Ochre communities of practice in Stone Age Eswatini

Domain: earth_science
Published: 2024-10-24
Editorial outcome: minor_revision

Abstract
Ourspeciesandotherhomininshaveusedearthmineralpigmentssinceat
least~500,000yearsago,ifnotearlier.Itspreservationandubiquitywithin
archaeologicalrecordsacrosssub-SaharanAfricaarewelldocumented,but
regional-scalenetworksofmineralselection,mining,transport,anduseisan
underdevelopedfield.Here,wepresentaframeworkforinterpretingregional
variationswithinanoverarchingochre-behavioralcommunityofpractice.
Deep-timerecordsofochreprovisioningspanthefinalMiddleStoneAgeand
LateStoneAgeinmoderndayEswatini,revealinglongstandingculturalcon-
tinuitiesintheintergenerationaltransmissionofsharedknowledgeonland-
scapes,geology,andthedesiredphysicochemicalpropertiesofmineral
pigments.Thesecommunitiesofpracticedidnotdevelopinisolation,and
werepartofawidersystemofrelationsthatwereinfluencedandmediatedby
socialinteractions,suchastechnologicallearning,seasonaltraveling,material
cultureexchange,andsymbolicexpression.Weusecompositionalanalysesto
determinelocalizedochreprocurementstrategiesandlong-distancetransport
acrossanetworkoffifteenarchaeologicalsitesandmineralresources.Newly
refinedchronologiesfromLionCavernatNgwenyausingopticallystimulated
luminescencedatingalsoreaffirmitsantiquityastheoldestknownevidence
forintensiveochreminingworldwide(~48,000yearsago).

Introduction
Identifyingevidenceforlongdistancemobilityandsocialinteractions
isattheforefrontofarchaeologicalresearchintheMiddleStoneAge
andLateStoneAge(MSA/LSA)ofsub-SaharanAfrica1–5.Theanalysisof
earthmineralpigments,orochres,hasplayedaroleininterpretations
of cognitive behaviors6,7, is linked to rock art and symbolic
expressions8, and is associated with tool hafting adhesives9,10,
bedding11, and several examples of compositional analysis and
provenance12–17.But,ithasrarelybeenconceptualizedinaframework
thatadvancesidentifyingochrecommunitiesofpractice18–21.Laveand
Wengerfirstintroducedtheconceptsofcommunitiesofpracticeand
situated learning to describe how shared knowledge and traditions
emergewithin,andarereinforcedandcommunicatedacross,social
groups19,22.Learningabodyofknowledgeorskillisaninherentlysocial
practicethatcanoccuratdifferentnodeswithinaculturalframework,
whetherformal,passive,embedded,peripheral,orrestricted.These
conceptshavebeenappliedtounderstandthesocialdimensionsof
lithic technologies23, ceramic production24,25,and early metallurgical
practices21. Here, we apply the concept to the chaîne opératoire of
ochre behaviors, from mineral selection through to its end use or
deposition inatarchaeologicalsites.Thesocialpracticesthatmoti-
vatedpeopletoseekoutanduseochreweregroupactivitiessuchas
seasonaltraversalthroughdifferentecologicalenvironments,teaching
and learning on where to locate geologic formations that bear raw
materialswithdesirablecharacteristics,andthetechniquesnecessary
forminingandprocessingofochreswithdifferentmaterialproperties.
Theearthmineral-basedmixturesthatwereproducedbypeoplesig-
nify material and cognitive complexity, often including ingredients
thatreflecttraditionalknowledgeofmineralandbiologicalresources
usedinthedeeppast,suchasironandmanganeseoxides,andalso
compositemixturesthatincludedwettingagentsandbindingmedia,
suchasmilk,fat,blood,andplantresins26,27.Thosecomponentswere
selectedfortheirproperties(color,durability,adhesion,resistanceto
weathering), but also for sociocultural reasons, such as spiritual
potency and the geographic origins of minerals. The ochre chaîne
opératoire wasaninherently socialactivity thatexisted as part of a
broadersystemofrelationsthathadsignificancetopeoplelivinginthe
MSAandLSA.Here,weshowevidenceforlongterm,regional-scale
behavioralstabilityinochreprovisioningandtransport,butalso,dis-
tinctive site-specific variations in procurement-based technological
choices. The diversity and complexity of these behaviors illustrates
precisely how an overarching, shared cultural identity surrounding
ochrescanunifyvariouslocalizedandcontextually-contingentcom-
munitiesofpractice21.

Ochreiswidelyrecognizedasared,yellow,orvioletpigmentac-
ceous earth mineral, often conflated with manganese oxide (black
ochre), and its importance throughout human history is
indisputable28,29. It survives deep time records7, was extracted by
intensive mining practices30, transported great distances3, used in
symbolic and mortuary expression31,32, underwent processing to
enhanceitspropertiesandperformanceincomplexpaintmixtures33.It
continuestoretainwidespreadculturalimportanceinmanydescen-
dantcommunitiestoday34–39.Yet,thedifferencesbetweenochresare
notalwaysobvious,andpigmentsthatappearthesameincolorand
texture often have distinct physicochemical properties40. Scientific
analyses are needed to reconstruct the chaîne opératoire of ochre
behaviors,suchassharedknowledgeonitsprovisioning,theselection
orenhancementofochrewithparticularphysicalqualities,andtradi-
tionaltechniquesusedtoturnpowderedochresintocompositepaints.
Here,wepresentaframeworkforunderstandingochrecommunities
ofpracticeinthefinalMSAandLSAofEswatiniusingamulti-proxy
approach.Weusedacombinationofanalyticaltechniquestodeter-
mine the provenance and physicochemical properties of ochre
assemblages from ten sites, and raw materials collected from nine
geological source localities (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1, Supple-
mentary Notes 1.0 and 2.0). Following the local traditional nomen-
clatureandgeologyofEswatini,weusethetermochretodescribeall
earth-derivedmineralpigments,withspecificreferencetoredoryel-
lowochre(ironoxideandiron-richclay),blackochrepaint(including
magnetite, manganese oxides, or charcoal) and white ochre paint
(kaolin).

EswatiniishometoanumberofdeeplystratifiedMSA/LSArock
shelterandopen-airsiteswithsizeableassemblagesofochreandlithic
artifactsandoverfiftyrockartsites.Recently,thesignificanceofthose
assemblages, most excavated in the 1980’s by Price Williams41, was
highlightedforcontributingtonewinsightsondebatessurrounding
the MSA/LSA transition42. Eswatini also hosts Lion Cavern, a high-
elevation(highveld)sitesituatedatoptheNgwenyaMassifironstone
andhematitedeposit,whichispresentlytheoldestdirectevidencefor
ochreminingduringtheMSA43,44(Fig.1).Itfirstreceivedarchaeological
attentioninthe1960’sbyDartetal.,amongothers45.Thecurrentstudy
focuses on ochre artifacts and raw materials from fifteen sites and
sources that span the final MSA and LSA, through to the Iron Age
(Fig.2,SupplementaryTable1,SupplementaryData1,Supplementary
Notes 1.0 and 2.0). For decades, archaeologists working across the
surroundingregionhavecollectivelyassumedthatanyochrepresent
inartifactassemblagesinthearea46,includingnearbyBorderCavein
South Africa,likelycamefrom Ngwenya47–50.Inthe absence of geo-
chemical data this would be a reasonable assumption as Ngwenya
ochreishighinqualityanddesirablepropertiesforcreatingpigment
(rich red hue, fine-grained with minimal impurities, contained loca-
lizedbrilliantspecularite),isahighlyvisiblelandmark,andwaspresent
inmassiveabundancepriortomodernminingactivities47,48,50,51.Exca-
vationrecordsdocumentedatleastfourprehistoricminingsitesalong
theNgwenyaMassif:LionCavern,BandaCavern,CastleCavern,and
CastleQuarry,thelattertwoofwhichweresubsequentlydestroyed
duringindustrialmining44.Inthisstudyweusedtheopticallystimu-
latedluminescencetechniquetoproducenewdatesfoeLionCavern
thatreaffirmitsstatusastheoldestknownintensiveochreminingto
dateat~48kya(SupplementaryTable1,SupplementaryData1).Forthe
ochreprovenancecomponentofthisstudywesystematicallysurveyed
outcrops along ~22km of the Ngwenya Massif, including the pre-
historicquarrysitesatLionCavernandBandaCavern,andlocalitiesat
the northern (Bulembu) and southern (SW Spur) extents of the
formation.

