DOI 10.1007/s10437-015-9205-8

Post Print Version of article published as Chazan, Michael (2015) Technological Trends in the Acheulean of Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa, African Archaeological Review 32(4): 701-728

Technological Trends in the Acheulean of Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa Michael Chazan1,2

Abstract The assemblage of stone tools from P. Beaumont’s Excavation 1 at Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape Province, South Africa, provides a unique stratified sequence covering a large part of the Earlier Stone Age. A combination of cosmogenic burial age and paleomagnetic age dating provides limited chronometric constraint on this sequence. The Wonderwerk sequence provides evidence for the development of Earlier Stone Age technology in southern Africa that parallels the sequence known from East Africa. This paper presents a technological discussion of biface technology at Wonderwerk Cave as well as an overview of the associated lithic assemblage.

Résumé L’assemblage lithique provenant des fouilles de P. Beaumont à la Grotte de Wonderwerk, Province du Cap du Nord, Afrique du Sud, présente une séquence stratifiée unique couvrant la plupart du Earlier Stone Age. Un programme de datation par isotopes cosmogenique et paleomagnetisme nous donnes un dégrée du contraint chronométrique sur cette séquence. La séquence de Wonderwerk donne des indices d’un développement de la technologie au cours d’Earlier Stone Age en Afrique du Sud parallèle à la séquence connue en Afrique d’Est. Cette article présent une étude technologique des bifaces a Wonderwerk aussi bien qu’un vue d’ensemble

1 de l’assemblage lithique.

Keywords Acheulean . Lithic technology. Earlier Stone Age . Wonderwerk Cave . Handaxe . Biface

1 Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, 19 Russell St., Toronto, ONT M5S 2S2, Canada

2 Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa

Introduction

In 1969, Ray Inskeep raised a series of questions about the dynamics underlying culture change in the Earlier Stone Age of South Africa and came to the conclusion that: BThe answers to questions such as these depend almost entirely on progress in the field of chronology—and little progress has been made^ (Inskeep 1969, p. 175). Writing over 30 years later, Richard Klein reached a similarly pessimistic conclusion stating that Bthe bottom line is that the culture-stratigraphy and dating of the ESA in southern Africa depend heavily on extrapolation from eastern Africa^ (Klein 2000, p. 107). However, in recent years, research projects have begun to yield an independent chronostratigraphy for the Earlier Stone Age of southern Africa. At Rietputs on the Vaal River, a gravel unit associated with Acheulean artifacts produced a cosmogenic burial age of 1.57±0.22 mya, providing an age range of 1.8–1.4 mya for this industry (range of individual ages of samples 1.89±0.19 to 1.34±0.22 Ma (Gibbon et al. 2009)). At Cornelia-Uitzoek, an Acheulean industry along with associated fauna and a hominin tooth have been placed within the Jaramillo subchron (1.07–0.99 mya) on the basis of a well-developed paleomagnetic sequence (Brink et al. 2012). At Kathu Pan 1, a combination of ESR and OSL dating places an industry attributed to the Fauresmith and characterized by prepared core production of flakes and blades, including points apparently hafted on spears, at ca. 500 kyr (minimum OSL age of 464±47 kyr and a combined U- series–ESR age of 542+104–107 kyr: Porat et al. 2010; Wilkins and Chazan 2012; Wilkins et al. 2012). At Swartkrans, cosmogenic burial age dating of Member 1 produces ages ranging from 2.19±0.08 to 1.80±0.09 myr, indicating the likelihood that initial tool production falls within this time range (Gibbon et al. 2014). At Sterkfontein, there has been considerable debate and new data concerning the age of Members 2 and 4 with

3 implications for the age of the artifact-bearing components of overlying Member 5 (see Berger et al. 2002; Herries and Shaw 2011; Kuman and Clarke 2000; Pickering and Kramers 2010). The recent stratigraphic analysis of the Sterkfontein StW 573 Australopithecus fossil makes the complexity of the depositional environment apparent and provides reasons to treat the existing chronostratigraphic information with caution (Bruxelles et al. 2014). A cosmogenic burial age date on a single quartz manuport from Member 5 produced an age of 2.18±0.21 Myr (Granger et al. 2015). The chronostratigraphy of the Wonderwerk assemblage discussed in the following paragraphs, along with other recent results listed previously, raise questions about the likelihood that the artifact horizons at Sterkfontein are younger than 1.5 mya as has recently been proposed (Berger et al. 2002; Herries and Shaw 2011).

Wonderwerk Cave Excavation 1 offers an opportunity to explore change over the entire extent of the Earlier Stone Age within a single depositional sequence. This aspect of the site is remarkable, and Wonderwerk Cave is the only site in the region with in situ deposits covering such a timespan. While the East African Rift research areas such as Konso, Olduvai, Melka Kunture, Gadeb, and Peninj have produced similar se- quences, none of these has the entire sequence represented at a single site (Beyene et al. 2013; de la Torre 2011; de la Torre et al. 2008; Diez-Martín et al. 2014; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009; Gallotti et al. 2010; Gallotti 2013; Kimura 2002; Leakey 1971; Leakey and Roe 1994). Notably, at Konso, a general sequence within the Acheulean has been recognized with a trend from unifacial to bifacial shaping with increasing refinement over time (Beyene et al. 2013). The Wonderwerk Excavation 1sequence provides an opportunity to test the applicability of the technological trends recognizable on East African sites to those in Southern Africa.

Context

Wonderwerk Cave is a phreatic tube that penetrates 140 m into the eastern flank of the Kuruman Hills. Overviews of the site are published elsewhere (Chazan et al. 2008; Horwitz and Chazan 2014, 2015, this issue), and the focus of this article is the Earlier Stone Age levels excavated by Beaumont beginning in 1978, in the area that begins ca. 30 m from the front of the cave designated as Excavation 1 (Beaumont and Vogel 2006). Earlier excavations by Malan (Malan and Cooke 1940; Malan and Wells 1943) reached the upper part of the Earlier Stone Age sequence, but this assemblage is not presented here. Beaumont’s excavation reached a total depth of 4 m below the surface of the cave across a maximum area of 62 sq.yds.

