades there has been a divergence of research traditions in lithic analysis between Europe and southern Africa. In continentalEurope,buildingon the work of LeroiGourhan(1943), Tixier (1978) and others, many advances have been made to improve our understanding of the Africa, principlesof lithic technology.Meanwhilein southern Africa as a whole, studies of lithic and perhapssub-Saharan technology have not kept pace. In the context of joint South African, French and German research programs,this trend had become increasinglyevident so that we have reacheda point where Europeanresearcherscan scarcely understand the work of southern Africancolleagues and vice versa. Wurz (2002) has discussed this issue in her work at Klasies River Mouth but many colleagues familiar with these questions

Angle of removals
'

relative to the plane of intersection

defined

by the surfaces

Main removals

on a "platform core"

A: platform surface

B:debitagesurface

Figure 1. Generalized representationsof the three main core types, a) Inclined, b) Parallel,c) Platform.(a and b modified after Boeda 1993a and Soressi 2002). Existingsystemsof classificationused in SouthAfrica(Singer & Wymer 1982, Volman 1981, Deacon 1982, Thackeray& Kelly 1988) are often typologically oriented and rarely aim

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:15:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

South AfricanArchaeologicalBulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004

13

at addressingreductionsequences. Thus there is a need for a new taxonomic system based on fundamental principlesof lithic reduction.Ideally, such a system could be applied to chippedstone artefactsof all ages. Here it is worthreiterating Brew's (1946) observationsthatthere are no perfect or ideal taxonomies in archaeological systems, and that the field has more often suffered from having too few rather than too many taxonomies.As new knowledge accumulatesand new problems are defined, new taxonomieswill be needed. While all new systems should be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism, one shouldnot resist attemptsto develop new approaches.Taxonomicsystems that do not prove to be useful can and should be discarded.Conversely,to a certain extent,the existence of multiplemutuallyintelligiblesystems presents no significant problems to researchers and can enricharchaeologicaldiscourse.

systems for different regions and periods. Viewed from an internationalpoint of reference, the situation in southern Africa presentsa numberof challenges and opportunities. In view of the fact thatthereare relativelyfew lithic analystsin southernAfrica and that a broad consensus exists about the need to improve the existing systems, the southernAfrican record provides the opportunityto test whether or not a unified taxonomyfor the Early,Middle and LaterStone Age (ESA, MSA and LSA respectively)can be achieved. This is an ambitiousgoal but, given the current situation,one worthy of our efforts.

In some cases pragmaticconcerns necessitate the use of a unified taxonomy.This is the case in the Tiibingenresearch projects in the deflation hollows of the Geelbek Dunes and the Anyskop Blowout near Langebaanweg. In these settings it is not possible to determine a priori whether A centralissue addressed by the participants in the workshops artefacts date to the ESA, MSA or LSA. (Conard et al. is the possibility of establishinga unified taxonomy for the 1999; Conard2002). In the formercase, finds from roughly entire Stone Age. Attempts to achieve this goal have been the last 250 ka and, in the latter case, finds from the last largely unsuccessful in otherpartsof the Old Worldbecause roughly 500 ka have been concentrated on surfaces as a long traditions of lithic analysis have created entrenched result of deflation. Table 1. Main characteristics of core reductionin the Inclined,Paralleland Platformsystems.

Characteristic Position of main removal surface(s) Geometry& numberof faces Angle of removalsrelativeto the plane of intersectiondefined by the surfaces Removal angle relativeto the strikingplatform Orientation of removalson the main removal surface(s) Origin of removals

Inclined Broad surface Volumedefinedby two surfaces Roughly450 Not applicable Convergetowardthe centre of the removal surface(s)

Parallel Broadsurface Volumedefined by two surfaces Less than300 Not applicable Multiplepossibilities

Platform Usually not on a broadsurface Volumedefined by more thantwo surfaces Not applicable Greaterthan45? Parallel Main removalsfrom well defined striking platform(s)

All removalsoriginatefrom All removalsoriginatefrom the circumference definedby the circumferencedefined by the intersectionof the two surfaces the intersectionof the two surfaces

