Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64 000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64 000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Introduction The use of the bow and arrow has been interpreted as an importantinnovation associated with complex human behaviour during the AfricanMiddle-Late Pleistocene period (Sisk & Shea 2009). Hunting with abow and arrow requires intricate multi-staged planning, materialcollection and tool preparation and implies a range of innovative socialand communication skills. The use of bow and arrow technology hasfar-reaching implications for the reconstruction of the social,technological and cognitive complexity of its makers. Thus, hypotheses about the very early use of this technology needto be underpinned by robust, contextualised arguments. Why stone-tipped weapons? It has been suggested that the earliest small stone points andbacked lithics could indicate early projectile (mechanically projected)hunting technologies (McBrearty & Brooks 2000), but this notionremains to be tested. Stone-tipped weapons may be hand-propelled (as aspear) or mechanically projected (as an arrow). In both cases, the stonetip is attached, or halted, to a shaft or link-shaft made from organicmaterials such as wood, reed or bone. In East Africa, stone points mayhave been hafted from roughly 285 000 years ago (McBrearty & Tryon2006). Southern Africa has an almost continuous proven record of theemployment of stone-tipped hunting weapons during the past 100 000 years(Milo 1998; L. Phillipson 2007; Lombard & Clark 2008). The efficacyof stone-tipped hunting weapons has been demonstrated during replication(the latest being Pargeter 2007; Sisk & Shea 2009; Waguespack eta/.2009; Yaroshevich eta/. 2010), and is prominent in the ethnographicrecord (Rudner 1979; Ellis 1997). Compared to their organiccounterparts, stone-tipped weapons cut through tougher hides, penetratemore deeply and create larger bleeding wounds that kill or immobilisethe quarry more rapidly or aid the tracking of injured game(Friis-Hansen 1990). When used to tip weapons, stone is notoriouslybrittle. This characteristic is sometimes considered desirable becausefragments lodged in the prey increase blood loss by enlarging wounds andpreventing their closure (Rudner 1979; Ellis 1997) (Figure 1). Whereweapon tips with cutting edges were required, stone points or insetsprovided the answer. By about 45 000 years ago, Neanderthals andanatomically modern humans in the Levant probably used complexstone-tipped weapon systems. This suggests that their last commonancestors did likewise, and that the competency to do so developed firstin Africa, earlier than 45 000 years ago (Shea 1993, 2006). It remainsuncertain when stone-tipped projectile technology was first introducedinto the arsenal. Size and shape as evidence for projectile use Increasingly, morphometric studies on African Pleistocene stonepoints are used to imply aspects of function by comparing them withNorth American ethnographic and experimental specimens. A decrease inthe size and weight of stone points has been interpreted to indicate theonset of projectile technology by about 100 000 years ago (Brooks eta/.2006). In contrast, TCSA (tip cross sectional area) values do notsupport the widespread use of mechanically projected weaponry earlierthan 50 000 years ago (Shea 2006). A study of points from Rose CottageCave, South Africa (Figure 2), suggests that people there usedprojectile technology by around 30 000 years ago (Mohapi 2007). Thedimensions of some early African stone points coincide with those ofethnographic/experimental examples of darts or arrows (Shea 2006).Morphometric analysis can assess the potential of artefact classes tofunction as projectile tips in quantitative terms (Sisk & Shea2009), but there exists an interpretative shortfall in the method. Itmust be recognised that not all pointed stone artefacts measured duringsuch analysis were used as, or intended for, weapon tips (L. Phillipson1997, 2009). The method is thus unable to test the probability thatparticular artefacts were employed as projectiles. Morphometric analysiscan be considered a useful first step to assess the likely presence ofprojectile weaponry, but should be followed by use-trace, contextual andother lines of evidential analysis (Sisk & Shea 2009; and seebelow). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Even when the identity of stone weapon tips is confirmed, they mayindicate uses in weapons other than arrows. These include the productionof composite spears with multiple stone insets along the shaft, creatingelongated cutting edges (Lombard & Parsons 2008), and spearheads ofsmall, fragile points designed to break in the animals and cause cuttingwounds. This potential has been demonstrated for small hafted pointsused as thrusting and throwing spears (Lombard et al. 2004; Figure 1),and backed pieces that could have been used either as spears or arrows(Pargeter 2007). Thus, the presence of small points in thearchaeological record does not automatically indicate projectiletechnology. Stone points may not have been made or intended specifically forhand-delivered or projectile application (Mohapi 2007; Lombard &Clark 2008; Lombard & Pargeter 2008). Once projectile technologybecame an option, there is no reason to believe that it was always used.Many stone tool shapes and sizes can be successfully employed either inarrows or spears. Hunter-gatherer groups in Africa are known to use avariety of weapon systems including bows and arrows, spears, clubs, netsand snares. Their weapon of choice is influenced by season, prey type orgroup preference (Lombard & Clark 2008). In Venezuela, arrows areused with bows to hunt terrestrial game birds, but the same arrows areused as hand-held spears to kill lizards and rabbits (Greaves 1997).Although recent ethnography cannot be imposed on Pleistocene humanbehaviour, these examples show that broad generalisations, based onsize, can obscure variability and change in hunting technologies. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Use-traces on stone tools Functional analyses of more than 1000 Late Pleistocene stoneartefacts from Southern Africa have established the use of stone-tippedhunting technologies as far back as 100 000 years ago (Lombard 2007a; L.Phillipson 2007; Lombard & Clark 2008). It has also revealedcomplexity and variation in hafting configurations, materials andadhesives (Lombard 200% 2007b, 2008), the knowledge of which contributesto our understanding of hunting behaviour and cognitive complexity(Lombard 2009; Wadley et al. 2009). However, since most attributes suchas micro-residue distribution patterns and micro-wear will developsimilarly on points used to tip spears, darts or arrows, it can bedifficult to provide unambiguous evidence for the projectile delivery ofstone points. Such microscopic features as Wallner lines and fracture wings,which can indicate fracture velocity in brittle solids, may in someinstances provide a means of determining mode of delivery (Hutchings1999). Application of this method is, however, limited to the finestgrained rocks, such as obsidian, chalcedony, flint and jasper, whichwere seldom used to manufacture points during the African Pleistocene.The detailed study of macro-fracture patterns seems more promising(Fischer et al. 1984; L. Phillipson 2007; Lombard & Pargeter 2008;Villa et al. 2010; Yaroshevich et al. 2010), but many more experimentsand studies are needed before such methods can reliably distinguishbetween hand-delivered and mechanically projected weaponry. As withmorphometrics, interpretations derived from micro- and macro-fractureanalyses are not problem-free and should be substantiated with furtherevidence from micro-residue and micro-wear analyses (Lombard 2005b). We suggest that the recording of use-traces on geometric artefacts,other than points, has good interpretative potential for distinguishingbetween pieces used as arrowheads and those used as spear insets. Thispotential is due to the possibility of identifying the direction ofimpact and artefact application based on patterning in macro-fracture,micro-wear and micro-residue accrual relative to the sizes and shapes ofthe geometric forms. Contextual considerations Projectors (bows or spear throwers) made from wood or bone are notoften preserved, but there may be contextual information alluding totheir presence. A fundamental principle implied by the use of bows isthe indirect transmission of stored energy, thus the production of bowsnecessitates the choice of strong, flexible wood types (Bergman 1993).Spring-traps (snares) necessitate an understanding of how to use theenergy stored in bent branches (Wadley 2010) (Figure 3). The productionof cords with relatively high tensile strength is required for bothtechnologies, as is the use of formal knots. Fishing with a line andhook or harpoon also requires long strings with high tensile strengthand reliable knots. Another critical innovation was the concurrent useof two separate tools, each useless without the other, to achieve asingle purpose. The use of a bow drill for fire production or forpiercing resistant materials may be an archaeologically visibleprecursor or concomitant to the bow and arrow. Evidence