InadditiontotheoredepositsacrossNgwenyaMassif,wesur-
veyedsixsourcesofiron(FeOx)andmanganeseoxide(MnOx)else-
where in Eswatini, including the Maloma ore deposit, Kubuta
manganese ore field, the Gege goethite-magnetite deposit, the sec-
ondary deposits of banded ironstone at Mahamba Mountain in the
south,theMnyoganeandLupholoDamlateritic-saproliticclaysinthe
westernmiddleveld,andonelocalityaroundSiphiso,locatedalongthe
Lebombo Mountain range in the east. A total of 173 samples were
analyzedfromthesourcelocations(seeSupplementaryNotes1.0).

Theochreartifactassemblagesincludedthosefromtwodeeply
stratifiedoccupationalsites,Sibebe(MSA/LSA)andSiphiso(LSA),and
smallerorshorter-termoccupationsitesandrocksheltersincluding
Nyonyane,Nsangwini,Mlawula(1&2),MutiMuti,Ndhlozane,Hlala-
kahle, and Mphatiphati I (Supplementary Table 1). Supplementary
Table2listthesites,numbersofochreartifacts,andsourcematerials
includedinthestudy.Fourofthesites,Sibebe,MutiMuti,Nsangwini,
and Ndhlozane,haveextensive panels ofmonochromered or poly-
chrome (red, violet, black, brown, yellow, white, orange) rock art
motifs. All artifact assemblages, with the exception of surface finds
fromMutiMutiandNdhlozane,weredrawnfrompreviouslyexcavated
collectionsarchivedattheEswatiniNationalMuseum(Lobamba).The
ochreassemblageswereorganizedintooneofsevenlitho-typological
groupsbasedoncharacteristicssuchascolor,relativegrainsize,tex-
ture,hardness,morphology,andpresenceofnon-ferrousinclusions
(see Supplementary Notes 2.0 and Supplementary Table 2). Our
selection of artifacts for characterization was based on the litho-
typological groups, with effort to incorporate an even distribution
across site temporal phases wherever possible, and to minimize
impacttotheassemblagesbyavoidingthedestructionofwholearti-
factsorthoseexhibitingusewear,asdefinedbyHodgskissandothers,
as grinding, rubbing or scoring52,53. A total of 361 of a possible 931
artifactswereselectedforcompositionalanalysis.Theartifactswere
granted export permits by the Eswatini National Trust Commission
andtransportedtotheArchaeometryLaboratoryattheUniversityof
MissouriResearchReactorforformalanalysisbyoneormoremethods
of portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF), neutron activation analysis
(NAA) and laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectro-
metry (LA-ICP-MS) for trace element analysis, and X-ray diffraction
(XRD) or Raman spectroscopy for mineralogical identification. The
methodsandexperimentalconditionsaredetailedinSupplementary
Notes3.0and4.0.Alloriginaldataandsummarytablesareprovidedin
SupplementaryDatafiles3-12.

Results
Differentiating ochre sources: the results of the ochre source char-
acterizationrevealedseveralkeypatterns.SupplementaryFig.6shows
representative specimens from each source. The sources across
Eswatini have compositional signatures that satisfy the provenance
postulate, a fundamental concept for all sourcing studies, that the
elementalandmineralogicalvariabilitybetweensourcesorcomposi-
tionalgroupsmustexceedthevariabilitywithinsourcesorcomposi-
tional groups54. Supplementary Fig. 18 is a scatterplot showing the
resultsofaprincipalcomponentanalysis(PCA)ofthetraceelement
analysisofironoxidesourcematerialsbyNAA.SupplementaryData3
and 4detailtheresultsofallelementalanalysesandstatisticalpro-
cedures.Thelargestdeposit,theNgwenyaMassif,showedsomeintra-
sourcevariation.TheNgwenya-HG(highgradeore),whichincluded
massive blue ironstones at Lion Cavern, consolidated deep red
hematite atBanda Cavern, and nodules of specularite at the south-
ernmostextentofthedeposit,allhadchemicallyconsistentcompo-
sitionsdestpitetheirvariationsinmineralmorphology.Thoselocalities
were situated at the highest elevation points across the top of the
Ngwenya Massif, following the main strata of the Fig Tree hydro-
thermal ironstone formation. At an approximately 25m elevation
drop,exposedonlybymodernminingactivity,wasalayerofferrugi-
nousshalethatwaschemicallydistinctfromtheFigTreeironstones.
We also identified localized nodules of manganese oxide at Banda
cavern,wherethemineralizationisapsilomelanetype;highMnOx(30-
60%)withhighKandBa(6–10%).Anothervariationobservedalongthe
NgwenyaMassifwasBulembu,anoutcropthatresurfaces~22kmnorth
oftheLionCavernarea.There,theochreishigherinsilicon(upto
23%),andtherearelocalizedenrichmentsofmanganeseoxide(brau-
nite,Mn O Si)withelevatedquartz(upto10%).
7 12
OthersourcesshowninFig.3includeMalomaandMnyogane.The
Malomadepositconsistsofblackironstones(20–40%Fe),withminor
silicon, aluminum, manganese, and potassium.XRD data confirmed
the presence of magnetite, quartz, pyrolusite, and manganite. The
Mnyoganesamplesconsistoftheiron-richlateriticandsaproliticclay
sourceslocatedinthewesternmiddleveld.Thesematerialsarefriable,
highinmicaandkaolinite,andthedepositsarestillcollectedtodayby
localcommunitiesformedicinalandceremonialuse(Supplementary
Notes1.4and1.5).