The lithic workshops summarized here evolved out of theoretical and practical considerations. At the FrenchSouth African meeting 'From Tools to Symbols' in March, 2003 in Johannesburg,NJC, MS and SW discussed the difficulties Europeanand SouthAfrican lithic analysts have communicatingwith each other and the need to incorporate some of the advances in Europeanresearchwithin southern African research programs. Thus, in principal, agreement could quickly be reached on the need to develop and formalizea new taxonomicsystem.Followingthepreliminary discussionsin Johannesburg, conversationswith JEPand RY reinforcedthe need to addressthese problemsdirectly.In this context, meetings were arrangedin March and April 2003 to examine lithic artefacts from Anyskop (Conard 2002), Blombos (Henshilwood et al. 2001), Geelbek (Conard et al. 1999), Hollow Rock Shelter (Evans 1993) and Klasies River Mouth (Singer & Wymer 1982; Wurz 2002). These discussions led NJC and MS to draft an outline of a taxonomic system based on principles used in French and German technological studies (e.g. Bodda et al. 1990; Bodda 1993a, 1995a, 1995b; Pelegrin 1995; Pigeot 1991; Hahn 1991). The authors subsequentlymodified this draft

to clarify the definitions and criteriafor classification. The lithic workshopscan be seen as an attemptto revitalizethose of the 1970s and 1980s that were used to improvean earlier generationof taxonomicsystems in SouthAfrica. The taxonomic system presentedhere is in an experimental stage and can be modified as needed. Given that existing systemsforclassifyingdebitageandtoolsareless controversial, the workshops focused on the problems associated with classifying methods of lithic reductionand cores. Based on observations to date, it seems that most variation in core reductioncan be classified within the general categories of Inclined,Paralleland Platform,as presentedin Figure 1 and Table l.

Taxonomy of cores based on methods of reduction

In the context of the current study, cores are defined as deliberatelyknappedlithic artefactsfrom which potentially useful flakes have been removed.Following southern African conventions cores preserve negatives from three or more removals(Deacon 1982).

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:15:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

14

South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004

In many cases the cores studied allowed an unambiguous placementwithin one of the categories of Inclined, Parallel and Platform. In fact, we were surprised to observe that regardless of the age of the cores in question, the system of classification worked well. Of course, not every core could be classified within one of the three main taxa so additional categories were defined to reflect the variation observed outside the main categories. These taxa include Initial, Multidirectional,Bipolar, Indeterminate Broken and Other. Interestingly, with the exception of a single core from Anyskop, the taxon Other was never employed. This indicatesthatthe unified taxonomy is appropriate for a broad range of assemblages. It should, however, be stressed that cores change as they are reduced so that it is possible for cores to reflect different patterns of reduction at different stages of knapping.Usually only the laterstages of reduction are recognizable when one is examining a core. Equally important is the observationthatthereis continuousvariation between the three main patternsof reduction.Thus it is not surprisingthat some cores are difficult to classify because they fall within the 'grey zone' between the main types. For these reasonsit is unrealisticto expect differentlithic experts to provide exactly the same results when classifying a group of cores. Despite the many potential problems associated with developing a new system of classification, our tests show comparablygood results on cores from the LSA, MSA and ESA. More work is needed to test whetherthis unified taxonomy is applicableto all lithic assemblages in southern Africa and perhapsin otherregions. While the three main taxa include a wide range of variation it is helpful to emphasize that the proposed taxonomy is consistent with some existing terminology. For example, Inclined cores include the general class of discoid cores as presented by Boeda (1993b, 1995a) and discussed by Peresani and colleagues (Peresani 2003). Levallois cores with all their variants (Bordes 1961, 1981; Boeda 1993a; Van Peer 1992; Hahn 1991) fall within the taxon Parallel, and a variety of cores of Upper Paleolithic and LSA types fall within the category of Platformcores (Hahn 1988, 1991; Pelegrin 1995). Finally it should be emphasizedthatthe taxa describedbelow representa high-level classificationand that within the main groups of Inclined, Parallel and Platform many subclasses exist and can be recognized using the key variablesdiscussed at the end of the paper. The principalfeaturesof the categoriesdefined in the unified taxonomy are summarizedin Fig. 1 and Table 1. Initial cores have a small number of removals, usually five or fewer, that are not organized within a system of reduction. This category includes tested pieces and often reflects the initial stages of knappingin which much of the original volume of the piece is still intact. Slightly modified could fall into this category. manuports Inclined cores have two surfaces with removals inclined relativeto the planedefinedby the intersection of the surfaces. Eitheror both surfaces may be used for the main removals. The removals have an angle of roughly 450 relative to the plane of intersection. All significantremovalsoriginatefrom the intersectionof the two surfaces. These cores are often

