Nubian Levallois reduction strategies in the Tankwa Karoo, South Africa

Abstract

The Middle Stone Age record in southern Africa is recognising increasing diversity in lithic technologies as research expands beyond the coastal-montane zone. New research in the arid Tankwa Karoo region of the South African interior has revealed a rich surface artefact record including a novel method of point production, recognised as Nubian Levallois technology in Late Pleistocene North Africa, Arabia and the Levant. We analyse 121 Nubian cores and associated points from the surface site Tweefontein against the strict criteria which are used to define Nubian technology elsewhere. The co-occurrence of typically post-Howiesons Poort unifacial points suggests an MIS 3 age. We propose that the occurrence of this distinctive technology at numerous localities in the Tankwa Karoo region reflects an environment-specific adaptation in line with technological regionalisation seen more widely in MIS 3. The arid setting of these assemblages in the Tankwa Karoo compares with the desert context of Nubian technology globally, consistent with convergent evolution in our case. The South African evidence contributes an alternative perspective on Nubian technology removed from the ‘dispersal’ or ‘diffusion’ scenarios of the debate surrounding its origin and spread within and out of Africa.

Reply to: ‘No direct evidence for the presence of Nubian Levallois technology and its association with Neanderthals at Shukbah Cave’

“…Hallinan and colleagues 3 critique our predominant presentation of artefacts in plan (78%). Our approach is consistent with contemporary reporting of Nubian technology from Arabia by Usik and colleagues 11 , in the Levant by Goder-Goldberger and colleagues 12 , 13 , and in South Africa by Hallinan and Shaw 14 , where 65–95% of cores are only illustrated in plan. The broadest range of definitions of Nubian Levallois technology share focus on description of flaking surface scar patterns 1 , which are best observed in plan.…”

“…Usik and colleagues 11 identify discrete modes of preparation of the flaking surface for Type 1, 1/2, and 2 Nubian Levallois cores, that Crassard and Hilbert 15 suggest unnecessarily formalises plasticity, given that cores examined today are static elements of a past dynamic system. Goder-Goldberger and colleagues 12 highlight that a definition that maintains the distinctness of Nubian technology is critical to its use as an “archaeological missing link” 12 , yet Usik and colleagues 11 indicate that as distal flaking surfaces become flatter Nubian cores can be seen as “grading into bidirectional cores or recurrent cores”, Hallinan & Shaw 14 identify cores with ‘Nubian affinity’ but not enough to confidently identify them as Nubian, and Rose and colleagues 16 identify that “ there is overlap between Nubian Type 2 core preparation and some preferential point-producing Levallois reduction systems in the Levantine Mousterian”. Given this broad recognition that Nubian Levallois technology can grade into other Levallois approaches, some appraisal must be made of how and where to divide this spectrum of variability, as well as why.…”

“…No comparative basis to identify the categories chosen to define Nubian Levallois technology are set out by Usik and colleagues 11 , nor do they demonstrate them to be discrete from other Levallois methods. For instance, it is not established that there is a discrete distribution of distal flaking surface angle of Nubian and other Levallois cores that can be simply divided at 120 degrees, and in practice this quantitative threshold is exceeded elsewhere by Hallinan and co-authors 13 , 14 in identification of Nubian cores. Nevertheless, to answer the Hallinan and colleagues 3 critique the distal ridge angles on ten cores from Shukbah D stored at UCL have been measured.…”

“…The angles range from 83° to 120°, with a mean of 102.4°,meaning that they are consistent with the particular descriptions set out by Usik and colleagues 11 and favoured by Hallinan and colleagues 3 . Likewise, Hallinan and Shaw 14 identify the difficulty in applying the shape categories, arguing instead for the need for quantitative analyses, which again should be established through comparative study if argued to be distinct features of Nubian Levallois technology. This remarkable absence of comparative studies prohibits acceptance that Nubian Levallois technology is inherently discrete from other Levallois methods.…”

“…Hallinan and colleagues 3 contest whether Nubian Levallois end products can be identified, although they are commonly identified in the recent literature. For instance, Rose and colleagues indicate that Nubian Levallois reduction “results in the signature Nubian Levallois point” 16 , Goder-Goldberger and colleagues indicate “Other recognizable artifacts associated with the Nubian reduction sequence are the specific core shaping blades and the end-products” 12 and that "the Nubian flaking system is unique and includes identifiable cores, preparation blanks and end products" 13 , whilst Hallinan and Shaw identify Nubian products from "various reduction strategies including Type 2, 1/2 and, to a lesser extent, Type 1 Nubian methods" from an appraisal of dorsal scar patterns 14 . Indeed, the need for quantitative study between Nubian and other Levallois points was highlighted as a "major limitation in the study of Nubian technology" 14 .…”