SourcingOchreArtifacts:ninedistinctcompositionalgroupswere
identifiedwithintheartifactassemblagedataset(Fe-groupsG1/G1bto
G5), with 37 of the 337 artifacts remaining unassigned to a group.
Figure4showsexamplesofartifactsfromeachgroup.Supplementary
Data12summarizesthegroups,organizedbyarchaeologicalsiteand
timeperiod.Theartifactgroupsweredeterminedusingacombination
of iterative, pattern-recognition techniques including PCA, cluster
analysis,andelement-pairbivariateplots,andcross-evaluatedusing
Mahalanobis distance equations. This bottom-up multivariate
approachwasappliedtotheNAA(FeOx)andtheLA-ICP-MS(MnOx)
datasets independently for reasons described in Supplementary
Notes3.0.SupplementaryData2listthegroupassignmentsforeach
samplebymethodandanassignedgroup.Followingthis,theFeOx
artifactgroupsweretestedagainstthesourcesbycombiningthemin
PCAandclusteranalysis,andusingMahalanobisdistancetocalculate
membershipprobabilityscores(SupplementaryData4and 7).
Figure5ashowsascatterplotillustratingthePCAofNAAresults
fortheFeOxartifactgroups.Notethatthegroupsthatseparatealong
PC1, indicated by a dashed line, coincidentally reflect the relative
geographic regions where those artifact groups are dominant. For
instance, Fe-G1, Fe-G4, and Fe-G5 are the dominant types at sites
located in the western highveld and south-western middleveld,
whereasFeOxgroupsFe-G2atoFe-G2d,andFe-G3aresituatedinthe
easternLebomboMountainrangeofEswatini,whichrunsnorth-south
and broadly defines the geopolitical borderswith Mozambique and
SouthAfrica.Tofurtherrefinethegroups,theyweredividedbysub-
regionandcomparedtoavailablesourcematerials.Figure5bshows
theartifactgroupsfromthewesternregion,Fe-G1/G1b,Fe-G4,andFe-
G5,projectedagainsttheconfidenceellipsesrepresentingtheFeOx
sources. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the eastern-dominant
compositionalgroups.Noochreminingsiteshavebeenlocatedinthe
Lebombo Mountains, but we have inferred the location of Fe-G2a
based on the analysis of finds of the same raw material naturally
occurringaroundthevicinityofSiphiso.

Fe-Group1/Ngwenya-HG:thisgrouphas82artifactsofhigh-purity
FeOx.Fecontentrangesfrom50to66%Fe,withAlupto~3%andSiup
to~3%,withdepletedtraceelements.XRDresultsshowedhematite,
minormagnetite,quartz,andAl O .Statisticalcomparisontosource
2 3
materialsshowedaverystrongprobability(>80%)thatFe-G1artifacts
were collected from one of the outcrops at Ngwenya: Lion Cavern,
Banda Cavern, or SW Spur (or conceivably, CastleQuarry or Castle
Cavern).MostofthoseartifactswererecoveredfromSibebe(n=66).
ThisNgwenyaochreisalsothedominanttypeatNyonyane,Hlalakahle,
andNsangwini,aswellasinsmallerquantitiesattheLebombomon-
tanesitesofSiphiso(n=5)andMlawula(n=2).

Fe-Group 1b/Bulembu: this group of 25 artifacts is similar in
compositiontotheNgwenya-HGsource,butishigherinSi(~12%)
and
Mn (~0.64%),and relativelydepleted in Ba, K,and Na.Group mem-
bershipprobabilitiesoftheseartifactsshowmoderatetostrongscores
fortheBulembuoutcropoftheNgwenyaMassif,located~22kmnorth
of the mining sites around Lion Cavern. This type was most often
foundatSibebe(n=22),butalsooccursinlownumbersatNsangwini
(n=1),andNyonyane(n=1),andattheeasternsiteofSiphiso(n=1).

Fe-Group 2a/Siphiso area: this group consists of 20 artifacts,
seven of which arefrom the Siphiso excavations, and five of which
werecollectedinthevicinityoftheSiphiso.ThisindicatesthatFe-G2a
isasignaturethatispresentaroundSiphiso,however,itisnotthemain
typewithinitsartifactassemblage.Thistypeisalsodominantamong
the surface finds atMuti Muti (n=7), whichoccurs along the same
strataoftheLebomboMountainrangerhyolitebandasSiphiso(~12km
south),furtherreinforcingthatFe-G2aislikelyalocallyavailableraw
material. It also occurs in one instance at Ndhlozane shelter in the
westernmiddleveld,suggestingtransport>80km.Theelementaldata
for Fe-G2a are consistent with iron-rich volcanogenic-type deposits
thatarecharacteristicoftheLebomboMountainrange(30–50%Fe,
elevatedZr,Hf,andAl).TheXRDresultsshowedpeakpatternsforiron
silicate,periclase(MgO),Al O ,quartz,hematite,andminorFeK O .
2 3 3 2

Fe-Group 2b/Eastern Region: this group has 24 artifacts, 22 of
which are from various strata throughout Siphiso’s occupational
sequence.Twosamplesofthistypewereidentifiedinthesurfacefinds
atMutiMuti.ThisgrouphasacompositionsimilartoFe-G2a,butis
differentiatedbyitshigherconcentrationsofK,Si,Ba,Ca,Eu,Mn,and
strontium, and depleted Cr and V. Artifacts in this group had markers for
goethite, K O, and distinctive Al-K-Mg alkali compounds (Supple-
2
mentaryNotes4.0).Wehavenotlocatedthissourcebutinferthatitis
localtothelowveldorLebomboMountainsasitonlyoccursatSiphiso
andMutiMuti.ItshighCaandKcontentssuggestapossibleassocia-
tion with oxidized deposits from the Sabie River basalt formation
locatedashortdistancewestofSiphisoandMutiMuti(<5km).

Fe-Group 2c/Eastern Region: this group of 25 samples is
entirelyfromtheSiphisoassemblage.ItvariesinFeconcentration
~30–40%,withelevatedMgandK(upto2.9%).XRDresultsshowed
patterns for muscovite-like mica (Al KO Si ), pyrophyllite
3 12 3
[Al Si O (OH) ], almandine (Al Fe O Si ), K O, periclase (MgO),
2 4 10 2 2 3 12 3 2
quartz, and hematite. We do not know this source location, but
based on principles of the criterion of abundance, where the
dominantcompositional grouppresentata siteismostly likelya
locally-availablematerial,wouldinferthatitisinthevicinityofthe
easternlowveldorLebombos.

Fe-Group 2d/Eastern Region: this is the largest group represented
intheLebomboMountains,consistingof66artifacts;62ofwhichare
fromSiphiso,onefromMlawula,andtheremainderfromwesternsites
ofNyonyane(n=1)andSibebe(n=2).Itisthepreferredmaterialby
inhabitants occupying Siphiso consistently through the entire LSA
sequence.Itisadistincttypeofhigh-puritymagnetitewithtraceele-
mentconcentrations(K,Zr,Sr,Rb)suggestingavolcanogenicoriginin
theLebomboMountains.

Fe-Group3/EasternRegion:thisgrouphas18samplesofatitani-
ferousmagnetite,upto~31%Feand19.9%Ti.Itismainlypresentat
easternsitesMlawula(n=7),Siphiso(n=9),andMutiMuti(n=1),but
alsoinoneinstanceatSibebe.XRDresultsshowedthepresenceof
anatase(TiO ),magnetite,andminorhematite,albite(NaAlSi O ),and
2 3 8
quartz. The sole source of titaniferous magnetite in the region is
locatedwithin~20-25kmofMlawula,Siphiso,andMutiMuti,nearthe
Mbuluzi, River, which discharges into the Indian Ocean as the Rio
MaputoinMozambique55.

Fe-Group4/Unknownlocality:thisgroupconsistsof17artifacts,
fifteenofwhicharefromSibebeandtwofromSiphiso.Thesamplesare
highiniron(~20-50%)andAl(upto12%),andXRDresultssuggested
magnetite, hematite, quartz, and minor Al-O-Fe compounds which
occuriniron-richargillaceousorultramaficdeposits(Supplementary
Note4).Itisunclearwherethistypeoriginates,butitisapoorstatis-
ticalmatchtoanyofthewesternhighveldsources.

