Emily Hallinan

Nubian Levallois technology has recently risen to the forefront of debates surrounding Late Pleistocene human technological behavior, cultural traditions, and demographic histories. Named after the region where it was first identified, Nubian Levallois describes a specific method of lithic point production that occurs in Middle Palaeolithic (or Middle Stone Age) assemblages across arid North Africa, the Levant and Arabia. However, the recent identification of Nubian technology in separate, disconnected regions, such as South Africa and possibly India suggests there are more diverse scenarios of its emergence and spread than the original model of a broad Nubian technocomplex related to a single, expanding population from its north‐east African heartland. While few assemblages containing Nubian technology are directly dated, its proposed MIS 5 timing coincides with early modern human dispersals out of Africa, adding a further dimension of whether certain lithic technologies can be linked to specific geographic populations.

Currently, advancing this debate is hindered by having neither an accepted definition of what constitutes Nubian technology, nor a consensus on its role in modern human cultural evolution and population dynamics. To address this, 22 archaeologists met for an international workshop with two aims: (1) refining the definition of the Nubian technological method and how it can be identified in assemblages; and (2) re‐evaluating the relation- ship between Nubian technology as a reduction strategy and the Nubian Complex as a cultural entity in the context of current evidence. The specialist group of lithic analysts brought expertise in relevant assemblages—particularly those where Nubian technology forms a prominent component—from across Africa, the Levant and Arabia, contributing a diverse range of approaches and perspectives to this salient debate.

Blinkhorn et al. present a reanalysis of fossil and lithic material from Garrod's 1928 excavation at Shukbah Cave, identifying the presence of Nubian Levallois cores and points in direct association with a Neanderthal molar. The authors argue that this demonstrates the Nubian reduction strategy forms a part of the wider Middle Palaeolithic lithic repertoire, therefore its role as a cultural marker for Homo sapiens population movements is invalid. We raise the following four major concerns: (1) we question the assumptions made by the authors about the integrity and homogeneity of the Layer D assemblage and (2) the implications of this for the association of the Neanderthal tooth with any specific component of the assemblage, (3) we challenge the authors' attribution of lithic material to Nubian Levallois technology according to its strict definition, and (4) we argue that the comparative data presented derive from a biased sample of sites. These points critically undermine the article's conclusion that Shukbah's Neanderthals made Nubian cores and thus the argument that Neanderthals might have made Nubian technology elsewhere is unsubstantiated.

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.

Stone Age surface assemblages are all too often neglected in favour
of stratified, datable cave sequences, thus overlooking important
insights into changing behavioural patterns at a broader scale.
The Olifants River Valley (Clanwilliam, Western Cape Province,
South Africa) presents a rich surface lithic record alongside
excavated rockshelter occupations from the early Middle Stone
Age (MSA) to the Later Stone Age (LSA). Surface surveys in the
Olifants River Valley mapped temporally diagnostic artefacts and
their association with different topographic features in order to
investigate past landscape use. Our approach refers to a
hypothesis proposed by Hilary Deacon, framing the MSA within
the context of earlier and later patterns of behaviour. Based on
observations from sites across South Africa, Deacon described
Earlier Stone Age (ESA) landscape use as ‘stenotopic’, with a
narrow focus on permanent water sources, and LSA landscape use
as ‘eurytopic’, using a much broader range of habitats but
specifically occupying rockshelters as domestic sites. Deacon
suggested that the intervening MSA, in its later stages, shows a
pattern that anticipated LSA landscape use. We apply Deacon’s
model to the study area, observing distinctive preferences for
certain locations and raw materials and approaching changing
patterns of artefact discard from a technological perspective.