for bow drillswould be the presence of drilled holes in hard materials such as stone,shell or bone. While fire sticks and hard tipped drills can be manuallytwisted, the use of a bow drill frees one hand to apply vertical forceto facilitate drilling resistant materials. The effective range from which hunters can expect to make a kill isquite similar: about 8-18m for a thrown spear, and about 9-25m for atraditional bow and arrow (Friis-Hansen 1990; Churchill 1993; Hughes1998; Yu 2006). This suggests that the initial advantage of an arrowover a spear may not have been its range, but its compact, portablenature facilitating multiple shots. The system is ideal for followingprey over long distances and through heavily vegetated terrain. It isconsidered a niche-broadening technology as it decreases risksassociated with large, dangerous game and increases returns on huntingsmaller, fast moving terrestrial species, birds and fish (Sisk &Shea 2009). The inception of projectile weaponry is thus expected to becorrelated with shifts in the archaeozoological record (Churchill 1993).In Europe, Japan, North America, and Southern and Central Africa, bowand arrow technology sometimes seems to have accompanied or followedclimatic changes which resulted in heavier vegetation cover (D.W.Phillipson 1976; Barham 2000; Yu 2006; Mercader 2008). [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] A definite prerequisite for hunting with stone-tipped arrows ishafting. We would therefore expect to find evidence for well-developedhafting technologies alongside stone tools considered for thisapplication. Fletching is sometimes considered a requirement, andpotential line of evidence, for bow hunting with stone-tipped arrows(Hughes 1998). An independent study, however, demonstrates thatfletching is not essential for effective hunting with traditionalAfrican bows. Ju/'hoansi hunters immobilise lions and leopards inNamibia using unfletched arrows. In a test for reliability using theirusual lightweight bows (approximately 1 m long, <200g) andtraditional unfletched arrow shafts (hollow grass lengths ofapproximately 0.4m, around 3.3g) tipped with commercial drug dartsyringes, an accuracy of less than 0.25m from the centre of target wasachieved at ranges of up to 30m (Stander et al. 1996). The above does not represent an exhaustive study of the contextualevidence and precursor and concomitant technologies to the bow andarrow. However, the discussion so far allows us to draw up a preliminarycheck-list for detecting the use of bows and stone-tipped arrows in thearchaeological record: * long, strong cords * formal knots * use of the latent energy in flexed wood * fishing and fowling * snares * bow drills * formal hafting technology * broad-based, varied game procurement * changes in faunal assemblages * changes in climate and vegetation No one attribute of those listed above can be used to indicateearly bow and arrow technology, but when associated with morphometric,use-trace and other contextual evidence they can help constructincreasingly resilient hypotheses for bow and arrow use during the LatePleistocene. Bow and arrow technology of 64 000 years ago Many of the clues suggested in the list above converge in supportof the existence of complex weapon systems during the Howiesons Poortphase in Southern Africa about 59 000 to 65 000 years ago (Lombard2009). Most of the evidence originates from Sibudu Cave, a site locatedon a cliff above the Tongati River in KwaZulu-Natal, 15km from theIndian Ocean and just over 100m asl (Wadley 2008). Morphometricdimensions of all 79 stone segments from the Howiesons Poort layers fitwithin the hypothetical range of arrowheads (Wadley & Mohapi 2008).When length replaces breadth in the calculation, assuming transversehafting of the lithics, quartz segments still fall within thehypothetical range of arrowheads, but those made of hornfels fall withinthe range of darts and dolerite segments fall within the range ofexperimental spears (Wadley & Mohapi 2008). Thus, even when erringon the side of caution, the small quartz segments mostly excavated fromthe oldest layers with an OSL age of 64 700 [+ or -] 2300 years old(Jacobs et al. 2008) (Figure 4), conform to implement classes that couldhypothetically represent arrowheads (Wadley & Mohapi 2008). Replicated weapons tipped with Howiesons Poort-like segmentsdemonstrated their efficiency as projectiles (Pargeter 2007). Explicittests for distinctions between thrown spears and projected arrows havenot yet been conducted, and many of the segments could have beenemployed equally successfully as insets for spears or arrows (Lombard& Pargeter 2008). Further experimental support for the function ofsmall segments as arrowheads, recently published by Yaroshevich et al.