Fe-Group5/MahalamantiValley:thisgroupconsistsof14samples:
Sibebe(n=4),Siphiso(n=5),Nyonyane(n=1),Hlalakahle(n=1),and
MutiMuti(n=1).Thetworemainingsamplesprovidekeycontextfor
its source locality; they are ochre nodules recovered from an iron
workingkilnattheIronAgesiteMphaphatiI,located~4kmfromthe
main iron ore source in Mahalamanti Valley56. Raw iron ore, which
included nodules of red hematite, was recovered in great quantity
from Ohinawa’s 1990’s excavations56. Those ores were the local
material collected and transported to Mphaphati I for smelting,
derivedfromadiscreteironstoneoutcrop~900ft.long.Todatewe
havenothadtheopportunitytolocatethissource.However,givenits
presenceinassociationwiththeore-richkilndepositsatMphaphatiI,
wecansuggestMahalamantiValleyasthelikelylocalityforthesource
representedinFe-G5.Interestingly,theochreartifactsfromFe-G5have
awidespreadgeographicdistribution,occurringinequalquantitiesat
sitesinthewesternhighveld(Sibebe,Hlalakahle,Nyonyane),andthe
easternLebomboMountain(Siphiso,MutiMuti).Thatitsgeographic
originoccursinthesouthern-centrallowveld,relativelyequidistantto
thewesternandeasternregions,providesakeylinkforunderstanding
long-distanceconnectionsacrossthegeographicdivideofEswatini.

ManganeseOxides–SourcesandArtifacts:inthisstudyasubset
of56manganeseoxidesourceandartifactmaterialswereidentified.
They were analyzed independently of the FeOx assemblage using LA-
ICP-MS.Therationaleforandresultsofthisapproacharedescribedin
SupplementaryNotes5.2.Statisticalanalysisofthedatashowedthe
presenceofsixMnOxgroups,threeofwhicharelinkedtosourceswe
identifiedinourfieldsurvey(SupplementaryTable4).Figure7aandb
showsahierarchicalclusteranalysisandPCAscatterplotoftheresults.

MnOxGroup1/Bulembu:thisgroupconsistsof10samples,sixof
whicharesourcematerialsfromBulembuandfourofwhicharearti-
factsfromSibebe.Mineralogicalanalysisshowedthepresenceofone
ormoreofpyrolusite,(MnO ),hematite,alabandite(MnS),andminor
2
quartzandsiderite(FeCO ).
3

MnOx Group 2/Eastern region: these two samples are from
Siphisoandconsistofhighpuritypyrolusite(>70%)with3-4%BaOand
0.8-1.0% K O,suggesting ahollandite-type mineralization. Both pyr-
2
olusiteandK OaredominantinXRDresults.
2

MnOxGroup3/Westernregion:thisgroupofthreesamplesfrom
Sibebeare50–62%Mnwith10-20%Feand0.8-2.1%Ba.XRDresults
showed peak patterns for barium iron oxide (Ba Fe O ), iron-
8 8 21
manganese-sulfide(Fe S andFe Mn ),alabandite,andhaus-
9 10 0.95 0.05
mannite(Fe Mn O ). TheStratumIIIdeposits,coveringtheLSAcomponentswithout
0.297 2.703 4
pottery,similarlyshowadominantproportionofNgwenya(Fe-G1a)
andBulembu(Fe-G1b)ochres,butalsoamoderateproportionfromFe-
G4,asourcetypethatalsoappearsatSiphiso.Thisstratumalsohas
threeartifactsthatareunassignedtoagroup,butshowedaweakto
moderate probability match to the Maloma source in south-central
lowveld.Themanganeseoxideartifactassemblageshowedmatches
for MnOx-G1 (Bulembu source) and MnOx-G3 (source unknown) in
similarproportionstothoseobservedinStrataIandII.Overall,thekey
differencesbetweenthetemporalphasesincludetheabandonmentof
Fe-G4infavorofFe-G2dinthelateroccupation,andthepotentialuse
ofMalomaFeOxexclusivelyinStratumIII.

DuringthefinalMSAperiodatSibebe,representedbyStrataV
and VI, the use of a proportionally higher number of different
sourcesofbothironandmanganeseoxidesisevident,althoughwe
notethattherearelimitedsamplestocompareto.WhileNgwenya
andBulembucontinuetobetheprimarysourcesused,otherochre
types such as Fe-G2d, Fe-G3 (titaniferous magnetite from the
Lebombos),Fe-G4(sourceunknownbutdominantatSiphiso),and
Fe-G5 (Mahalamanti Valley) are all present in minor proportions,
indicating a higher frequency of long-distance transport from
sourcesintheeastandsouthtoSibebeinthewest.Theprocure-
ment of manganese oxides also shows distinct differences in raw
materialuse,withtheabsenceofMnOx-G1(Bulembu)andMnOx-
G3,andtheonlyidentifiedpresenceofMnOx-G5(Kubuta),further
evidence for long-distance transport from the south-central mid-
dleveld,theeasternsitesshowedacomparativelyhigherdiversityof
ochretypesused,whereasmanyasfiveuniquesignatureswereeither
sourcedtoageologicformation(Fe-G2a,atSiphiso),oratleastlocalto
the area around Siphiso, Mlawula 1 & 2, and Muti Muti. The higher
diversityoflikelylocalochresourcesusedconsistentlyovertheLSA
occupationatSiphisoisindicativeofmorevariedprocurementstra-
tegiesandpreferences,andperhapsdifferentsocialcontextsforits
use.Itsuggeststhatochreprocurementmayhavebeenalignedwith
morefrequentlogisticalmobility(sensuBinford59),andmayhavebeen
embeddedwithotherprovisioningactivitieswheretheteachingand
learningaboutnetworksofresources,suchaslithicrawmaterialsor
seasonalfoodprocurement,hadmorevariednodesofexperienceto
share.IncontrasttoNgwenyaochre,mostoftheLebombosaresource
materialstendtobemoreweathered,friable,lighterinhue,andhavea
higherproportionofimpurities,suchasmica,quartz,feldspars,and
clayminerals.Thoseochresaremuchsofterthantheconsolidatedores
at Ngwenya, and consequently, their collection required different
strategiesandtoolsthanthewesternandsouthernoresources(e.g.
diggingsticksvs.hammerstonesandlithictools).Theochrecollectors
wouldhavedonesometesting(grinding,scoring,mixing,applyingto
various surfaces, see Supplementary Notes 1.0) to understand their
qualitiesforrockartorbodypaint,adhesives,andotherpotentialuses.
Basedonourobservationswhileprocessingthesamematerialsinthe
lab,theimpuritiespresentinmostoftheeasternochresourceswould
havereducedthetintingstrengthofthematerial,resultinginweaker
colorsaturation.Themainwaytoimprovetheopacityandadhesion
propertieswouldbetoremovethoseimpuritiesthroughdrysiftingor
levigation,apracticethatcontinuestodaybyvendorswhosellpre-
pared ochre balls at local markets (Supplementary Notes 1.5). The
entire chaîne opératoire associated with ochre sources from the
Lebomboswouldhaveinvolvedadifferentbodyofknowledgeneeded
tolocate,extract,transform,andusethosematerials.