knapped along much of the circumference, and removals usually converge towardthe middle of the removal surface. These cores may be conical or biconical but do not need to be bifacial or worked along the entire perimeter.Discoid cores (sensu Boeda, 1995a) fall within this group (Fig. 2).

5 cm

Figure 2. Examples of Inclined cores from Geelbek. Figue 2.0 688, 2) HO 313. Drawingsby SusanneFeine. 1) EQ

5 cm

Figure 3. Examples of Parallel cores from Geelbek. 1) HO 1159, 2) ST 693, 3) HO 1806, 4) HO 1782. Drawingsby SusanneFeine.

F,

7~~7/

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6d0

<=>

5 cm

Figure 4. Examples of Platform cores from Geelbek. 1) SN 1363, 2) LO 2123, 3) SH 3411, 4) LO 101, 5) ST 373, 6) HO 1578. Drawingsby SusanneFeine. Parallel cores have two surfaceswhose mainremovalsurface must includeone or moremajorremovalsparallelto the plane that intersects the two surfaces. The main removal surface is on a broad surface of the core and usually includes three or more removals. These cores are usually asymmetricalin cross-sectionwith a slightly convex mainremovalsurfaceand

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:15:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

South AfricanArchaeologicalBulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004

15

a more inclined'underside.'Allsignificantremovalsoriginate from the intersectionof the two surfaces.While preparation of the 'underside'of the core is common, it is not necessary. The 'underside' may even be fully cortical.The core does not need to be worked along its entireperimeter. Levallois cores fall within this taxonomic group. Levallois cores that have been fully prepared, but fromwhich the mainremoval(s)have not been struck(Vollkerne), are included(Fig. 3). Platform cores have more thantwo faces andarenot defined by the plane of intersectionof two surfaces as in the above two approaches.Removals do not need to be on the broad surfaceof the core and are often on narrowsurfaces.One or, more well-organizedand well-developed strikingplatforms with three or more contiguous, successful removals from the correspondingknappingsurfaces must be recognizable. Reduction often proceeds around the edge of the striking platformbut this mustnot be circulating.Double andmultiple platforms are possible and end products may be flakes or
blades. The removal angles are steeper than 450 and often close to 900. The strikingplatformstypically show persistent

Geelbek reflect multiple periods within the MSA and LSA, and the cores from Anyskop include finds belonging to the et al. 1999;Conard2002). Acheulean,MSA andLSA (Conard The samples of cores used in the tests were not selected to facilitate reproducibilityand contain many pieces that are difficult to classify. Researcherswho wish to examine these assemblages,which to a certainextent now form a reference collection, may contactRY at Iziko Museums in Cape Town where the assemblagesare housed. With each test the agreementimproved as the participants developeda betterunderstanding of the principlesguidingthe classificationand the specific criteriaused in the taxonomy. Following instruction and practice, both experienced professionalsand advancedstudentscan use the system with comparableresults. Since the methods of reduction and proposed taxa do not represent discrete categories but, instead, continuous variationaroundthe modes defined by the three main taxa, complete agreement will never be achieved in classifying cores using this system. This problemis by no means unique to the unifiedtaxonomy.Ourresultssuggest thatexperienced analysts can reach agreement in 70-90% of the cases. Interpretiveerrors and misreadingswill always occur, and a 'grey zone' will always exist on the bordersbetween the methodsof knappingreflectedin the taxonomy. Table 2. Other key variables for lithic reduction and the classificationof cores. * for Platformcores only
Variable Morphologyof end products Degree of reduction Degree of knapping along circumference No. of strikingplatforms & removal surfaces* Degree of platform preparation Natureof variation Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous/discrete Continuous/discrete Characterization Flakes, points, blades, bladelets Initialto exhausted 0-3600 Integer Cortical,plain, faceted, etc.