(2010), shows that when hafted transversely, as suggested for the quartzpieces from Sibudu (Wadley & Mohapi 2008), small segments areparticularly efficient in terms of penetrating depth and durability.They also demonstrated that distinctive patterns of damage can bedetected on 7.9-26.5% of archaeological tool samples used as projectiletips (Yaroshevich et al. 2010). The probability that segments and backed tools of the HowiesonsPoort industry were used in hunting activities is indicated bymacro-fracture analyses performed on 318 artefacts from Sibudu Cave,Klasies River Cave 2 and Umhlatuzana Rockshelter. Between 21-24% of thesamples have impact fractures indicative of hunting (Lombard 2007a; Wurz& Lombard 2007). These frequencies are well within the rangeobtained for Upper Palaeolithic archaeological samples and experimentalsamples known to have been used as arrowheads (Fischer et al. 1984;Yaroshevich et al. 2010). Several of the small quartz segments andbacked pieces from Sibudu and Umhlatuzana have fractures consistent withtheir having been hafted as transverse arrowheads, as described byLombard and Pargeter (2008) and Yaroshevich et al. (2010) (Figure 5).Direct evidence for the use of Howiesons Poort segments in meatprocurement strategies is derived from micro-residue analysis conductedon 53 segments from Sibudu Cave (Lombard 2007b, 2008). Of the 971 animalresidue occurrences documented, 84% of all animal tissue, 67% of allbone and/or collagen, 84% of all blood and 89% of all hair fragmentsoccur along the implements' cutting edges. Use-wear andmicroresidue analyses have revealed little evidence of their employmentas cutting or scraping tools, and have shown that their backed portionswere hafted in a variety of positions, using compound adhesive recipes. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] Figure 6 shows a quartz segment from Sibudu Cave (approximately 12x 8mm) with several lines of use-trace evidence indicating itsemployment as a transversely hafted arrowhead: * Resinous tree gum is concentrated from the middle towards thebacked edge along the length of the tool (Figure 6a). Plant cellimprints on the resin (Figure 6b, rectangle) indicate that the tool washafted in a transverse direction to the grain of the plant material,probably wood or sturdy grass, used for the shaft. * Striations originating from the cutting edge of the tool aretransversely oriented indicating a transverse use-action: these ofteninitiate from impact scars (Figures 6d & f). * The use-direction is reiterated by the orientation of theresidues on the tool (Figures 6c, e, f & g). * There is no evidence for the tool being used for longitudinal ordiagonal motions. We can thus eliminate its primary function as an end-or diagonally-hafted spearhead, or as being an inset along the side of amulti-component spear or knife. * The impact scars are consistent to those observed on experimentaltools used as transversely hafted arrowheads (Figure 6, orange arrows). * Animal residues are concentrated along the cutting edge of thetool, often directly associated with the impact scars (Figures 6e, f& g). [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] The best-fit interpretation, based on these use-traces, is thatthis segment was used as a transversely hafted projectile tip. At leastfive other small quartz backed pieces from the layer dated to 64 000years old have similar trace sets. The Sibudu quartz backed tool sampleis still too small for assemblage-based, micro-residue and use-wearanalyses (Lombard 2005a, 2008), but newly excavated material may remedythis. Contextual support for bow and arrow hunting during the HowiesonsPoort phase at Sibudu is derived from organic material excavated in thesame layers. For example, they contained a bone point that is comparableto unpoisoned bone arrow points from the Holocene (Backwell et al.2008). The faunal assemblage indicates a broad range for proteinprocurement strategies with an emphasis on taxa that prefer closedforested niches, including fast moving, terrestrial and arboreal animals(Clark & Plug 2008). Although there is uncertainty about the modesof procurement, there is evidence that people took fish and birds to thesite during the same phase (Plug 2006; Plug & Clark 2008).Archaeobotanical results provide further evidence for a backdrop ofmosaic vegetation including evergreen forests (Mlott 2006; Sievers2006). The Sibudu faunal assemblage from the site may contain yet anotherintriguing clue. Cords and knots were used in