Long-DistanceTransportversusExchangeofOchre:ataregional
scale it is clear that there is a shared, overarching culture of value
ascribedtoochreprocurementanduse.But,howwerethesevalues
expressedbetweencommunitiesandhowdidthatchangeovertime?
Our data has shown long-term consistency in the use of locally-
procuredearthmineralpigments,practicesofwhichwerepunctuated
by sporadic events oflong-distancetransport ofochre across path-
ways thatlinked the westernhighveld, centrallowveld, and eastern
LebombosofEswatini.Patternsofprimarilylocalizedprocurementare
tobeexpectedinthecontextofmobilitystrategiesamongsthunter
gatherers60–62, and our results are consistent with observations by
Barhamthatitwasentirelypossibleforoccupantsintheeasternand
westernregionsofEswatinitothrivewithintheirownbiomesinterms
ofseasonalresourceavailability51.Butthequestionremains:werethe
instances of long-distance transport of ochre evidence for cultural
exchangeordirectprocurement,orboth?Dothedifferentmodesof
ochreprovisioningandprocessingsignalsocialboundariesrevolving
aroundthematerial,wherethesources,settings,practicalknowledge,
andtechnicalvocabulariesarerestricted?Researchonotherformsof
material culture has proposed that long-distance reciprocal gift
exchange,suchashxaro,asystemofdelayedreciprocity,wasthemain
exchange system thought to underpin many social interactions in
neighboring seasonally-mobile communities across southern
Africa1,51,60. However, our data do not suggest that the exchange of
ochrewasanintensiveandfrequentpartofhxaroculturalpractices.
ThemostfrequentoccurrenceofeasternLebomboochreatSibebe
wasinthelatefinalMSAduringabriefhiatuswhenSiphisowasnot
occupied (Supplementary Notes 2.2), therefore, exchange between
groupswasnotevident.Incontrast,thefinal2000yearsofoccupation
was the only period when both Siphiso and Sibebe were occupied
simultaneously,withlimitedevidencefortheshareduseofsources
duringthattime.Consequently,thispointstowardmoredirect,loca-
lizedmodesofochreprocurement.

Therarerinstancesoflong-distancetransportaremorealigned
withevidencethatshowshunter-gathererpopulationsinAfricawere
structured into groups that were never fully isolated, but rather
showedsustainedpartialconnectivity,facilitatedbythefluidstructure
ofhunter-gathererbands60.Whileethnographicanalogycannotand
does not explain the past, it is a useful tool for broadening our
understandingofpossibledriversofhumanbehavioursanddecision-
making.Forinstance,theinfrequentlong-distancetransportofochre
couldbeindicativeoftheitinerantmovementofpaintersortangoma,
whowereknownethnographicallytocollectandcurateearthmineral
pigmentsforpaintingandhealingceremonies,andforthesiyendlehair
style,wheretheheadandhairwas,andstilloccasionallyis,smeared
withochreasawaytodenoteshamanicpower35.Italsomaysignifythe
relocation of women through intermarriage. InNguni cultural prac-
ticesextendingtothepresentday,ochreisasignificantcomponentof
themarriageceremonykuteka,wherethebrideiscoveredwithred
ochreandanimalfatonthemorningofthewedding,typicallybya
femaleelder in the groom’s family, to signify her new status in the
communityandtoallowthehusband’sancestorstolocateherviathe
ochre.Ifthegroom’sfamilydidnothavegoodochreintheirterritory,
it would be brought in from afar as a symbolic exchange between
families34–38. These examples further reinforce the notion that,
although there wasa regional-scale,unified understanding ofochre
and its cultural significance across Eswatini, the localized activities
associated with its chaîne opératoire were varied and contextually-
contingentcommunitiesofpractice.

SignificancefortheMSA/LSATransition:theMSA/LSAtransition
and the origins and spread of the LSA remains a longstanding
debate63–66.InsouthernAfrica,theprevailingconsensusformanyyears
wasthat~30kyaBPrepresentedtheonsetoftheLSA,basedmainlyon
lithic technocomplexes, but also anincreaseinthe diversity of raw
materialuse,personalornamentation,mortuarytraditions,andartistic
expression67.Onelong-consideredexceptiontothisisBorderCave,in
theLebombomountainsoverlookingEswatini,withmucholderdates
associated with a characteristic LSA lithic assemblage [~43kya BP],
prompting debate on whether it represents a singularorigin ofthe
LSA, or if multi-regional or multi-temporal hypotheses can be
considered68,69.Morerecently,culturalandtechnologicalinnovations
typicaloftheLSAhavebeenfoundinclearassociationwithMSA-aged
depositsatothersitesincluding,butnotlimitedto,Blombos Cave,
Diepkloof, and Sibhudu68,70–73. Similarly, our research on lithics and
ochrehasshownevidenceconsistentwithamorecomplexviewonthe
timingandgeographicdistributionofthistransition.Forinstance,the
lithictechnocomplexattheMSA/LSAsiteSibebe,amere~100kmfrom
BorderCave,hastwodistinctgroupsofMSAlithicassemblagesdating
between 43-27kya BP74, which are similar in their technological
expressionstoothersiteswithfinalMSAassemblagesatSibhuduor
UmbeliBelliinKwaZulu-Natal75.Theresultsfromourstudyhaveshown
thattheselectionandtransportofochrewassubjecttomoresubtle,
regional-scale variations than the wide-spread temporal transitions
impliedbythetermMSA/LSAtransition.Recentstudieshaveshown
thatLSAtechnologiesmayhavegraduallyevolvedoutofthosecom-
monlycalledtheMSA76,77.Theemergingconsensusisonewherethis
culturaltransitionisneithercumulativenorpersistentinanyregion,
whichhascompelledresearcherstoreevaluateourcollectiveunder-
standingonwhattheMSA/LSAtransitiontrulymeans,whetherornot
itrequiresredefinition,orifitexistedatall69,72,74,78–84.

Methods
Ochrecharacterization
The artifact assemblages were typologically examined at Eswatini
NationalMuseumandexportedtotheMURRArchaeometryLabora-
toryunderpermitsgrantedbytheEswatiniNationalTrustCommission
(2019–2022).Thesampleselection,methodology,andexperimental
conditionsarefullydetailedinSupplementaryNotes3.0.Theanaly-
ticalmethodsincludedpXRF,NAA,LA-ICP-MS,Ramanspectroscopy
andXRD.

AllsampleswerequalitativelyscreenedusingpXRF.Themea-
surements were taken using a Bruker Tracer 5i energy-dispersive
XRFspectrometerequippedwithaRh-basedX-raytubeandther-
moelectricallycooledsilicon-driftdetector(SDD).Theinstrument
wasoperatedat50kVand35µA(nofilter)for60secondassayson
eachsample.

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) was used forelementalchar-
acterizationon388artifactsandsources.Allspecimenswerewashed
indeionizedwater,dried,groundtoafinepowderinanagatemortar,
andpestle,anddriedagainforaminimumof48hinalow-temperature
oven (<100°C). Portions of each powder were weighed into poly-
ethylene vials for short (25-75mg) irradiation, and into high-purity
quartz vials (100mg) for long irradiation procedures. The short
durationsampleswereirradiatedalongsidestandardreferencemate-
rialsusingapneumatictubesystemfor10secondsatafluxof8×1013n
cm−2s−1.Thesampleswereallowedtodecayfor25min,atwhichtime
thegammarayemissionsweremeasuredfor12minusingahyper-pure
germanium detector to detect elements that produce short-lived
radioisotopes foraluminum (Al),barium (Ba),calcium (Ca),dyspro-
sium(Dy),potassium(K),manganese(Mn),magnesium(Mg),sodium
(Na),titanium(Ti),andvanadium(V).Thequartzencapsulatedsam-
ples were given a 24-hour irradiation at a neutron flux of 6 ×1013 n
cm−2s−1.Thesesamplesweremeasuredfor2,000secondsafterseven
totendaystomeasuremedium-livedradioisotopesarsenic(As),lan-
thanum(La),lutetium(Lu),neodymium(Nd),samarium(Sm),uranium
(U),andytterbium(Yb),andthenagainaftertwotothreeweeksfor
8,200secondstomeasurethelong-livedradioisotopescerium(Ce),
cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), cesium (Cs), europium (Eu), iron (Fe),
hafnium(Hf),nickel(Ni),rubidium(Rb),antimony(Sb),scandium(Sc),
strontium(Sr),tantalum(Ta),terbium(Tb),thorium(Th),zinc(Zn),
and zirconium (Zr). The spectral data were calculated to elemental
concentrationsbycomparatormethodusingNISTstandardreference
materialsandqualitycontrols(NISTSRM-1633b,SRM-688,SRM-278,
SRM-690).

LA-ICP-MS analysis was applied to 378 samples. Data were col-
lected using a PerkinElmer SCIEX NexION 300 Quadrupole ICP-MS
coupledwithaTeledyneInstrumentsInc.AnalyteExciteHelEx193nm
excimerlaserablationsystem.Weselectedbetweenfiveandten40µm
x 80µm ablation pass lines on each standard reference material,
quality control, and unknown specimen. Unknowns specimens
underwent a pre-ablation pass at 110µm x 80µm before data were
collected.Aftereachablationthelaserwaspausedfor25secondswhile
theICP-MScontinuedtocollectsignalintensitydata.Thelasermoved
atarateof5µm/sfiringlaserburstsatarateof10/s.Laserpowerwas
setto40.0%ofthemaximumoutput.Theprocedurebracketedten
unknownsampleswithasetofstandardsandqualitycontrolsamples
atthebeginningandendofeachtomonitorinstrumentstabilityand
drift throughout analytical runs (approximately every30mins).The
ablatedsamplevaporwastransportedtotheICP-MSusingHecarrier
gasandmixedwithargongasattheplasmatorch,wherethesample
was ionized and passed through two detectors that measured the
signalintensityincountspersecondfor60isotopes:7Li,9Be,11B,23Na,
24Mg,27Al,29Si,31P,34S,35Cl,39K,44Ca,45Sc,47Ti,51V,52Cr,55Mn,57Fe,59Co,
60N, 63Cu, 66Zn, 71Ga,75As, 77Se, 85Rb, 88Sr, 89Y, 90Zr, 93Nb, 98Mo, 107Ag,
115In,118Sn,121Sb,133Cs,138Ba,139La,140Ce,141Pr,146Nd,147Sm,153Eu,157Gd,
159Tb,163Dy,165Ho,166Er,169Tm,172Yb,175Lu,178Hf,181Ta,182W,197Au,205Tl,
208Pb,209Bi,232Th,and238U.

The resultsoftraceelementanalyseswereanalyzedusingmulti-
variatestatistics,detailedinSupplementaryNotes4.0and5.0.
Selected samples were analyzed using powder XRD to identify
majormineralcomponents.Smallportionsofpreparedpowderswere
analyzedusingaRigakuUltimaIVequippedwithaCu-Ka1(1.540562Å)
X-ray tube. The experimental conditions for each analysis involved
scanninga20°to80°2Θspectralrangeatastepsizeof0.06°atarate
of4°perminute.

Raman Spectroscopy: selected samples were analyzed using a
Bruker Bravo™ handheld Raman spectrometer. The instrument is
equippedwithtwolaserdiodes(785nmand852nm),operatesata
maximum (combined) laser output of 100mW and a spot size of
0.7mm,andrecordssignalintensitydataataspectralrangeof300−
3200cm−1ataresolutionof10-12cm−1.

OpticallyStimulatedLuminescence
OSL dating of Lion Cavern deposits was conducted by S.R. at the
University of Cologne Luminescence Laboratory. Six samples were
collected from outcrops of Lion Cavern 3 (NLC-1, NLC-2) and Lion
Cavern2(NLC-3toNLC-6).Thesamplesweretakeninopaquemetal
tubestoavoidtheexposureofthesedimenttosunlight.Thesamples
were prepared under subdued red-light conditions in the Cologne
Luminescence Laboratory (CLL). Hydrochloric acid (HCl, 10 %) and
hydrogenperoxide(H O ,10%)wasusedtoremovecarbonatesand
2 2
organicmaterial.Sodiumoxalate(Na C O ;0.01N)wasusedtodis-
2 2 4
perse the sediment particles. After chemical treatment the 4-11µm
fraction was isolated using Stokes law and subsequently etched in
hexafluoridosilicicacid(H (SiF ),34%)foroneweektoextractfine
2 6
grainquartzminerals.Theextractedquartzwasmountedonstainless
steelcupsbysettlingof2mgquartzin200µldistilledwater.Lumi-
nescencemeasurementswereperformedonRisøTL/OSLDA20read-
ersequippedwitha90Sr/90YbetasourceandblueLEDsoperatingat90
%power.Asingle-aliquotregenerativedose(SAR)protocolwasused
forallluminescencemeasurements.AllresultsarepresentedinSup-
plementaryTable6.TheanalyticalprocedureisprovidedinSupple-
mentaryText6.0.