use and may be cortical,plain or prepared(Fig. 4). Multidirectional cores have removals from three or more surfaces without well-developed striking platforms or removal surfaces. They are often polyhedral in form. The degree of reductionis highly variable. Bipolar cores documentreductionusing a hammerand an anvil. This method is particularlycommon for knapping quartz. Indeterminate Broken cores cannot be classified because they are broken and lack adequate morphological traits. They maintainenough evidence of removalsto be classified as cores rather than angular debris, Initial cores or other categories. Other cores of diverse forms thatcannotbe placed in one of the categoriesabove. Cores with an organizedsystem of reductionthat have been subsequentlyknappedin a non-systematicmannershouldbe classified on the basis of the originalmore systematicmethod of reduction.The overall morphologyof a core can be used as a criterion if the more explicitly defined characteristics are not sufficient to classify the piece. The nature of the assemblageunderstudy may also influencehow cores in the 'grey zone' are classified.

Other key variables

If the reader accepts that the elements of the unified taxonomy presented above are useful, it is reasonable to considerwhat key variablesneed to be consideredin a more detailed study of cores and reduction sequences (Table 2). The relevant parameterscomprise continuous and discrete variables,includingthe following: A) Morphologyof the end products,typically flakes, points, blades and bladelets;

Blind tests

After establishing the main elements of the taxonomy presentedabove,anddiscussingthemin connectionwith cores B) Degree of reductionalong a spectrum between Initialand fromAnyskop,Blombos, Geelbek,Hollow Rock Shelter,and exhaustedcores; Klasies RiverMouth,the authorsandthreeadvancedstudents conducteda series of blind tests to determinehow practical C) Degree to which knapping has occurred along the circumference of the plane of intersectionof Inclinedand and reproduciblethe proposed system is. Each of the three Parallel cores and along the intersection of the striking assemblagesused in the tests was classified independently by platform and reduction surface of Platform cores, a all eight participantsin the study.These includeda series of continuous variable ranging between 0? and 360?; 36 cores from Blombos unit CIY 35 cores from five localities at Geelbek and 34 cores from the Anyskop Blowout. The D) Number of striking platforms and removal surfaces, cores fromBlombos arefrom a stratigraphically well-defined which can be describedby integervalues and applies to MSA assemblage(Henshilwoodet al. 2001). The cores from Platformcores;

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:15:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

16

SouthAfricanArchaeologicalBulletin 59 (179): 12-16, 2004

E) Degree of platform preparation,which ranges from cortical to plain to various faceted forms, and can be examinedon cores and debitage.

Conclusion
This proposed unified taxonomy is a first step toward integratingEuropean and southernAfrican approachesto lithic analysis. In the coming years we hope to extend the dialogueon the questionsaddressedhere andto move toward refiningand expandingthe system to includeotherclasses of knappedartefacts.

Acknowledgements
HolgerDietl andAndrew thankNikkiBerrington, Theauthors Kandel for participatingin the blind tests. We thank Tom Minichillo and Curtis Marean for helpful discussions and access to the lithic artefactsduringa visit to the excavations at Mossel Bay. Nicholas Conard and Marie Soressi thank Iziko Museums of Cape Town for providing laboratory space for the Anyskop, Blombos and Geelbek projects and facilities for conducting the lithic workshops. We thank Angela Close and Janette Deacon for helpful comments. Marie Soressi is grateful to ChristopherHenshilwood for encouragingher to study lithic assemblages from Blombos for financial Foundations andto the FyssenandWenner-Gren support.This work has been fundedin partby the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

