The study of raw materials is an essential step in lithic analysis, regardless of the age, provenance, and technology of the assemblages. As in many other contexts of the Paleolithic, researchers of the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in southern Africa have often focused their attention on fine-grained, non-local rock types, such as silcrete. Here, I spotlight raw materials considered to be of lower suitability for knapping and frequently acquired from local sources. Due to their coarse-grained nature, artifacts from rock types such as calcrete, sandstone, and quartzite might show attributes that are different from finer-grained materials. Some of these knapped stones even constitute the substrate of the sites they are from, at times resulting in their neglect or not being recognized as anthropogenic artifacts. Knapped vein quartz features sharp and durable edges, but its complicated fracture mechanics hamper comparative analysis and provide methodological challenges. In this study, raw materials from different transport distances and with different presumed qualities are compared in terms of their roles in MSA lithic technology and settlement patterns. In the first step, the article focuses on the open-air special-purpose camp of Hoedjiespunt 1 (HDP1, Western Cape) and the rockshelter residential site of Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal), especially on assemblages dated between ~ 130–100 and ~ 58 ka. Subsequently, I review relevant materials for the southern African MSA. At HDP1 and Sibudu, local raw materials of lower knapping suitability assume several roles, from the “staple” material for all manufacturing stages to special-purpose and “add-on” functions. In the broader southern African region, MSA knappers also used these rock types in a flexible manner with gradual differences but also similarities to their use of finer-grained raw material. These differences depend on a complex interaction of raw material availability, differential site use, and the position of the localities in the settlement system.

无论组合的年代、来源和技术如何，对原材料的研究都是岩屑分析中必不可少的一步。与旧石器时代的许多其他背景一样，南部非洲中石器时代 (MSA) 的研究人员经常将注意力集中在细粒的非局部岩石类型上，例如硅质混凝土。在这里，我重点介绍了被认为不太适合制作且经常从当地采购的原材料。由于其粗粒性质，来自石灰岩、砂岩和石英岩等岩石类型的人工制品可能会显示出与细粒材料不同的属性。这些碎石中的一些甚至构成了它们所来自的遗址的基底，有时导致它们被忽视或不被认为是人为的人工制品。破碎脉石英具有锋利且耐用的边缘，但其复杂的断裂力学阻碍了比较分析并提供了方法学上的挑战。在这项研究中，对来自不同运输距离和不同假定质量的原材料在 MSA 岩屑技术和聚落模式中的作用进行了比较。在第一步中，文章重点关注 Hoedjiespunt 1（HDP1，西开普省）的露天专用营地和 Sibudu（夸祖鲁-纳塔尔省）的岩石避难所住宅区，尤其是约 130-100 年和约58 卡。随后，我回顾了南部非洲MSA的相关材料。在 HDP1 和 Sibudu，当地的加工适应性较低的原材料扮演着多种角色，从所有制造阶段的“主食”材料到特殊用途和“附加”功能。在更广阔的南部非洲地区，MSA knappers 也以灵活的方式使用这些岩石类型，这些岩石类型逐渐不同，但也与使用细粒原材料的相似。这些差异取决于原材料可用性、不同场地使用以及地点在聚居系统中的位置之间的复杂相互作用。