Archaeological Strata Beaumont divided the Earlier Stone Age sequence into seven strata, St. 12-6 (bottom to top). Stratum 5 still contains a significant component of handaxes but seems to mark the contact between the Earlier Stone Age and the overlying Later Stone Age (there is no Middle Stone Age in Excavation 1). Within the strata, material was recovered by Beaumont from 1-×-1-yd units (maintaining the original grid established by Malan) excavated by arbitrary 10 cm spits. All materials have been curated in the McGregor Museum with associated contextual information, in most cases marked directly on the tools. One significant limitation is that depth of spits is measured not from a site datum, but rather is measured down from the top of an archaeological stratum in each particular square. Because there is a dip to the strata (Fig. 1) and no absolute heights were recorded for the top of each stratum across the excavation area, there are limits to our ability to reconstruct vertical provenience for artifacts. The limits of strata up to the top of Stratum 9 were marked by tags secured by nails in the northern section (confirmed on-site by Beaumont) that have served as the basis for our program of cosmogenic burial age and paleomagnetic dating (Chazan et al. 5

2012a; Matmon et al. 2012). This program has resulted in a chronological framework for Excavation 1, although as discussed in the following, there are still some gaps in chronological control. It is very significant that, with one exception, the sequence of seven cosmogenic burial age dates from the Excavation 1 sequence are in stratigraphic order, and for the one anomaly, the correct age is within one standard deviation. These dates provide support for the extensive micromorphological record that indicates that Excavation 1 is a depositional context that is only disturbed by bioturbation, of a scale that was not likely to result in significant vertical displacement of artifacts (Goldberg et al. 2015, this issue). Micromorphological analysis also indicates that there was no high-energy transport within this sequence and that artifacts found in the cave had to be transported by hominins. Although the sequence developed over a very long duration, there is no reason to believe that deposition was continuous, and there is clear evidence of erosional events within the sequence.

Chronostratigraphy The age of the depositional sequence at Wonderwerk Cave is constrained by a combination of paleomagnetic and cosmogenic burial age dating.

From a technical perspective, the quality of the chronostratigraphic determinations is very high. It is important to emphasize that these are dating methods based on independent physical processes. Paleomagnetic dating is limited in that it only allows a determination of whether sediments were deposited during normal or reversed polarity events. In the Wonderwerk profile, there is a clear patterning shown in Table 1 (see complete presentation in Chazan et al. 2008; Matmon et al. 2012). Paleomagnetic dates give us a set of candidate time intervals for a depositional sequence. In the case of Wonderwerk Excavation 1, there is a sequence of N-R-N that potentially can be correlated with a number of paleomagnetic intervals in the Cenezoic.

Cosmogenic burial age dating provides an age determination based on the time elapsed since a sediment has been shielded from cosmic radiation, in this case by entering the cave system. Geoarchaeological study of the depositional sequence has determined that all sands are derived from outside the cave (Goldberg et al. 2015, this issue). Some of the mechanisms of cosmogenic burial age dating must be taken into account when applying age determinations to archaeological chronology. The first problem is that the method measures shielding (when the sand first entered the cave) rather than final deposition subsequent to any transport within the cave. There can be a substantial time lag between when sediment enters a cave as large as Wonderwerk and its final deposition. Thus, a cosmogenic age might overestimate the age of a deposit. There is also an effect due to prior burial history that might result in an age that is in fact older than the actual time of shielding (for discussion of cosmogenic burial age dating, see Granger and Muzikar 2001). In the case of the Wonderwerk sequence, we have accounted for this problem by using two corrections: the first a standard and the second derived from local sediments. The standard age can be considered a maximum age for the deposit while the locally derived age is likely closer to the actual age if not an underestimate. The value of the cosmogenic burial ages is primarily that they provide a solid basis for correlating the Wonderwerk paleomagnetic sequence with the global paleomagnetic sequence. As shown in Table 1, the cosmogenic burial ages (using the locally derived standard) for Paleomagnetic Zone 1 correlate perfectly with the Jaramillo subchron (1.07–0.99 mya), the ages for Paleomagnetic Zone 2 correlate to the preceding Reversed period (1.78–1.07 mya), and Zone 3 to the Olduvai subchron. Note that use of the standard correction results in far older ages. These results allow us to place the Paleomagnetic Zones for Wonderwerk within the global paleomagnetic sequence with a high degree of security. The early age for the basal part of the sequence is further supported by biochronology (Chazan et al. 2012a). Dating of Strata 9-6 has not yet 7 been undertaken. Stratum 9 is composed of fine-grained sediments that cannot be processed using the standard procedures used for cosmogenic burial age dating, while Strata 8-6 are not represented in the dated profile.

Methods

The characteristics of raw material must be taken into consideration before discussing the lithic sequence of Wonderwerk Excavation 1. Slabs of banded ironstone from the Kuruman Formation (Schröder et al. 2011) are the dominant raw material for biface manufacture. However, there is exceptional use of other material, including igneous rock available on the other side of the Kuruman Hills from the Ongeluk Formation (two bifaces— SPL 99 from St. 9 and SPL 80 from St. 8; Cornell et al. 1996), and chert which occurs in close proximity to the cave in the Cambellrand Subgroup (four bifaces SPL 95 from St. 9, SPL 82 and 28 from St. 8, and SPL 70 from St. 7). Banded ironstone is a chemical marine sediment formed during periods of low atmospheric O2, and in an ocean with dissolved Fe (II) and low concentrations of sulphate in seawater (Canfield 2005). Banded ironstone is characterized by alternate banding of Fe-rich and chert-rich lamina, with the scales of banding ranging from mesobands (thickness <25 mm) and microbands (0.3–1.7 mm). Although there are cleavage plains along the juncture of some bands resulting in the bedrock breaking up into flat slabs, banded ironstone is well suited for biface reduction with conchoidal fracture and is readily available in the vicinity of the cave, which formed in Cambellrand subgroup dolomites underlying thick beds of banded ironstone. Because the normal occurrence of this rock is in flat slabs, there is no need for the production of large flake blanks for biface manufacture. Furthermore, the thickness of the biface is largely determined by the morphology of the selected slab rather than the skill of the knapper. These factors must be kept in mind when comparing the Wonderwerk sequence with

the East African sites or other localities in southern Africa. There is also a range from highly formalized bifaces to a more expedient production within each stratum. There is considerable variability within the banded ironstone found in the Kuruman Hills, and further research is needed to understand raw material selection within this lithology through the ESA.

The initial analysis of the Wonderwerk assemblage employed the standard methods developed by Roe (1969) for metric analysis of bifaces. This approach showed an overall regularity in morphology over time, with the exception of a slight decrease in mean thickness and increase in refinement at St. 8 (Fig. 2, Table 2). However, as analysis proceeded a sense emerged that the metrical analyses were missing important aspects of the assemblage, related to methods of manufacture that show clear trends through the sequence. Given the constraints imposed by the raw material and the chronological issues discussed previously, a more productive method proved to be to consider each artifact individually using a Bbiographical^ approach that considered thesequence of manufacture as far as this could be reconstructed. The results of this analysis form the basis for this article. The presentation of this sequence is grouped not by stratum but rather by the emergence and development of innovations in biface technology through the sequence. Artifacts are referred to by their catalogue number: SPL (for specimen lithic) followed by a digit which is assigned arbitrarily.

Structure of the Assemblage

It is important to emphasize that the hominin occupation of Wonderwerk Excavation 1 resulted in an extraordinarily low density of stone tool discard, an average of 38 flakes and 4 cores per stratum, and a ratio of flakes per square yard that varies from 0.3 to 2.5 (see Table 3). The density is more consistent with expectations of the Bscatter between the patches^ than the expectations of a cave occupation (Stern 1993). The low density of artifacts is 9 particularly surprising given the evidence of fire from Stratum 10, which would lead one to expect a site that would conform to expectations of a base-camp site with high artifact frequency. A new program of excavation that began in December 2013 has the goal of collecting high precision spatial data to better understand the nature of the Earlier Stone Age occupation in this part of the cave. Higher densities of artifacts are known from the South African ESA sites of Montague Cave and Cave of Hearths (Keller 1973; McNabb and Sinclair 2009).

Counts of flakes and cores by stratum are presented in Table 3 (these figures are updated from the data presented in the Proceedings of the 2010 Panafrican Congress in Senegal, Horwitz and Chazan 2015, this issue). These figures include all flakes, including rare pieces below 20 mm in maximum dimension. These numbers must be used with caution as they might be distorted due to a number of factors: (1) There are apparently intrusive LSA flakes in Stratum 6 (at least 2 cores and 2 flakes that are consistent with LSA technology). The possibility of penetration of small flakes from the overlying LSA deposits is also possible for Strata 7 and 8 in the northern sector of the excavation, where these strata directly underlie Stratum 5. (2) Some flakes have been shattered either due to heating or other diagenetic processes. (3) Flake production on dolomite might have been under- recognized during analysis. It does appear that Beaumont collected and sieved all material and the bags in the McGregor Museum included artifacts mixed with dolomite debris. Our re-excavation of the site has in its initial stage found a higher density of artifacts, particularly flakes on dolomite, than was expected from the assemblage from Beaumont’s excavation.

Not only are the flakes and cores rare, but few show any elaboration in production (data on flake metrics, platform, and material summarized in Table 4 and Fig. 3). Only five cores show more than five flake removals (not including two small cores from the upper spits of St. 6 which appear to be

intrusive) and the majority of flakes have a plain platform. There is a sequence of three refitting flakes from St. 10 and another flake that fits onto a core (Fig. 5d, e). These are simple removals from a cobble with no evidence of platform preparation, but they do show that at least a limited amount of knapping took place in the cave. One igneous flake and the distal fragment of an ironstone flake, both from St. 9, are consistent with biface shaping (Fig. 4b, e). A small number of flakes show limited evidence of organized flake production as do a small number of cores, but the sample is too small to identify a production method (Fig. 4a, c, h). A large core on chert from St. 8 with a single preferential removal is also notable (Fig. 4i), and one core from St. 10 is classified as a chopper (Fig. 4g, included in the count of cores in Table 3). Two flakes on quartz are also present, one from St. 6 and one from St. 10. At the current stage of analysis, there are no discernible trends in core knapping methods within the Wonderwerk sequence.

Modified slabs make up a substantial proportion of the assemblage (Fig. 5a– c). These are slabs of banded ironstone with a small number of removals (1–6) off the edge of the slab. None shows removals from the face of the slab, and it is unclear whether these are best considered as cores, tools, or simply damaged manuports. The weight of these pieces varies widely from 29 to 621 g.

There is one modified chert slab from Stratum 11 (Fig. 5c) that resembles the artifacts found in the underlying Stratum 12 (Chazan et al. 2012a). Along with flakes and cores, there are a small number of apparently non-utilitatarian objects including a small quartz crystal (Fig. 6a) and a flat polished pebble of banded ironstone (Fig. 6b), both from St. 10. There are also quartz crystal fragments form St. 11 (1), St. 10 (1), and St. 9 (3) and a quartz pebble from St. 10. The most enigmatic object in the assemblage is a dolomite slab found in St. 9, with parallel linear grooves on one face (Fig. 6c).

11

Technological Development in the Wonderwerk Sequence

The following sequence of technological development emerges from the analysis of the assemblage:

1. The initial appearance of bifacial technology 2. Development of systematic shaping of handaxes 3. Cleaver manufacture on large flakes 4. Handaxe shaping with invasive flake removals

The temporal order of stages 2 and 3 remains unclear, and they appear actually to be contemporary, with cleaver production continuing into stage 4. In previous discussions of Wonderwerk Excavation 1, I have questioned the attribution of the upper strata of the sequence to the Fauresmith (Chazan et al. 2008); however, the emergence of Fauresmith typological traits will be considered as a fifth developmental aspect of the lithic technology at Wonderwerk Excavation 1.

The Initial Development of Biface Technology

The technological characteristics of the Oldowan assemblage of St. 12 are discussed in detail in Chazan et al. 2012a. The key element of this assemblage is the production of very small flakes on chert nodules, including the production of a series of flakes along one edge. The lack of large tools in the St. 12 assemblage may be a function of the very small sample size, but the nature of the recovered assemblage is consistent with the heavy emphasis on small flake production found in Oldowan industries both in South Africa (i.e., Kuman and Field 2009) and East Africa (i.e., Barsky et al. 201 1).

Unfortunately, the overlying St. 11 produced very few recognizable stone tools, only two of which can be classified as bifaces. The poverty of the lithic

assemblage might partially be the result of diagenetic processes as one of the recovered bifaces is severely damaged, apparently as the result of fracture produced by impregnation of calcium carbonate-rich water into cracks in the rock (Fig. 7, SPL 36) although given theevidence for the use of fire in overlying St. 10 (Berna et al. 2012), it is possible that this damage is the result of burning.

The single biface (SPL 37, Fig. 7) from near the base of St. 11 sits in a critical position for the emergence of biface technology in the Wonderwerk sequence. This artifact is larger than any of the objects found in St. 12 and is on ironstone rather than chert. In technological terms, it is a very simple solution to the creation of a tool with a pointed end; typologically, it is a proto-biface (Leakey 1971). Most knapping is along one edge, oblique on one face (right) and flat on the other where there is a sequence of invasive unidirectional flakes, two of which cover the width of the artifact. The tip, which is somewhat blunt, is created by a series of small removals without any particular order. The piece appears to be on a natural spall, but it is possible that it is on a large flake. The other biface from St. 11 (SPL 36, Fig. 7) has small removals off the periphery. This piece, which was recovered from near the top of St. 11, has a series of small flake removals around the periphery. Because of damage, the form of this artifact remains unclear.

The provenience of the proto-biface (SPL 37) falls within Paleomag Zone 2 (1.78–1.07 mya), and the position in relation to the cosmogenic burial age dates suggests an age less than 1.5 mya and greater than 1.1 mya (rounded and including error). The fact that this is a single artifact and the lack of tight chronological constraints limits the confidence of statements about the initial appearance of biface technology. However, it appears that as in East Africa (i.e., Lepre et al. 2011), the initial biface technology involves only minimal imposition of form and a minimal number of flake removals. The timing of the first appearance of this technology cannot be determined with any confidence 13 based on the Wonderwerk sequence, but it is clearly present well before 1.1 mya.

Handaxes Shaped with Non-invasive Flake Removals

The systematic production of handaxes first appears near the base of Stratum 10. Until the middle of Stratum 8, the dominant technique is shaping through the removal of non- invasive flakes (Fig. 8). Morphologically, these tools are extremely variable, and they also show a high degree of variability in the amount of cortex and in the location and nature of the transformative element (cutting edge, tip). Generally, there is very little secondary retouch to regularize a cutting edge, although continuous edges are found, for example on SPL 41 from Stratum 10. There, a working edge is created at the proximal end by a series of small removals, and a cutting edge is created at the distal end by a tranchet removal. In most cases, the transformative element is limited to the tip which can be pointed or rounded, there is little evidence for modification of the prehensile element, and a significant amount of cortex remains on both faces (the prehensile element refers to the part of the tool that is held, while the transformative element is the part that comes in contact with the worked material; see Boëda 2013). Flaking is largely internal, with blows removing flakes with a prominent bulb of percussion delivered well behind the edge of the striking platform.

Chronologically, this stage in the development of biface technology corresponds to Paleomagnetic Zone 1 and possibly the top of Paleomagnetic Zone 2 and thus corresponds to the Jaramillo Normal event (1.07–0.99 mya), although the onset might be somewhat earlier. This range agrees with the bracketing cosmogenic ages for the onset of this technology between 1.35 and .80 mya (including error). Handaxes with non-invasive removals remain dominant well above the dated profile, into St. 8, so that the terminal age of

this technology remains to be determined.

Handaxes Shaped with Invasive Flake Removals

Beginning in St. 8, there is a shift towards handaxes shaped with invasive flake removals (Figs. 9 and 10, Table 5). This represents a shift not only in the method of manufacture but also in the conceptualization of the tool. Shaping flake removals tend to be flat and to travel invasively across the surface with shallow bulbs. There is often a secondary stage of retouch that regularizes the edge of the tool with a series of small removals. Although occasionally, pieces (such as SPL 79) are not worked around the entire circumference, this is rare. Conceptually, the tools are treated as an integrated entity that is first shaped and then retouched. The entire tool is shaped including transformative elements that can include a continuous cutting/scraping edge as well as the distal tip. The prehensile element is usually also carefully shaped. In some cases, such as SPL 77, there is notching at the prehensile end that might be related to hafting. Although there continues to be significant variability, the cordiform shape becomes characteristic.

Chronologically, the development of shaping with invasive flake removals is a late development. The only chronological control we have currently is that this develop- ment postdates the onset of the Jaramillo, but it seems likely that it is significantly more recent. It should be noted that there are a small number of invasively shaped handaxes from earlier in the Wonderwerk sequence from contexts below St. 8. The most troubling is SPL 701, a handaxe with a provenience near the base of St. 10 that is completely shaped by invasive flake removals and has the perfect cordiform shape found in St. 7 and 6. This piece has been naturally fractured and is on very fine-grain ironstone. It appears most likely that this provenience is erroneous or that the piece has been transported vertically from an overlying stratum. In Stratum 9, two 15 handaxes combine invasive and non-invasive shaping (Fig. 9). SPL 95 is a rare handaxe on chert, and it conforms largely to the norm of handaxes shaped by non-invasive removals, including significant remaining cortex on both faces. However, the tip has been shaped by a series of careful, flat removals. SPL 97 is a remarkable handaxe with two stages of working. The first stage consists of large invasive flake removals that shaped the handaxe. This stage shows considerable skill. In the next stage, the tip has been constrained to a point through a series of deep removals off one face. It is hard to believe that the same person carried out both activities, given the stark difference in the skill of the operations involved. This handaxe provides an intriguing hint into the use- life of handaxes and perhaps variation in skill among members of a social group.

Cleavers

Morphological cleavers are found in small numbers throughout the sequence (Fig. 11, Table 5). In the upper part of the stratigraphic sequence the cleavers simply seem to be part of the range of variability of biface shape and they are shaped with invasive flake removals. In St. 10-8, there are three cleavers made on large flakes. The most remarkable of these is SPL 99 from Stratum 9, which is made on igneous rock, and it is a sidestruck flake with a shape consistent with a removal from a Victoria West Core. The Victoria West technology is well documented from the Younger Vaal Gravels (McNabb and Beaumont 2012), but this piece suggests that a similar technique was used on igneous rocks of the Ongeluk Formation, or alternatively that there was long distance transport of artifacts. Chronologically, the age of these cleavers on flakes is constrained as younger than the beginning of the Jaramillo at 1.07 mya.

The Development of Fauresmith Typological Traits

Already in his initial publication, Malan had admitted that at Wonderwerk, Bthe entire absence of Levallois forms and characteristic debitage invariably associated with the Fauresmith wherever else it has been found cannot be explained until the excavations have been extended^ (Malan and Wells 1943, p. 262). Malan’s identification of the site as Fauresmith is based on Badvanced expression of that culture but it is represented only by hand-axes^ (Malan and Wells 1943, p. 262). Analysis of the Beaumont collection also failed to find any evidence of blade production (in contrast to Excavation 6 at the back of the cave which does include a blade component) and also failed to identify a trend towards a diminution in handaxe size, as would be expected following definitions of the Fauresmith (Fig. 2). The definition of the Fauresmith is currently the subject of debate (Herries 2011; Underhill 2011). Clearly, this is a poorly defined and temporally constrained entity, but recent research at Wonderwerk and in the neighboring Kathu Complex supports the concept of a transitional industry that incorporates significant inter-assemblage variability. Three localities can be securely tied to the Fauresmith based on the co-occurrence of biface technology, blade production, and prepared core technology: Wonderwerk Excavation 6, Bestwood 1, and Kathu Pan 1 St 4a (Chazan et al. 2012b, Chazan and Horwitz 2009, Porat et al. 2010). Kathu Pan1 4a is dated to ca. 500 kyr, while a single U/Th age suggests that Wonderwerk Excavation 6 is greater than 187 kyr, although as pointed out by Herries (2011), this is a tentative age determination. Although each of these localities produces an industry that is consistent with the concept of a transitional entity, which can be loosely defined as Fauresmith, each locality is also technologically distinct, suggesting that any attempt to rigidly define the Fauresmith will ultimately fall short.

When the Wonderwerk Excavation 1 assemblage is reexamined in terms of individual artifacts rather than statistical characterization of the industry as a whole, and when the variability within the Fauresmith is taken into account, it is possible to identify typological affinities between the upper stratigraphic units and the Fauresmith (Fig. 12). The most striking are two large scrapers 17 with regular edges, one transversal, and the other offset simple convex, from St. 7. These have clear parallels in transversal and offset scrapers from the Bestwood 1 site (Chazan et al. 2012b). Two bifaces, also both from St. 7, are notable for their unusually elongated form, which has parallels in the Wonderwerk Exc. 6 assemblage (Chazan and Horwitz 2009). Finally, there are a small number of extremely small bifaces within the Wonderwerk Excavation 1 assemblage, one from St. 8, and one from St. 7.

Conclusions

Although the Wonderwerk Excavation 1 assemblage includes a relatively small number of artifacts considering the size and time depth of the excavation, it is a unique resource for tracking the development of hominin stone-tool technology over a period greater than one million years. The potential of this assemblage is far from exhausted, and it is hoped that future research will pursue use-wear studies and morphometric analysis (Binneman and Beaumont 1992; Riddle and Chazan 2014). Use of morphometric analysis of the Wonderwerk assemblage for the purpose of comparison with other southern African assemblages, whether using 2D shape analysis (as in Brink et al. 2012) or 3D analysis (as in Archer and Braun 2010), must take into consideration the constraints imposed by the use of banded ironstone as raw material. Future research is also needed to clarify variation within the banded ironstone used in biface manufacture at the site. The renewed excavations at the site will help to clarify the chronology of the upper stratigraphic units. At present, we have limited exposures and so that we cannot be certain that all of the depositional units—and associated archaeology—are contin- uous across the site; the presence of channels and eroded upper surfaces of some of the layers (Goldberg et al. 2015, this issue) suggests that some units may be missing. Thus, physical, temporal, and archaeological correlations are tentative at present, awaiting further excavations to test lateral continuity of

strata and to develop chronometric control for Strata 9-6.

The approach taken here stresses the value of a technological analysis of individual artifacts, which allows for the identification of a sequence of phases of technological development and for chronostratigraphic constraint of this sequence. The Wonderwerk Cave Excavation 1 sequence suggests the following sequence for the development of bifacial technology:

Phase 1: >1.78 mya—Small flake production (Oldowan), Wonderwerk Stratum 12 Phase 2: 1.78–1.07 mya, probably 1.5–1.1 mya, although the earlier part of this age range is most likely. Initial appearance of very simple bifacial technology, Wonderwerk Stratum 11 Phase 3: 1.07–0.99 mya, probably with an earlier onset ca. 1.35 mya. Stratigraphically above phase 2. Systematic handaxe production with shaping using non- invasive flaking. No retouch of handaxe edges. Cleaver production on large flakes also develops in this time range, Wonderwerk Strata 10-8. Phase 4: Chronometrically unconstrained, but stratigraphically above phase 3 with an age likely younger than one million years ago. Shaping of handaxes using invasive flake removals, retouch of handaxe edges to create a continuous working edge and to modify the prehensile element, Wonderwerk Strata 8-5. Possible Fauresmith typological char- acteristics, not including blade production, develop in the later part of this phase (Wonderwerk Strata 7-5). The lower age boundary for this phase can tentatively be set at ca. 500,000 kyr based on the age of the well-developed prepared core industry at Kathu Pan 1.

This overall sequence correlates well with the East African sequence and suggests regularities in the development of Early Stone Age technology 19 across the continent (Beyene et al. 2013; Chevrier 2012). The results also agree with recent dating of Acheulean assemblages at Cornelia-Uitzoek and Rietputs characterized by bifaces shaped by large flake removals, although the Wonderwerk sequence fits best with the younger end of the age range for Rietputs. These ages further align with the dating of the Earlier Stone Age at Sterkfontein and Swartkrans. Further research is needed to strengthen the chronological control for southern Africa, and to explore the degree to which the sequence identified at Wonderwerk Cave, Excavation 1 is found in other contexts in southern Africa, such as the stratified sequences from the Cave of Hearths and Montagu Cave (Keller 1973; McNabb and Sinclair 2009). When considering patterns of variability in the lithic assemblages of the Earlier Stone Age, it is important to recognize that the overall space-time density of excavated Middle Pleistocene assemblages…is appallingly low (Isaac 1972/1989, p. 23). However, the emerging evidence from East Africa and the sequence from Wonderwerk Cave suggest that in addition to factors underlying the observed variability that were identified by Isaac— lineage, function, and stochastic change—there are also trends inherent in the devel- opment of lithic technology across this vast period of time.

Acknowledgments Research at Wonderwerk Cave has been funded by grants from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, The Wenner-Gren Foundation, Victoria College at the University of Toronto, and the University of Toronto program for International Student Experience. All fieldwork has taken place under permit from the South African Heritage Resources Agency, and work on the collection is under the terms of agreement with the McGregor Museum. The analysis of stone tools builds on the contributions of the members of the Wonderwerk Research Project and the results of the excavations by Peter Beaumont. I am grateful to all involved. Alexandra Sumner assisted with the analysis of flakes and Liora Horwitz, Paul Goldberg, and two reviewers provided valuable feedback on an initial draft of this article. I would like to take the opportunity to thank

Colin Fortune, David Morris, and the staff of the McGregor Museum for making this work possible and their overall support for our project. I would also like to thank the University of Toronto students who have assisted with the often tedious work of sorting through the collections.

References

Archer, W., & Braun, D. R. (2010). Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South Africa: A geometric morphometric approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(1), 201–209. Barsky, D., Chapon-Sao, C., Bahain, J. J., Beyene, Y., Cauche, D., Celiberti, V., Desclaux, E., de Lumley, H., de Lumley, M. A., Marchal, F., Moulle, P. E., & Pleurdeau, D. (2011). The early Oldowan stone-tool assemblage from Fejej FJ-1A, Ethiopia. Journal of African Archaeology, 9(2), 207– 224. 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(5–6), 217–228. Berger, L. R., Lacruz, R., & De Ruiter, D. J. (2002). Revised age estimates of Australopithecus‐bearing deposits at Sterkfontein, South Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 119(2), 192–197. Berna, F., Goldberg, P., Horwitz, L. K., Brink, J., Holt, S., Bamford, M. & Chazan, M. (2012). Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, E1215– E1220. Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W. K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., & Asfaw, B. (2013). The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(5), 1584–1591.

21

Binneman, J., & Beaumont, P. (1992). Use-wear analysis of two Acheulean handaxes from Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape. South African Field Archaeology, 1, 92–97. Boëda, E. (2013). Techno-logique & Technologie: Une Paleo-histoire des objets lithiques tranchants. Paris: Archeo-Editions. Brink, J. S., Herries, A. I., Moggi-Cecchi, J., Gowlett, J. A., Bousman, C. B., Hancox, J. P., Grün, R., Eisenmann, V., Adams, J. W., & Rossouw, L. (2012). First hominine remains from a 1.0 million year old bone bed at

Cornelia-Uitzoek, Free State Province,∼ South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 63(3), 527–535. Bruxelles, L., Clarke, R. J., Maire, R., Ortega, R., & Stratford, D. (2014). Stratigraphic analysis of the Sterkfontein StW 573 Australopithecus skeleton and implications for its age. Journal of Human Evolution, 70, 36–48. Canfield, D. E., (2005). The early history of atmospheric oxygen. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 1–36. Chazan, M., & Horwitz, L. K. (2009). Milestones in the development of symbolic behaviour: A case study from Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa. World Archaeology, 41(4), 521–539. 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), 1–11. Chazan, M., Avery, D. M., Bamford, M. K., Berna, F., Brink, J., Fernandez- Jalvo, Y., Goldber, P., Holt, S., Matmon, A., Porat, N., Ron, H., Rossouw, L., Scott, L., & Horwitz, L. K. (2012a). The Oldowan horizon in Wonderwerk Cave (South Africa): Archaeological, geological, paleontological and paleoclimatic evidence. Journal of Human Evolution, 63(6), 859–866. Chazan, M., Wilkins, J., Morris, D., & Berna, F. (2012b). Bestwood 1: A

newly discovered Earlier Stone Age living surface near Kathu, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. Antiquity, 86(331). Chevrier, B. (2012). Les assemblages à pièces bifaciales au Pléistocène inférieur et moyen ancient en Afrique d’Est et au Proche Orient. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense. Cornell, D. H., Schütte, S. S., & Eglington, B. L. (1996). The Ongeluk basaltic and site formation in Griqualand West, South Africa: Submarine alteration in a 2222 Ma Proterozoic sea. Precambrian Research, 79(1), 101–123. de la Torre, I. (2011). The early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the Developed Oldowan/early Acheulean in East Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 60(6), 768–812. de la Torre, I., Mora, R., & Martínez-Moreno, J. (2008). The early Acheulean in Peninj (Lake Natron, Tanzania). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 27(2), 244–264. Diez-Martín, F., Sánchez Yustos, P., Gómez de la Rúa, D., Gómez González, J. Á., de Luque, L., & Barba, R. (2014). Early Acheulean technology at Es2- Lepolosi (ancient MHS-Bayasi) in Peninj (Lake Natron, Tanzania). Quaternary International, 322, 209–236. Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Alcalá, L., & Luque, L. (Eds.). (2009). Peninj: A research project on human origins 1995–2005. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Gallotti, R. (2013). An older origin for the Acheulean at Melka Kunture (Upper Awash, Ethiopia): Techno- economic behaviours at Garba IVD. Journal of Human Evolution, 65(5), 594–620. Gallotti, R., Collina, C., Raynal, J. P., Kieffer, G., Geraads, D., & Piperno, M. (2010). The early Middle Pleistocene site of Gombore II (Melka Kunture, Upper Awash, Ethiopia) and the issue of Acheulean bifacial shaping strategies. African Archaeological Review, 27(4), 291–322. Gibbon, R. J., Granger, D. E., Kuman, K., & Partridge, T. C. (2009). Early Acheulean technology in the Rietputs Formation, South Africa, dated with

23

cosmogenic nuclides. Journal of Human Evolution, 56(2), 152–160. Gibbon, R. J., Pickering, T. R., Sutton, M. B., Heaton, J. L., Kuman, K., Clarke, R. J., Brain, C. L., & Granger, D. E. (2014). Cosmogenic nuclide burial dating of hominin-bearing Pleistocene cave deposits at Swartkrans, South Africa. Quaternary Geochronology, 24, 10–15. Granger, D. E., & Muzikar, P. F. (2001). Dating sediment burial with in situ- produced cosmogenic nuclides: Theory, techniques, and limitations. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 188(1), 269–281. Granger, D. E., Gibbon, R. J., Kuman, K., Clarke, R. J., Bruxelles, L., & Caffee, M. W. (2015). New cosmogenic burial ages for Sterkfontein Member 2 Australopithecus and Member 5 Oldowan. Nature, 522, 85–88. Goldberg, P., Berna, F., & Chazan, M. (2015). Deposition and diagenesis in the Earlier Stone Age of Wonderwerk Cave, Excavation 1, South Africa. African Archaeological Review, 32(4). doi:10.1007/ s10437-015-9192-9. Herries, A. I. (2011). A chronological perspective on the Acheulian and its transition to the Middle Stone Age in southern Africa: The question of the Fauresmith. International Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2011. Herries, A. I., & Shaw, J. (2011). Palaeomagnetic analysis of the Sterkfontein palaeocave deposits: Implications for the age of the hominin fossils and stone tool industries. Journal of Human Evolution, 60(5), 523–539. Horwitz, L. K., & Chazan, M. (2014). An overview of recent research at Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa. Proceedings of the 2010 Joint Meeting of the Panafrican Archaeological Congress and the Society of Africanist Archaeologists, Dakar, Senegal. November 2–4, 2010. Horwitz, L. K. & Chazan, M. (2015). Past and present at Wonderwerk Cave (Northern Cape Province, South Africa). African Archaeological Review, 32(4). doi:10.1007/s10437-015-9208-5. Inskeep, R. R. (1969). Some problems relating to the Early Stone Age in South Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 24(95/96), 174–

181. Isaac, G. L. (1972). Early phases of human behaviour: Models in Lower Palaeolithic archaeology. In D. L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in archaeology (pp. 167–199). London: Methuen. (Reprinted in B. Isaac (Ed.), The Archaeology of Human Origins: Papers by Glynn Isaac, 1989, (pp. 13– 36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Keller, C. M. (1973). Montagu Cave in prehistory: A descriptive analysis. Oakland: University of California Press. Kimura, Y. (2002). Examining time trends in the Oldowan technology at Beds I and II, Olduvai Gorge. Journal of Human Evolution, 43(3), 291–321. Klein, R. G. (2000). The Earlier Stone Age of southern Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 55(172), 107–122. Kuman, K., & Clarke, R. J. (2000). Stratigraphy, artefact industries and hominid associations for Sterkfontein, Member 5. Journal of Human Evolution, 38(6), 827–847. Kuman, K., & Field, A. S. (2009). The Oldowan industry from Sterkfontein caves, South Africa. In K. Schick & N. Toth (Eds.), The cutting edge: New approaches to the archaeology of human origins (pp. 151–169). Gosport: Stone Age Press. Leakey, M. D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge, excavations in Beds I and II, 1960– 1963 (vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leakey, M., & Roe, D. (Eds.). (1994). Olduvai Gorge: Volume 5, excavations in Beds III, IV and the Masek Beds (vol. 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lepre, C. J., Roche, H., Kent, D. V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R. L., Brugal, J. P., Texier, P. J., Lenoble, A., & Feibel, C. S. (2011). An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature, 477(7362), 82–85. Malan, B. D., & Cooke, H. B. S. (1940). A preliminary account of the Wonderwerk Cave, Kuruman district. South African Journal of Science, 37, 300–312. 25

Malan, B. D., & Wells, L. H. (1943). A further report on the Wonderwerk Cave, Kuruman. South African Journal of Science, 40, 258–270. Matmon, A., Ron, H., Chazan, M., Porat, N., & Horwitz, L. K. (2012). Reconstructing the history of sediment deposition in caves: A case study from Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 124(3–4), 611–625. McNabb, J., & Beaumont, P. (2012). Excavations in the Acheulean levels at the Earlier Stone Age site of Canteen Koppie, Northern Province, South Africa. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 78, (pp. 51–71). McNabb, J., & Sinclair, A. (2009). The cave of hearths: Makapan Middle Pleistocene Research Project. Oxford: Archaeopress. Pickering, R., & Kramers, J. D. (2010). Re-appraisal of the stratigraphy and determination of new U-Pb dates for the Sterkfontein hominin site, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 59(1), 70–86. Porat, N., Chazan, M., Grün, R., Aubert, M., Eisenmann, V., & Horwitz, L. K. (2010). New radiometric ages for the Fauresmith industry from Kathu Pan, southern Africa: Implications for the Earlier to Middle Stone Age transition. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(2), 269–283. Riddle, A. T., & Chazan, M. (2014). Stone tools from the inside out: Radial point distribution. World Archaeology, 46(1), 123–136. Roe, D. A. (1969). British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (New Series), 34, 1–82.

Schröder, S., Bedorf, D., Beukes, N. J., & Gutzmer, J. (2011). From BIF to red beds: Sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy of the Paleoproterozoic Koegas Subgroup (South Africa). Sedimentary Geology, 236(1), 25–44. Stern, N. (1993). The structure of the Lower Pleistocene archaeological record: A case study from the Koobi Fora formation [and Comments by H. T. Bunn, E. M. Kroll, G. Haynes, S. McBrearty, J. Sept, and P. R. Willoughby, and Reply]. Current Anthropology, 34(3), 201–225.

Underhill, D. (2011). The study of the Fauresmith: A review. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 66(193), 15–26. Wilkins, J., & Chazan, M. (2012). Blade production 500 thousand years ago

at Kathu Pan 1, South Africa: Support for a multiple∼ origins hypothesis for early Middle Pleistocene blade technologies. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(6), 1883–1900. Wilkins, J., Schoville, B. J., Brown, K. S., & Chazan, M. (2012). Evidence for early hafted hunting technology. Science, 338(6109), 942–946.

27

Fig. 1 N-S schematic profile of Excavation 1 after Beaumont and Vogel 2006 and plan of excavation area by stratum. BExcavated units^ are based on the bag list of material from the Beaumont excavations stored in the McGregor Museum. Note that squares O-P/30-31 were excavated by Malan in 1948. Red arrow on scale indicates location of the dated profile from Chazan et al.

Fig. 2 Metrical data for Wonderwerk Excavation 1 bifaces by stratum

29

Fig. 3 Flake attributes for Wonderwerk Excavation 1 by stratum. Note that attributes were not available for 24 flakes from St. 8 at the time of writing (all images in full color online)

Fig. 4 Cores and Flakes. a SPL 385, St. 9. Ironstone flake with radial dorsal scar pattern and small facetedb platform. Possible notch on right margin, b SPL 371, St. 9. Thin distal flake fragment with complex dorsal scar pattern consistent with thinning of a handaxe tip; c SPL 375, St. 9. Ironstone flake with radial dorsal flake pattern and plain platform (not shown), d SPL 335, St. 10. Quartz flake, convergent off the edge of a core. Plain platform. e SPL 373, St. 9. Igneous flake with radial dorsal scar pattern. Large platform at an oblique angle to the dorsal surface, consistent with removal from a biface. f SPL 72, St. 7. Large elongated flake with retouch around the perimeter creating a rounded distal 31 end. Note that the dorsal scar patterns, although unclear, are not consistent with regular blade production. Plain platform not shown. g SPL 45, St. 10. Chopper on an ironstone cobble. This could be classified as a core, but the removals appear to be organized to create a pointed tip that shows some damage. h SPL 355, St 9. Small radial ironstone core worked on only one face. i SPL 103, St. 8. Large chert core with radial scars on one face including one large removal and the second face only minimally exploited along one edge (Photos: by author)

Fig. 5 Modified Slabs and Refit flakes. a SPL 295a, St. 10. Modified ironstone slab. b SPL 42, St. 10. Modified ironstone slab with flake removals along one edge. c SPL 304, St. 11. Modified chert slab. d SPL 333, 266a, and 266b, St. 10. Sequence of three refitting flakes. All from Square R22, 0–15. e SPL 279 (core) and 326 (flake), St. 10. Refitting flake and core. Core from Square Q33 45–50, flake from Square Q33 50–55 (Photos: by author)

Fig. 6 Other. a SPL 273, Stratum 10. Small quartz crystal broken at one end. b No SPL #, Stratum 10. Thin waterworn piece of ironstone. There are scratches on the surface. c Stratum 9 SPL 356. Dolomite (?) with a series of parallel grooves on one face (Photos: by author)

33

Fig. 7 Strtum 11 Bifaces. SPL 37. Small biface apparently made on a natural spall of ironstone. If it is in fact ab slab rather than a spall, then the bottom right of the right side view should be reinterpreted as a large flake scar, but there is no evidence of ripples or other features that would support this view. Most knapping is along one edge, oblique on one face (right), and flat on the other where there is a sequence of flat unidirectional flakes, two of which cover the width of the artifact. The tip, which is somewhat blunt, is created by a series of small removals without any particular order. It is possible that the small removal off the right side

is actually damage (length 7.9 cm, breadth 3.4 cm, thickness 1.4 cm.) SPL 36 Large ironstone slab with removals around the periphery. The piece has been damaged by the development of what calcium carbonate concretions (fizzes under HCl) creating potlids. This is the first large ironstone slab in the sequence (length 13.3 cm, breadth 7.3 cm, thickness 3.3 cm) (Photos: by author)

35

Fig. 8 Handaxes with non-invasive, shaping flake removals form Wonderwerk Cave, Excavation 1. Stratumb 8, SPL 10: This might be a handaxe in the early stages of production. Note that the entire form is already in place with particular attention to shaping the tip (length 17.2 cm, breadth 12.1 cm, thickness 2.8 cm). Stratum 8, SPL 83: Handaxe with short bifacial removals off the entire circumference except for a small portion of the base. None of the removals are very invasive with the exception of one flat removal off the tip. Flat cortex remains on both faces. The functioning of the resulting tool is unclear, but there is a rounded cleaver edge created along one of the margins (length 9.4 cm,

breadth 5.8 cm, thickness 1.3 cm). Stratum 9, SPL 102: Handaxe with knapping around the entire circumference of large flakes, mostly with deep bulbs and no remaining cortex. The tip is formed by a removal nearly perpendicular to the long axis that creates a cleaver tip. This removal has a deep bulb but is flat and covers the entire width of the piece. It is followed by two small removals off the other face and there is some damage to the tip consistent with use (length 11.0 cm, breadth 5.2 cm, thickness 2.2 cm). Stratum 9, SPL 397: One face of this handaxe is weathered while the other is fresh. It appears to be an old flaked piece that was reused. The fresh chipping is very abrupt on both edges resulting in multiple hinge fracture. The tip appears to be broken off (length 12.1 cm, breadth 6.8 cm, thickness 3.7 cm). Stratum 10, SPL 43: Handaxe with removals off the entire circumference except for a small portion of the base. None of the removals are very invasive with the exception of one flat removal off the tip. Flat cortex remains on both faces. The functioning of the resulting tool is unclear, but there is a rounded cleaver edge created along one of the margins (length 9.4 cm, breadth 5.8 cm, thickness 1.3 cm). Stratum 10: SPL 41: Handaxe with flaking around the entire circumference. Plano-convex in section. Flakes are all short with prominent bulbs of percussion with only a small bit of cortex is left on each face. The base is finished by a series of small flake removals off the convex face. These could be use damage but this would require that the piece was being used with an adze-like motion. The tip is unworked and has a cleaver working edge. There is also a sharp edge along one of the margins near the tip (length 11.9 cm, breadth 7.1 cm, thickness 3.2 cm) (Photos: by author)

