b Fig. 12.2 Effective chains of production and use of weapon systems can be compared. a That of a simple wooden spear shows the collection and preparation of several other materials before production could begin and the use of heat to shape, sharpen or temper the spear. b That of a stone-tipped spear illustrates the new cognitive element of composition (encircled +) during the production of adhesives and during the final assembly of the composite artifact. c That of a

bow-and-arrow set illustrates the novel cognitive concept of complementary or symbiotic technologies (in illustration) (Fig. 12.2a– c adapted from Lombard and Haidle 2012). d Direct comparison of the hypothetical dimensions associated with each technology. e Simplified, hypothetical graphic expression of the thought-and-action volumes of the different effective chains of production and use

elements in the sequence there is room for flexibility, i.e. variability in choice. This level in complexity and flexibility is only possible when satisfaction (accomplishing a goal) can be decoupled from basic need, so that the manufacture and curation of tools become aims within themselves. It means that each unit (e.g., fire, heavy-duty tool, flake tool, hammerstone) can be applied in a modular, flexible way within different operational sequences. This represents the capacity for conceptual, technological and behavioral modularization (Haidle 2009, 2010; Lombard and Haidle 2012).

Objects such as, or similar to, wooden spears need not only be used as hand-delivered hunting weapons, they would function equally well as: digging sticks for food foraging or water retrieval, fighting sticks during situations of social stress, initiation ceremonies or sporting events, armatures for defense against dangerous animals, walking sticks, or stakes that can be pounded into the ground for various purposes, such as constructing shelters or tripods over fire pits. For all of the above applications there exists ample archaeological and/or ethno-historical evidence. Thus, understanding how to modify a piece of wood, using other objects and agents, into a long, straight, strong and sharpened object, hugely increases the range of behaviors in which individuals can interact with their environment. Such individuals are therefore much more prepared for, and flexible within, any given set of circumstances, than those without similar implements – whether these circumstances are physical, economical or social.

Stone-Tipped Spears

From the above it is clear that a long, hard, sharpened stick can be a versatile and useful object, but what does it lack when applied to hunting, fighting or defense? The answer is a harder, sharper piercing tip combined with a cutting edge. There can be little doubt that ancient communities, through the processes of observation, experimentation, copying, social learning and communication, understood that pointed stone flakes possess these properties. Composite tools (such as stone-tipped spears, knives, axes and hammers) represent the concept of modular combination or composition where the addition of several separate elements form a single, new, composite tool with enhanced properties (Lombard and Haidle 2012). Such tools first seem to appear during the transition

from the Acheulean to the Middle Paleolithic or Middle Stone Age. Stone-tipped, hand-delivered spears could have been used from *500 ka in southern Africa (Wilkins et al. 2012), *285 ka in other parts of sub-Saharan Africa (McBrearty and Tryon 2005), *270 ka in the Near East (Mercier and Valladas 2003), and *200 ka in Europe (Villa and Soriano 2010). These early weapons were tipped mostly with simple, unretouched convergent flakes or Levallois-type points. By *75 ka we have use-trace evidence that thin, bifacially retouched stone points were hafted as both spears and knives in southern Africa (Lombard 2006, 2007).

The effective chain of production and use of a stone-tipped spear illustrates the new cognitive element of composition (encircled +) during the production of adhesives and during the final assembly of the composite artifact (Fig. 12.2b). When this chain is compared with that of the production and use of a single-component wooden spear (Fig. 12.2a, d, e), we see how the problem-solution distance and operational sequence is extended in duration and complexity (Lombard and Haidle 2012). We will probably never know how, where, or how many times, the concept of a hafted tool was ‘invented’, but it is an innovation that radically changed the world of hominin technology. Once the properties of different elements and how they could be combined to form new functional units were understood, the range of combinations, technologies, and their potential applications were dramatically increased. Equipped with stone-tipped spears, knives axes and hammers, fitness options regarding hunting, meat processing, foraging and defense were vastly increased, compared with those provided for by a simple wooden spear and a handful of loose stone flakes.

What is more, single elements such as a stone spear tip can easily be renewed without thinking through the whole process of producing and using the complete spear (Haidle 2010, 2012). Additional elements such as binding materials and tips can be made in advance and curated as stock or spare parts. The decoupling of tool production from basic need provides the tool with independent existence (Lombard and Haidle 2012). Thus, tools have the potential to provide solutions for problems yet to be identified, e.g., the same stone point can be used as a hand-held cutting tool, hafted to a short handle as a knife blade, or used to tip a robust hunting spear; depending on need and situation. Problems are, therefore, no longer perceived or solved only in the immediate or extended present. With such advanced conceptual, technological and

behavioral modularization and composition, cognitive time depth is growing (Haidle 2010, 2012).