South Africa before andafter the Howiesons Poort phase. Use-wear facets on perforated shellbeads around 72 000 years old from Blombos show they were strung(Henshilwood et al. 2004), and similar beads are possibly present duringthe Still Bay phase at Sibudu by about 71 000 years ago (d'Erricoet al. 2008), where plant twine was also used to haft stone tips byabout 58 000 years ago (Lombard 2005a). Neither the stringing of beadsnor the hafting of spears requires the use of long cords with thetensile strength required for bow production. However, considering therange, size, age and behaviour of animals in the Howiesons Poort faunalassemblage from Sibudu, Wadley (2010) constructs an argument for the useof traps, perhaps including snares. If snares were used, the use ofcords and knots which would also have been adequate for the productionof bows is implied. Most of the taxa caught in snares were probablysmall antelope such as the blue duiker. Restraining a strugglingantelope, even a tiny one, for any length of time requires cords andknots of considerable strength. If Wadley (2010) is correct insuggesting that bush pigs could also have been caught with snares, muchgreater robustness for cord and knot technology is implied. As well asproviding evidence for the use of cords and knots the employment ofsnares demonstrates a practical understanding of the latent energystored in bent branches, the main principle of bow construction. Conclusions There is as yet no direct evidence for bows during the AfricanPleistocene, and the hypothesis that very early, stone points were usedto tip darts or arrows remains unsupported by use-trace studies andcontextual evidence. Some hypothesised concomitants, such as the use ofbow drills, also remain elusive. However, drawing together the resultsof multiple studies conducted on the stone and organic materialsexcavated at Sibudu, we offer a robust argument for the presence of bowand arrow technology during this phase in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Considered individually, the results of morphometric analyses,archaeological experiments and micro- and macro-fracture studies mayeach have interpretative shortfalls for assessing the general presenceof bow and arrow technology. However, when the cumulative andcontextualised results of such studies are substantiated bymicro-residues and other direct use-trace evidence, there is a strongargument for the use of stone-tipped arrows at Sibudu by 64 000 yearsago. We do not suggest that the small quartz segments and backed piecesfrom KwaZulu-Natal necessarily represent the first stone-tippedarrowheads. As the range of sites, knowledge, experimentation andinterpretative repertoires is expanded, multi-stranded evidence maylocate earlier usage still. Acknowledgements We thank colleagues, friends and referees who took the time tocomment on this paper, improving the outcome. Lyn Wadley'scontinued support for work on material from Sibudu Cave is muchappreciated. MI2s research is funded by the National ResearchFoundation's African Origins Platform. Opinions and mistakes areour own. Received: 13 August 2009; Revised: 3 November 2009; Accepted: 31December 2009 References ALLOTT, L.F. 2006. Archaeological charcoal as a window onpalaeovegetation and wood use during the Middle Stone Age at SibuduCave. Southern African Humanities 18(1): 173-201. BACKWELL, L., E D'ERRICO & L. WADLEY. 2008. Middle StoneAge bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, SouthAfrica. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1566-80. BAHAM, L. 2000. The Middle Stone Age of Zambia, South CentralAfrica. Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press for CHERUB(Centre for Human Evolutionary Research, University of Bristol). BERGMAN, C.A. 1993. The development of the bow in Western Europe: atechnological and functional perspective, in G.L. Peterkin, H.M. Bricker& P. Mellars (ed.) Hunting and animal exploitation in the LaterPalaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia (Archaeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association 4): 95-105. Washington (DC):American Anthropological Association. BROOKS, A.S., L. NEVELL, J.E. YELLEN & G. HARTMAN. 