References
Boeda, E. 1993a. Le concept Levallois: variabilite' des methodes. Monographies du CRA 9. Paris: CNRS. Boeda, E. 1993b. Le debitage discoide et le debitage Levallois recurrent centripete. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 90: 392-404. Boeda, E. 1995a. Caracte'ristiquestechniques des chanes operatoires lithiques des niveaux micoquiens de Kulna (Tchecoslovaquie). In: Les industries 'apointes foliacees d'Europe centrale, Actes du colloque : Les premieres decouvertes de Paleolithique a Miskolc et la question des industries a pieces foliacees de l'Europe centrale dans leur cadre chronologique, paleo6cologique, paleontologique, Miskolc (Hongrie), 10-15 septembre 1991, Paleo, suppl. 1: 57-72. Boeda, E. 1995b. Levallois: A volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In: Dibble, H.L. & Bar-Yosef, 0. (eds). The definition and interpretation of Levallois technology. Monographs in World Archaeology 23: 41-68. Boeda, E., Geneste, J.-M., & Meignen, L. 1990. Identification de chaines operatoires lithiques du Paleolithique ancien et moyen. Paleo 2: 43-80. Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Publications de l'Institut de Prehistoire de l'Universite de Bordeaux, Mem. 1. Bordes, F. 1981. Vingt-cinq ans apres: Le complexe moust6rien
* I

revisite. Bulletin de la Societ6 Prehistorique Francaise 78: 77-87. Brew, J. 0. 1946. The use and abuse of taxonomy. In: The archaeology of Alkali Ridge Utah. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 21: 44-66. Conard, N. J. 2002. Steinzeitforschung in den Geelbek-Dilnen. Archlologie in Deutschland 6: 10-15 Conard, N. J., Prindiville T. J., & Kandel, A. W. 1999. The 1998 fieldwork on the Stone Age archaeology and paleoecology of the Geelbek Dunes, West Coast National Park, South Africa. Southern African Field Archaeology 8: 35-45. Deacon, J. 1982. The Later Stone Age in the Southern Cape, South Africa. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Cape Town. Evans, U. 1993. Hollow Rock Shelter (or Sevilla 48): Lithic analysis a small but significant contribution to future MSA studies. Unpublished B.A. Hons thesis: University of Cape Town. Hahn, J. 1988. Geilenkldsterle I. Stuttgart: Theiss Verlag. Hahn, J. 1991. Erkennen und Bestimmen von Stein und Knochenartefakte: Einffihrung in die Artefaktmorphologie. Tubingen: Archaeolgia Venatoria. Henshilwood, C. S., Sealy, J., Yates, R., Cruz-Uribe, K., Goldberg, P., Grine, F., Klein, R. G., Poggenpoel, C., van Niekerk, K., & Watts, I. 2001. Blombos Cave, Southern Cape, South Africa: preliminary report on the 1992-1999 excavations of the Middle Stone Age levels. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 421-448. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943. Evolution et Techniques I. L'homme et la matiere. Paris: Ed. Albin Michel. Pelegrin, J. 1995. Technologie Lithique: Le Chdtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de la Cote (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quatemaire 20. Peresani, M. 2003. Discoid lithic technology. Advances and implications. Edited volume. BAR International Series 1120. Pigeot, N. 1991. Rdflexions sur l'histoire technique de l'homme: de l'evolution cognitive a l'evolution culturelle. Paleo 3: 167-200. Singer, R. & Wymer, J. 1982. The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in Southern Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Soressi, M. 2002. Le Mousterien de tradition acheuleenne du sud-ouest de la France. Discussion sur la signification du faci&s a partir de l'6etude comparee de quatre sites: Pech-de-l'Aze I, Le Moustier, La Rochette et la Grotte XVI. Doctoral thesis: Universite de Bordeaux I. Thackeray, AlI. & Kelly, A.J. 1988. A technological and typological analysis of Middle Stone Age assemblages antecedent to the Howiesons Poort at Klasies River main site. South African Archaeological Bulletin 43: 15-26. Tixier, J. 1978. Methode pour l'etude des outillages lithiques. Doctoral thesis: Universite de Paris X. Van Peer, P. 1992. The Levallois reduction strategy. Monographs in World Archaeology 13. Volman, T. 1981. The Middle Stone Age in the Southern Cape. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Chicago. Wurz, S. 2002. Variability in the Middle Stone Age lithic sequence, 115,000-60,000 years ago at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 1001-1015.

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:15:20 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions