MSA variability at Klasies (Wurz 2002)

[Daryl Habel]

I've had the opportunity to read:

Wurz, S. (2002). Variability in the Middle Stone Age Lithic Sequence, 115,000-60,000 Years Ago at Klasies River, South Africa.  Journal of Archaeological Science. 29: 1001-1015.

In the Introduction, the author suggests that "lack of understanding of technological patterning" in the Middle Stone Age (MSA) at  Klasies River has "encouraged" a view that this was a period lacking in appreciable artifact variability, not expressed in different frequencies of formal tools in the widely-used numbering of "sub-stages" MSA I-IV,  the apparant exception being the Howiesons Poort "sub-stage".  

Wurz says "the distinction between sub-stages is valid and the problem lies in its adequate description."  Critical of the Goodwin (1958) view (lacking "substantive support", she says)  that there was a valid distinction between the sub-Saharan African MSA and the Middle Palaeolithic, and adding that later researchers have perpetuated this view, Wurz says that "currently" the MSA and Middle Palaeolithic are seen as geographically separate but contemporaneous stages, and that part of the reason for "lack of progress in resolving inter-stage relationships" is  the recent advances made in Middle Paleolithic technological studies, while studies of  MSA technology have lagged behind (pp. 1001-2).

It is well-known to most folks here that the Howiesons Poort has often been described as something of an anomalous MSA blade industry, but this paper points out (new to me) that the (earlier) MSA I (proposed as the Klasies River sub-stage by the author) utilizes a blade production strategy  that is followed in MSA II (proposed Mossel Bay sub-stage) by a Levallois-like point production strategy, succeeded in turn by another blade production strategy aimed at producing the smaller blades of the Howiesons Poort.  This then is followed by the  MSA III, which cannot be described adequately because of small sample size, but is itself "clearly distinct." and contains a number of "knives" made on blade blanks.  The author points out that even though different reduction stratigies and typological characteristics dominate the different named or numbered sub-stages, there is a unity in the 115-60 kyr-old MSA at Klasies, in that almost all cores were unifacial, with cortex remaining on the passive surface, and that end-products of all sub-stages tend to be elongated and removed in a unidirectional fashion (p. 1011).

Concluding, Wurz brings up the question of the relationship of the contemporaneous sub-Saharan MSA and the Middle Palaeolithic, and while admitting that it "cannot be discussed adequately here," suggests it may be time to reconsider Goodwin's reasons for proposing the term Middle Stone Age, and suggests the dichotomy originally proposed by Goodwin,  is a matter of "terminology and a consequence of the history of research" (p. 1013)

IMO a well-written, well-documented paper with numerous MSA I-IV and Howiesons Poort artifact line-drawings, several tables of dates for various Klasies River site deposits, dimensions and other technical details of the various MSA sub-stages and associated assemblages, and a schematic drawing of the stratigraphy at Klasies River main site.  I personally found it very informative and a pleasure to read,  even if my opinion (general agreement, but then I'm "easy") of the author's argument that the variability documented  at Klasies River and other South African sites during the first half of the Late Pleistocene should be seen as part of the "Middle Palaeolithic record in a particular sub-continental region" (Wurz 2002) is an opinion that doesn't count for much in this forum.

Any comment on this would be greatly appreciated.  

Regards to all,
Dar

[Mikey Brass]

Wurtz obtained her doctorate from the University of Stellenbosch's now defunct archaeology dept in 1999, and her Masters the previous year.

>>In the Introduction, the author suggests that "lack of understanding of technological patterning" in the Middle Stone Age (MSA) at  Klasies River has "encouraged" a view that this was a period lacking in appreciable artifact variability, not expressed in different frequencies of formal tools in the widely-used numbering of "sub-stages" MSA I-IV,  the apparant exception being the Howiesons Poort "sub-stage".<<

With regards to this section of her paper Wurtz is arguing against not only Goodwin and others but someone within her former department who has conducted extensive studies on the early Klasies River stages, Anne Thackeray.

I have read Wurtz's Masters these on the Klasies River Howiesonspoort, 1998, and her subsequent June 1999 publication in the South African Archaeological Bulletin. Her docteral thesis encompased a wide range of early Middle Stone Age sites and it reads to me that her article is an outgrowth of her thesis.

I have her article but haven't finished reading it, due to the enormous volume of material. She is a rising star in SA archaeological circles and I regard the work of hers which I have read to be of a high standard and I agree with most of it. Her proposition here that that distinction between the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age is essentially an artificial barrier is a matter worth continuing serious consideration.

[Daryl Habel]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the comment. Yes, she seems to be "a rising star", all right, but you're not going to be "rising" in her favor if you keep spelling her name with a "t".  She and Hillary Deacon did a rough paper together on Klasies River, which they had (or maybe still have since I printed it and haven't checked back since) posted on the www.

The internet paper was well composed and highly informative also, but they asked people not to use it as a reference.  I'm, as you know, mostly a "line-drawing" analyst when it comes to stone tools (well, I've found,  looked at and handled a few Woodland Period and later Native American arrowheads), and it may be just something I'm imagining, but Wurz seems to be describing and illustrating the same sort of core reduction strategies as, I'll put it this way,  much the same as has been, to my mind and eyes, previously described much farther north as Middle Palaeolithic on other continents.

That's why it was "easy" for me to generally agree with her that there are fuzzy boundries to the the MSA/MP dichotomy.

Regards,
Dar

[Mikey Brass]

Hi Dar,

Thanks for catching the "t" and the poor editing read for letting it through. I'm embarassed to admit it was a common spelling mistake amongst the people of the University of Cape Town when Wurz first appeared on the scene, but that's no excuse. I have read their internet paper and it is far too generalised imo to be of any real use, except as a pointer to an early published paper - I read it after I had read Wurz's MA thesis and after her SA Archaeological Bulletin paper, so I was biased from the start effectively.

Do you have a copy of the SAAB paper?

[Daryl Habel]

Do you have a copy of the SAAB paper?

No I do not.  But I'd sure be a happy fellow if a copy suddenly appeared in my e-mail (hint, hint) :-)

Dar