Peer review rounds
[{"round": 1, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "This paper is in my opinion an outstanding contribution to ochre studies. The identification of an\nochre community of practice represents an innovative approach that certainly represents a\nnecessary step in the study of earth mineral pigments. The authors use different analytical\ntechniques, including pXRF, NAA, LA-ICP-MS, XRD and Raman spectroscopy to characterise raw\nmaterials from different archaeological sites and potential sources. These methods are in line with\nthe questions raised and enable the authors to reconstruct patterns of raw material acquisition that\nare of great interest to the understanding of late MSA and LSA cultures. All of the data is thoroughly\npresented in the article and supplementary data. I strongly recommend publication.\nPlease find below a few minor comments and suggestions by page number:\nPage 3\n- “The analysis of earth mineral pigments, or ochres, has played a role in interpretations of cognitive\nbehaviors (6, 7), has become synonymous with rock art and symbolic expressions”\nI would not say that the use of ochre is synonymous with symbolic expressions. As this is a quite\ndebated question, I would advise being more cautious in this statement.\n- “Here, we apply the concept to the chaîne opératoire of ochre behaviors”.\nConsidering that the technological aspects of the ochre exploitation strategies and possible uses of\nochre are not explored in this paper, I would say that the concept of community of practice is\nmostly applied here to raw material acquisition strategies, rather than the entire ochre chaîne\nopératoire,\n- “These components were selected (…) also for sociocultural reasons, such as spiritual potency\nand the geographic origins of minerals. The ochre chaîne opératoire was an inherently social\nactivity that existed as part of a broader system of relations that had cultural significance to people\nliving in the MSA and LSA.”\nI agree with this statement. However, we do not have direct evidence of it for MSA and LSA cultures.\nI would advise moderating this section by specifying that it is a likely hypothesis.\n- “Here, we show evidence for long term, regional-scale behavioral stability in ochre provisioning\nand transport, but also, distinctive site-specific variations in procurement and technological\nchoices”\nI would remove “technological choices” from this section, as the scarcity of modified ochre pieces\ndoes not allow to discuss technological aspects related to ochre exploitation.\nPage 4\n- “communities of practice”\nThis concept sometimes appears in italics and sometimes not. Please be consistent.\n- “Following the local traditional nomenclature and geology of Eswatini, we use the term ochre\nto describe all earth-derived mineral pigments, with specific reference to red or yellow ochre (iron\noxide and iron-rich clay), black ochre (magnetite, manganese oxides, or charcoal) and\nwhite ochre (kaolin)”.\nI understand the authors’ choice to use traditional nomenclature of Eswatini. I consider, however,\nthat “black ochre” and “white ochre” are slightly confusing terms, as they do not correspond to\nwhat is usually referred to as “ochre” in the literature. The term “ochre” is already quite ambiguous\nas it is, so I would recommend avoiding its use when referring to colouring materials other than iron\noxides. In any case, I see that these terms are not used throughout the text, so this doesn’t affect\nthe rest of the paper.\nPage 13\n- Tables 1 and 2\nSome of the archaeological sites do not appear on table 1 (Mlawula I and II, Nsangwini, Hlalakahle,\nMphaphati I, Ndhlozane shelter). Are there no dates for these sites?\nPage 15\n- In figure legend 2b, what do the authors mean exactly by “use wear”?\nPage 16\n- Figure 3 is missing\nPage 17\n- Figure 4 is missing.\nPage 19-20\n- Figure 5 and 6: I recommend specifying in the figure legend that the scatterplot represents the\nPCA of NAA results.\nPage 27-28\n- Figures 8 and 9: adding the total number of iron and manganese artifacts per phase to the figure\nmight be useful to evaluate how significative these proportions are, and to have an idea of the\nstratigraphic distribution of these pieces.\nPage 32\n- “Hunter-gatherers would have conducted some testing (grinding, scoring, mixing, applying to\nvarious surfaces, see SI-Text 2.0) to understand their qualities for rock art or body paint,\nadhesives, and other potential uses”.\nI was surprised by the fact that the technological observations conducted on the archaeological\nassemblage are only mentioned in the supplementary materials. I think that, although very few\npieces show modifications, this aspect deserves to appear in the main text, and maybe they could\nbe presented in the form of a table. Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think there is detailed information\non the stratigraphic provenance of modified pieces (in addition to what appears in page 29 of the\nSupplementary text). In the case of Sibebe, it is not specified in the supplementary data which\nochre typologies show anthropogenic modifications.\nPage 33\n“The infrequent long-distance transport of ochre could be indicative of the itinerant movement of\npainters or tangoma (…) the localized activities associated with its chaîne opératoire were varied\nand contextually-contingent communities of practice”.\nWhile these ethnographic examples are of great interest and show the cultural significance of\nochre, I think that using this information to discuss MSA and LSA societies is a complex task. I\nwould suggest the authors mention the fact that there are debates surrounding ethnoarchaeology,\nand on whether one should establish analogies between prehistoric societies and ethnographic\ndata. Maybe it would be interesting to cite some authors that have discussed this issue, such as\nDavid and Kramer 2001 (David N, Kramer C. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge\nUniversity Press; 2001.).", "reviewer_2": "LSA in Eswatini. The authors have sampled ochre from known archaeological sites from recent or\nancient excavations, as well as from potential ancient mining sites. A panel of physico-chemical\nanalyses (NAA, La-ICPMS, Raman spectroscopy, XRD, XRF) has allowed them to defined different\ngroups of ochre (Mn or Fe rich types) and to propose sourcing for the archaeological samples. Then\ndiscussions about procurement strategies over time are presented.\nThe paper is overall well written and structured with a very complete set of data and documents. I\nam not competent to judge the way in which the statistical study was carried out. I am also a bit\nsceptical about the fact that part of the discussion could be derived from general considerations on\nochre use (ex: the need to share the location of sources and the way to use them) and not from\nthe data presented and analysed here. This should not prevent the paper to be published however. I\nhave only minor suggestions and comments:\n- I think a summary map (or several) showing relations between archaeological sites and mining\nsources deduced from the analyses would be useful. I add to draw arrows on the map in order to\nfollow the conclusions, so it might be good if this was already provided by the authors.\n- Fig. 5b: why don’t you plot G1b there?\n- Fig 6 (and SI fig24): I am confused: the % indicated for PC1 and 2 on the axes does not correspond\nto the ones indicated in the caption. Was it supposed to be a “zoom” of Fig 5a for the “east” groups?\nOr do you change the composition of the PC for better separation? It may help to use the same\nsymbols in Fig 5 and 6. Please also indicate the source corresponding to the ellipses as you do for\nFig 5b. The caption says they are known but the text suggests it is not really the case. Please\nmodify/explain.\n- Fig 7: again maybe, label the ellipse with the corresponding source.\n- Line 295: “the use of a proportionally higher number of different sources of both iron and\nmanganese oxides is evident”. I wonder. There are only one or two more compare to the LSA or\nfinal LSA phases…\n- Fig8 and 9: I would suggest you also add chronological indications for each phase, and you\nindicate (for example with dashes or stars), which groups are “local” and which one are not.\n- You indicate 20 samples for G2a, but I can count only eight on the figures.\n- “but not predating the Oakhurst litho-technocomplex phase” : which one is it?\n- “Subsequent experimentation would have been needed to test the extracted ochres and their\nphysicochemical properties”: I understand what you mean, but I find it odd to speak about testing\nphysicochemical properties when Stone Age experimenters did not know any thing about physics\nand chemistry. Maybe another wording would be more appropriate?\n- “the impurities present in most of the eastern ochre sources led to the reduced the tinting\nstrength of the material”-> “led to reduce”\n- Concerning the OSL analysis at Lion’s Cavern: In addition to the photo (Fig. SI2), it would be\ngood to have a drawing of the stratigraphy with localized OSL samples. A short explanation also on the\nbuild-up of stratigraphic sequence would be welcome, since the way in which a quarry sites is\nforms might be different from the way in which any living sites builds up.\n- I guess (but maybe I am wrong?) that the matrix embedding the quartz grains is unusually rich in\niron. Did you consider this in your calculations of dose rate? How different would be the\nabsorption coefficients?\n- Lines 742-749: you do not explicitly tell which system you use for the alpha efficiency. It looks\ntypical of a a-value but you should say it.\n- While you calculate the gamma dose rate from the U, Th, K content of the surrounding, you are not\nvery explicit about the process and Table 6 presents the data only for the OSL samples. How many\nsamples did you use to reconstruct the gamma dose? How did you deal with heterogeneities if any?