37

Fig. 9 Handaxes with invasive and non-invasive retouch from Wonderwerk Cave, Excavation 1. Stratum 9, SPL 95. Chert handaxe with much of one face and the base remain unworked. The second face also maintains some cortex. Most removals have deep bulbs and are not very invasive. There are even a number of hinge fractures despite the fact that the angle for removals was quite steep, giving the impression that this was a difficult material to work. However, there is a series of very fine removals off one edge that shape the tip. These have very shallow bulbs and are flat (length 12.3 cm, breadth 7.6 cm). St 9, SPL 97. Handaxe with bifacial flaking around the entire circumference consisting of invasive flake scars with shallow bulbs. The raw material is red ironstone with no obvious bedding plains. The fine workmanship stands in sharp contrast to a final stage of fabrication which

involved pinching in the distal end to form a tip. Here, the removals are unifacial steep removals with deep bulbs (length 9.7 cm, breadth 7.5 cm, thickness 2.0 cm) (Photos: by author)

39

Fig. 10 Handaxes with invasive shaping flake removals from Wonderwerk Cave, Excavation 1. Stratum 6,b SPL 700: Symmetrical handaxe shaped by large invasive centripedal removals with large scars. Patch of cortex on each face. Tip appears broken. All edges sharp with little retouch (length 10.9 cm, breadth 7.6 cm). Stratum 6, SPL 73: Symmetrical handaxe with slight offset to tip. Shaping through large mostly flat invasive flake removals. Little edge retouch. Difficulty in removing a central ridge on one face resulted in a patch of remaining cortex and some deep hinge fractures (length 12.2 cm, breadth 7.4 cm, thickness 2.6 cm). Stratum 7, SPL 71: Irregular shaped handaxe with invasive flaking around entire circumference on both faces. Tip appears to be damaged. The base is very well worked and regular edge and was possibly a working edge (length 12.8 cm,

breadth 7.9 cm, thickness 3.1 cm). Stratum 7, SPL 88: Symmetrical handaxe. Flake scars difficult to make out due to weathering and concretions. Radial knapping of fairly large invasive flakes including one large hinge fracture. No clear damage to tip (length 11.2 cm, breadth 5.8 cm, thickness 2.5 cm). Stratum 8, SPL 79: Irregular shaped handaxe with cortex on both faces and little work on the base. On one face, there are only two clear scars, converging near the tip. Although both are short and wide, one terminates in a hinge fracture. There also appears to be one flake removal closer to the base that creates a notch. There is also one small removal, apparently damage, off the tip. The other face has 4–5 flat short, broad removals converging towards the tip. The tip on this face is finely worked with a series of small removals that create a linear cleaver-like bit (length 14.3 cm, breadth 8.5 cm, thickness 2.2 cm). Stratum 8, SPL 77: Symmetrical handaxe finely knapped all the way around including the base and with no remaining cortex. It is plano- convex in section with little evidence of successful invasive thinning flakes. Given the care taken in manufacture, a set of notches along one edge from the base until just past the midpoint is interesting. The notches are created by single invasive flakes off the convex face and show no evidence of fine finishing. The tip is oval and creates a cleaver-like cutting edge (length 14.2 cm, breadth 7.9 cm, thickness 2.6 cm) (Photos: by author)

41

Fig. 11 Cleavers from Wonderwerk Cave, Excavation 1. Stratum 6, SPL 48: Very intensely worked, possibly a reused broken handaxe (the point would have been towards the top in the photo). Use wear on one face along a thin edge. One large flake removal (length 9.0 cm, breadth 6.2 cm, thickness 2.6 cm). Stratum 6, SPL 65: Considerable damage or retouch along the tip on both faces. Cortex on both faces (length 11.3 cm, breadth 6.7 cm, thickness 3.1 cm). Stratum 8, SPL 18: Cleaver on a large flake with damage on the dorsal face. The cleaver bit is finely retouched on the dorsal face. It appears that the platform has been knapped away in the process of shaping the left margin of the dorsal surface. There is continuous non-invasive retouch along this edge while on the other edge there is no clear evidence for retouch that postdates the removal of the flake. Due to the damage the flake scars are not indicated on the photo (length 11.9 cm, breadth 7.0 cm, thickness 2.5 cm). Stratum 9, SPL 99: Cleaver made on a large flake, probably from a Victoria West Core, on igneous rock. The cleaver tip is unretouched but does have some edge damage. There is continuous unifacial retouch along the dorsal face of the edge that did not come of the edge of the core (length 13.6 cm, breadth 6.7 cm, thickness 3.7 cm). Stratum 10, SPL 702: Large semi-cortical

flake of gray raw material, either ironstone or highly silicious dolomite. Only a small bit of the ventral flake surface is preserved, near the tip. The tip is a cleaver cutting edge. On the dorsal surface only a bit of the original ventral scars are preserved, again near the tip. There are a series of flake scars off the cortical part of the ventral surface that might have preceded the removal of this large flake (labeled in the photo as stage 1 removals). Note that on the photo the cortical dorsal surface appears on the same image as the ventral surface. This is because the flake came off the edge of a rounded cobble. Removals consist of short flakes with prominent bulbs. There are a series of small flake removals off the base, possibly the result of bashing that create a wedge- shaped edge. There is also a continuous working edge opposite the cortical edge, formed by bifacial flaking (length 13.6 cm, breadth 6.0 cm) (Photos: by author)

43

Fig. 12 Artifacts possibly indicative of Fauresmith. St. 7, SPL 70. Chert biface. Due to the irregularity of the raw material it is difficult to make out the flake scars. The base is left cortical. There are deep hinge fractures along one edge and damage in the form of three small flake scars at the tip on one face (length 12.0 cm, breadth 5.7 cm, thickness 2.7 cm). St. 7, SPL 69. Very large ovoid biface made on a cobble of a red homogenous fine-grained ironstone. Removals largely consist of series of parallel flakes off each edge. There is considerable cortex suggesting that the original shape of the cobble was close to the shape of the finished piece. Damage at tip (length 18.6 cm, breadth 7.7 cm, thickness 3.9 cm). St. 7, SPL 610. Transversal scraper on cortical flake. St. 7, SPL 601. Offset simple convex scraper. St. 8, SPL 28. A very small biface on a chert pebble formed by bifacial abrupt retouch of one edge and invasive flakes off one face. The surface without invasive retouch has some remaining cortex (length 4.5 cm, breadth 2.2 cm, thickness 1.2 cm). St 7, SPL 1. Thick ironstone flake used to produce a plano-convex cleaver edge. Retouch covers the entire area of both faces, just a little bit of the original bulb of percussion, and the cortical platform is preserved. The cleaver bit is created by a series of

parallel bifacial flake removals. On the convex face, most of these terminate in hinge fractures (length 8.1 cm, breadth 5.9 cm, thickness 2.6 cm) (Photos: by author)

45

47