Composition thus offers increased flexibility in diverse contexts. A range of solutions can be applied to a single problem, or various needs can be met with a single solution (Lombard and Haidle 2012). Direct evidence for stone-tipped spears (or other composite/hafted implements [e.g., Rots and Van Peer 2006]) early on in the archaeological record, hence represents a powerful increase in technological, behavioral and cognitive flexibility, compared to the production and use of simple wooden spears and/or un-hafted stone tools. Notwithstanding their complexity, Homo sapiens shares cognitive and cultural traits, as represented by composite tools in the archaeological record, with

Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis and archaic modern humans (e.g., Williams et al. 2014).

Bow-and-Arrow Technology

The invention of the bow-and-arrow used to be closely linked to the late Upper Paleolithic in Europe (Cattelain 1997). Lately, however, based on new data from Africa, opinions regarding the inception of mechanically-projected weaponry have begun to vary considerably. Some maintain that the bone points and microliths of the early Later Stone Age at Border Cave, South Africa, at *40–35 ka, signals the advent of bow-and-arrow technology (Villa et al. 2010), others claim that dart-and-spearthrower technology could have existed by *100 ka elsewhere in the region (Brooks et al. 2006). Regardless of disagreement on the place and timing of the origins of bow-and-arrow technology, there seems to be consensus that it was a technology used exclusively by Homo sapiens (e.g., Shea and Sisk 2010; Villa and Soriano 2010). Shea and Sisk (2010) also argue that mechanically-projected weaponry, such as bows and arrows, was a key strategic innovation, driving Late Pleistocene human dispersal into western Eurasia after *50 ka.

Recent multi-disciplinary work shows that arrows tipped with stone and bone, and by implication bows, were probably used at Sibudu and Umhlatuzana in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa by 64–60 ka (Fig. 12.1a, e) (Backwell et al. 2008; Wadley and Mohapi 2008; Lombard and Phillipson 2010; Bradfield and Lombard 2011; Lombard 2011). For the same time frame, the faunal assemblage of Sibudu provides circumstantial evidence for the use of snares and traps (Wadley 2010), so that we can accept that people already understood the potential of latent energy stored in a bent branch and knew how to make cords with the necessary tensile strength for bow production (Lombard and Phillipson 2010). When the production-and-use chain of a bow-and-arrow set is compared with those of single-component wooden spears

and composite spears (Fig. 12.2a–e), we see again how the problem-solution distance and operational sequence is greatly extended in duration and complexity (Lombard and Haidle 2012).Yet, considered individually, and even though many steps may be involved in their production, neither bows nor stoneor bone-tipped arrows are necessarily more complex than other composite tools such as stone-tipped spears (Lombard and Haidle 2012). So, we may ask, why the fuss about when they were invented, and by whom?

We have found that as soon as these artifacts are thought of or used together, the abilities and concepts they signify change. It is then that they represent the novel cognitive concept of complementary tool sets or symbiotic technologies (Fig. 12.2c). Complementation or symbiosis, similar to composition, is an innovative concept in the problem-solution distance. Yet, it introduces an additional effect tools can have on each other, facilitating an entire new category of tools with new qualities. These new qualities can only be reached by actively and simultaneously using a set of symbiotic tools (Lombard and Haidle 2012). In this scenario, flexibility regarding problem solving, decision-making and actiontaking is amplified. For example, arrowheads and other units (such as length, weight, fletching, etc.) can instantaneously be adapted to prey type, season, situation or environment, increasing the scope and potential for success. Also, the same weapon system can be used effectively in the thickest offorests, such as in the Amazon or Papua New Guinea, and in the driest of landscapes, such as the Kalahari Desert. It can be (and is) used equally successfully to hunt animals on land, in the treetops, or in the water, and it probably revolutionized inter-personal violence and warfare.

In my opinion, the critical advantage of bow-and-arrow technology is that it is a light-weight, portable system, providing a single person with multiple shots that can be delivered in quick succession into an array of target types from a distance and a concealed position. No other Stone Age weapon system allows for this configuration. It permits an individual to accomplish alone what can only be done in a group or at great risk using hand-delivered weapons. Bow-and-arrow technology is thus not only niche-broadening in terms of prey type and/or landscape, but also increases the fitness profile of a single person or a small (core family) group, compared to hunting, defending or attacking with hand-delivered weapons. I thus agree with authors such as Shea and Sisk (2010) that such mechanically-projected weapon systems, representing the concept of symbiotic technologies and amplified modularization (Lombard and Haidle 2012), were probably part of a suite of strategies that provided our Homo sapiens ancestors from Africa with the means to successfully spread across the globe after *50 ka.

Not all complementary tool sets have to be as complex as a bow-and-arrow set, other examples of such tool sets or technological symbiosis can be found in the production and