Blades and microliths: Changing contexts of tool production from Magdalenian to Early Mesolithic in southern Germany

Hunter–gatherer responses to environmental change during the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in the southern North Sea basin: Final Palaeolithic–Final Mesolithic land use in northwest Belgium

“…These findings are similar to the outcomes of research in other study-areas, e.g. in Central Europe (Jochim, 1998(Jochim, , 2006Whittle, 1996;Fisher, 2006), where the Early Mesolithic is also characterized by highly mobile population and comparatively small group size. During the Late/Final Mesolithic mobility probably slowed down leading to prolonged and focused residential positioning of sites.…”

Still Bay and serrated points from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa

“…Generally speaking, the smaller the standard deviation, the smaller the CV and thus the greater the standardization. Fisher (2006) used 20 as cut-off point to indicate standardization. Here, following Wadley and Mohapi (2008), we suggest a CV of 10 to imply standardization, but we emphasize that our cut-off point is an arbitrary choice leaning towards caution.…”

Potentially stylistic differences between backed artefacts from two nearby sites occupied ∼60,000 years before present in South Africa

“…CV's for backed artefacts from Howiesons Poort sites in southern Africa vary from 16 to 36, with only Nelson Bay Cave having a CV below 20 (Wadley and Mohapi, 2008, Table 15). Backed artefacts from European Mesolithic contexts also rarely attain CV values below 20 (Eerkens and Bettinger, 2001;Fisher, 2006), and thus 20 might be taken as a rough cut-off in discriminating more standardised from less standardised morphologies. Table 7 presents CV values for maximum dimension, maximum width, maximum thickness and length to width ratios among complete backed artefacts at DRS and KKH.…”