2006.Projectile technologies of the African Middle Stone Age: implicationsfor modern human origins, in E. Hovers & S.L. Khun (ed.) Transitionsbefore the transition: evolution and stability in the MiddlePalaeolithic and Middle Stone Age: 233-55. New York: Springer. CHURCHILL, S.E. 1993. Weapon technology, prey size selection andhunting methods in modern hunter-gatherers: implications for hunting inthe Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, in G.L. Peterkin, H.M. Bricker &P.A. Mellars (ed.) Hunting and animal exploitation in the LaterPalaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia (Archaeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association 4): 11-24. Washington (DC):American Anthropological Association. CLARK, J.L. & I. PLUG. 2008. Animal exploitation strategiesduring the South African Middle Stone Age: Howiesons Poort andpost-Howiesons Poort fauna from Sibudu Cave. Journal of Human Evolution54: 886-98. D'ERRICO, F., M. VANHEAREN & L. WADLEY. 2008. Possibleshell beads from the Middle Stone Age layers of Sibudu Cave, SouthAfrica. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2675-85. ELLIS, C.J. 1997. Factors influencing the use of stone projectiletips, in H. Knecht (ed.) Projectile technology: 37-74. New York; London:Plenum. FISCHER, A., P.V. HANSEN & P. RASMUSSEN. 1984. Macro andmicro-wear traces on lithic projectile points. Journal of DanishArchaeology 3:19-46. FRIIS-HANSEN, J. 1990. Mesolithic cutting arrows: functionalanalysis of arrows used in the hunting of large game. Antiquity 64:494-504. GREAVES, R.D. 1997. Hunting and multifunctional use of bows andarrows: ethnoarchaeology of technological organisation among Pumehunters of Venezuela, in H. Knecht (ed.) Projectile technology: 287-320.New York; London: Plenum. HENSHILWOOD, C.S., F. D'ERRICO, M. VANHEAREN. 2004. MiddleStone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304: 404. HUGHES, S.S. 1998. Getting to the point: evolutionary change inprehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(4):345-403. HUTCHINGS, W.K. 1999. Quantification of fracture propagationvelocity employing a sample of Clovis cannel flakes. Journal ofArchaeological Science 26: 1437-47. JACOBS, Z., R.G. ROBERTS, R.E GALBRAITH, H.J. DEACON, R. GRUN, A.MACKAY, P.J. MITCHELL, R. VOGELSANG & L. WADLEY. 2008. Ages for theMiddle Stone Age of South Africa: implications for human behaviour anddispersal. Science 322: 733-5. LOMBARD, M. 2005a. Evidence for hunting and halting during theMiddle Stone Age at Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Journal ofHuman Evolution 48: 279-300. --2005b. A method for identifying Stone Age hunting tools. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 60: 115-20. --2007a. Evidence for change in Middle Stone Age hunting behaviourat Blombos Cave: results of a macro-fracture analysis. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 62: 62-7. --2007b. The gripping nature of ochre: the association of ochrewith Howiesons Poort adhesives and Later Stone Age mastics from SouthAfrica. Journal of Human Evolution 53: 406-19. --2008. Finding resolution for the Howiesons Poort through themicroscope: micro-residue analysis of segments from Sibudu Cave, SouthAfrica. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 26-41. --2009. The Howiesons Poort of South Africa amplified. SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 64: 4-12. LOMBARD, M. & J.L. CLARK. 2008. Variability in Middle Stone Agehunting behaviour: aspects from the lithic and faunal records, in S.Badenhorst, E Mitchell & J.C. Driver (ed.) People, places andanimals of Africa: essays in honour of Ina Plug (British ArchaeologicalReports International series 1849): 46-56. Oxford: Archaeopress. LOMBARD, M. & J. PARGETER. 2008. Hunting with Howiesons Poortsegments: pilot experimental study and the functional interpretation ofarchaeological tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 26-41. LOMBARD, M. & I. PARSONS. 2008. Blade and bladelet function andvariability in risk management during the last 2000 years in theNorthern Cape. South African Archaeological Bulletin 63: 18-27. LOMBARD, M., I. PARSONS & M.M. VAN DER RYST. 2004. Middle StoneAge lithic point experimentation for macro-fracture and residueanalysis: the process and preliminary results with reference to SibuduCave points. South African Journal of Science 100:159-66. McBREARTY, S. & A.S. BROOKS. 2000. The revolution thatwasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern behaviour.Journal of Human Evolution 39: 453-563. McBREARTY, S. & C. TRYON. 2006. From Aucheulean to Middle StoneAge in the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, in E. Hovers & S.L. Khun(ed.) Transitions before the transition: evolution and stability in theMiddle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age: 257-77. New York: Springer. MERCADER, J. 2008. Under the canopy: the archaeology of tropicalrain forests. New Brunswick; Piscataway (NJ): Rutgers University Press. MILO, R.G. 1998. Evidence for hominid predation at Klasies RiverMouth, South Africa, and its implications for the behaviour of earlymodern humans. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 99-133. MOHAPI, M. 2007. Rose Cottage Cave Middle Stone Age lithic points:does technological change imply change in hunting techniques? SouthAfrican Archaeological Bulletin 62: 9-18. PARGETER, J. 2007. Howiesons Poort segments as hunting weapons:experiments with replicated projectiles. South African ArchaeologicalBulletin 62: 147-53. PHILLIPSON, D.W. 1976. The prehistory of eastern Zambia (Memoir,British Institute in Eastern Africa 6) Nairobi: British Institute inEastern Africa. PHILLIPSON, L. 1997. Edge modification as an indicator of functionand handedness of Aucheulean handaxes from Kariandusi, Kenya. LithicTechnology 22(2): 171-83. --2007. Reassessment of selected Middle Stone Age artefacts fromRhino Cave and White Paintings Rock Shelter, Tsodilo Hills, Botswana.South African Archaeological Bulletin 62: 19-30. --2009. Using stone tools: the archaeological evidence from Aksum,Ethiopia (British Archaeological Reports International series 1926).Oxford: Archaeopress. PLUG, I. 2006. Aquatic animals and their associates from the MiddleStone Age levels at Sibudu. Southern African Humanities 18(1): 289-99. PLUG, I. &J.L. CLARK. 2008. In the air: a preliminary report onthe birds from Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Goodwin series10): 133-42. Vlaeberg: South African Archaeological Society. RUDNER, J. 1979. The use of stone artefacts and pottery among theKhoisan peoples in historic and protohistoric times. South AfricanArchaeological Bulletin 34: 3-17. SHEA J.J. 1993. Lithic use-wear evidence for hunting byNeanderthals and early modern humans from the Levantine Mousterian, inG.M. Peterkin, H.M. Bricker & E Mellars (ed.) Hunting and animalexploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia(Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 4):89-197. Washington (DC): American Anthropological Association. --2006. The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidencefrom Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science33: 823-46. SIEVERS, C. 2006. Seeds from the Middle Stone Age layers at SibuduCave. Southern African Humanities 18(1): 203-22. SISK, M.L. & J.J. SHEA. 2009. Experimental use and quantitativeperformance analysis of triangular flakes (Levallois points) used asarrowheads. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2039-47. STANDER, P., X. GHAU, D. TSISABA & X. TXOMA. 1996. A new methodof darting: stepping back in time. African Journal of Ecology 34: 48-53. VILLA, P., S. SORIANO, N. TEYSSANDIER & S. WURZ. 2010. TheHowiesons Poort and Middle Stone Age III at Klasies River Mouth, Cave1A. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:630-55. WADLEY, L. 2008. The Howiesons Poort industry of Sibudu Cave(Goodwin series 10): 122-32. Vlaeberg: South African ArchaeologicalSociety. --2010. Were snares used in the Middle Stone Age and does itmatter? A review and case study from Sibudu, South Africa. Journal ofHuman Evolution 58: 179-92. WADLEY, L. & M. MOHAPI. 2008. A segment is not a monolith:evidence from the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu, South Africa. Journal ofArchaeological Science 35: 2594-605. WADLEY, L., T. HODGSKISS & M. GRANT. 2009. Implications forcomplex cognition from the hafting of tools with compound adhesives inthe Middle Stone Age, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences of the United States of America 106: 9590-4. WAGUESPACK, N.M., T.A. SUROVELL, A. DENOYER, A. DALLOW, A. SAVAGE,J. HAYNEMAN & D. TAPSTER. 2009. Making a point: wood- versusstone-tipped projectiles. Antiquity 83: 786-800. WURZ, S. & M. LOMBARD. 2007. 70 000-year-old geometric backedtools from the Howiesons Poort at Klasies River, South Africa: were theyused for hunting? Southern African Humanities 19: 1-16. YAROSHEVICH, A., D. KAUFMAN, D. NUZHNYY, O. BAR-YOSEF & M.WEINSTEIN-EVRON. 2010. Design and performance of microlith implementedprojectiles during the Middle and Late Epipalaeolithic of the Levant:experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 37: 368-88. YU, PEI-LI. 2006. From atlatl to bow and arrow, in F. Seller, R.Greaves & P.-L.Yu. (ed.) Archaeology and ethnoarchaeology ofmobility: 201-20. Gainsville (FL): University Press of Florida. Marlize Lombard (1) & Laurel Phillipson (2) (1) Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, Universityof Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, Johannesburg 2006, SouthAfrica (Email: mlombard@uj.ac.za) (2) 11 Brooklyn, Threshfield, North Yorkshire, BD23 5ER, UK (Email:dw.l.phillipson@btinternet.com)