\n- In Table 6: I guess the K content is actually in %, not in ppm. Please also indicate that the DR\nis in Gy/ka. I think the second digit is not significant for the De, nor for the Age. Please remove\nthem. This is also the case in Table 1 in the main text."}, "author_response": "We sincerely thank the two anonymous reviewers for their feedback and suggestions for\nimprovement on our manuscript. We provide our point-by-point response here in BLUE.\nReviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):\nThis paper is in my opinion an outstanding contribution to ochre studies. The identification of an\nochre community of practice represents an innovative approach that certainly represents a\nnecessary step in the study of earth mineral pigments. The authors use different analytical\ntechniques, including pXRF, NAA, LA-ICP-MS, XRD and Raman spectroscopy to characterise\nraw materials from different archaeological sites and potential sources. These methods are in line\nwith the questions raised and enable the authors to reconstruct patterns of raw material\nacquisition that are of great interest to the understanding of late MSA and LSA cultures. All of\nthe data is thoroughly presented in the article and supplementary data. I strongly recommend\npublication.\nReply: Thank you for your kind words and valuable feedback on our manuscript.\nPage 3\n- “The analysis of earth mineral pigments, or ochres, has played a role in interpretations of\ncognitive behaviors (6, 7), has become synonymous with rock art and symbolic expressions”\nI would not say that the use of ochre is synonymous with symbolic expressions. As this is a quite\ndebated question, I would advise being more cautious in this statement.\nReply: We changed the text to convey that ochre is “linked to” instead of “synonymous with”\nrock art and symbolic expression.\n- “Here, we apply the concept to the chaîne opératoire of ochre behaviors”.\nConsidering that the technological aspects of the ochre exploitation strategies and possible uses\nof ochre are not explored in this paper, I would say that the concept of community of practice is\nmostly applied here to raw material acquisition strategies, rather than the entire ochre chaîne\nopératoire,\nReply: We have added some additional writing to the main text that describes what we can\ncurrently convey with confidence about the uses of ochre. Please note that we are constrained by\nthe journal word count. We moved some of our discussion on ochre usewear from the\nsupplementary text to the main text and have added and cited a brief comparison to the\nproportion of ochre usewear found at comparable sites. We also added further commentary\nreiterating the use of ochre directly at the sites for rock art. Pasted below is the text we added.\nOchre Processing and Use\nFigure 10 illustrates a selection of ochre samples exhibiting usewear from the Sibebe\nassemblage. Remarkably, only nine of the 931 (< 1%) artifacts examined this entire study\nshowed clear evidence of usewear, six of which were from Sibebe, and four of those limited to\nthe uppermost stratum at that site. The remaining modified ochres were from Siphiso (n=2) and\nNyonyane (n=1). This low proportion of modified ochre artifacts in the Eswatini assemblages is\nin contrast to the few other comparable systematic studies on ochre processing. For instance,\nHodgskiss’ analysis of MSA ochre at Sibudu (52) identified 7.57% of the total assemblage\nexhibited evidence for usewear (more commonly during the pre-Still Bay period ~77kya), and\nHodgskiss and Wadley identified usewear (grinding, scoring, rubbing) in 11.2% of the\nassemblage at Rose Cottage Cave (53). The results from the Eswatini assemblage suggests that\nthe more common method for preparing ochres for use as paint to for objects, rock walls, or as\nbody paint, may have been through grinding or pulverizing whole pieces using an anvil or\nmortar and pestle, rather than via repeated abrasion or scoring of the ochre pieces against other\ntextured surfaces to produce powder.\nOther indicators for the processing and end-use of ochre are evident in the abundance of\nrock art. There are currently 52 documented (yet unpublished) rock art sites across Eswatini,\nseveral of them coincident with the assemblages studied here (Nsangwini, Sibebe, Muti Muti,\nNdhlozane). The artifact assemblage recovered from Nsangwini also yielded 17 lithics (chert,\nhornfels) stained with dry-rubbed ochre or spatters of prepared ochre paint. Further study of\nthose stone tools is currently underway.\n- “These components were selected (…) also for sociocultural reasons, such as spiritual potency\nand the geographic origins of minerals. The ochre chaîne opératoire was an inherently social\nactivity that existed as part of a broader system of relations that had cultural significance to\npeople living in the MSA and LSA.”\nI agree with this statement. However, we do not have direct evidence of it for MSA and LSA\ncultures. I would advise moderating this section by specifying that it is a likely hypothesis.\nReply: To avoid any misunderstanding, we removed use of the term “cultural” in the quoted\npassage.\n- “Here, we show evidence for long term, regional-scale behavioral stability in ochre\nprovisioning and transport, but also, distinctive site-specific variations in procurement and\ntechnological choices”\nI would remove “technological choices” from this section, as the scarcity of modified ochre\npieces does not allow to discuss technological aspects related to ochre exploitation.\nReply: Thank you for this comment. Our use of the term “technological choices” is deliberate,\nand follows previous examples (MacDonald et al. 2024; Arch and Anth Sciences) that emphasize\nraw material selection and procurement as a technological choice. Raw material selection is\nindeed the first of several technological choices that take place along the ochre chaîne\nopératoire, followed by decisions on whether to heat treat to achieve a desired hue, the\nmechanical means used to turn consolidated lithic material to a powder (grinding, scoring,\npulverization), using water-based levigation or dry sieving, mixing with other inorganic or\norganic materials to achieve a desired consistency or texture.\nPage 4\n- “communities of practice”\nThis concept sometimes appears in italics and sometimes not. Please be consistent.\nReply: We have corrected the manuscript text to be consistent throughout.\n- “Following the local traditional nomenclature and geology of Eswatini, we use the term ochre\nto describe all earth-derived mineral pigments, with specific reference to red or yellow ochre\n(iron oxide and iron-rich clay), black ochre (magnetite, manganese oxides, or charcoal) and\nwhite ochre (kaolin)”.\nI understand the authors’ choice to use traditional nomenclature of Eswatini. I consider, however,\nthat “black ochre” and “white ochre” are slightly confusing terms, as they do not correspond to\nwhat is usually referred to as “ochre” in the literature. The term “ochre” is already quite\nambiguous as it is, so I would recommend avoiding its use when referring to colouring materials\nother than iron oxides. In any case, I see that these terms are not used throughout the text, so this\ndoesn’t affect the rest of the paper.\nReply: We completely agree that the term “ochre” is a broad and ambiguous term. In locally-\nused language, the term is fluid depending on the context of use, but is primarily used to signify\nits use as a paint, but not necessarily specific to the raw material itself. For instance, “black\nochre” is used to describe both manganese oxides or charcoal used as paint. For these reasons we\nincluded parenthetical notes in the main text about the raw materials that could encompass those\nterms, and have updated the text to convey the use of the term to specifically denote “paint”.\nPage 13\n- Tables 1 and 2\nSome of the archaeological sites do not appear on table 1 (Mlawula I and II, Nsangwini,\nHlalakahle, Mphaphati I, Ndhlozane shelter). Are there no dates for these sites?\nReply: Regarding Table 1, you are correct – there are no radiometric dates available for each of\nthose sites, therefore have not been included in Table 1. In those instances, the contexts are either\nvery shallow and limited in cultural material (Mlawula 1), subjected to major erosion or other\nsecondary disturbances (Mlawula II, Hlalakahle), shallow and mixed MSA/LSA deposits\n(Nsangwini), or not yet excavated and dated (e.g. surface finds from Ndhlozane shelter), At the\npresent time we can only infer relative or indirect temporal periods based on associations with\ndiagnostic tool or pottery assemblages, or in association with an ironworking kiln as seen at\nMphamphati I.\nWe have updated the Table 1 caption to clarify the omission of those sites.\n“Table 1: List of archaeological sites and available chronometric dates included in this study.\nOSL ages are shown with 1σ uncertainties. Samples studied from sites Mlawula I and II,\nNsangwini, Hlalakahle, Mphaphati I, Muti Muti, and Ndhlozane shelter lack chronometric dates\ndue to various site-specific contexts, detailed in Table 2 (extended data) and Supplementary Text\nsection 2.”\nHere are brief explanations for each of the sites, quoted from information provided in\nSupplementary Text.\nMlawula I and II (quoted from Supplementary Text section 2.5)\nBarham originally excavated the site in an L-shaped block of seven 2 m2 units and in one single\nstratum as the sediment was reportedly unstratified. After excavating 10 cm deep, artifact\nfrequency dropped significantly and was thus declared sterile. The assemblage was characterized\nby LSA artifacts mixed with Iron Age pottery. A glass bead indicates that the entire occupation\nat Mlawula I is likely to be younger than 1000 AD. Mlawula II is located on a terrace some 10 m\nabove the Siphiso River. Barham reported that ca. 50% of the original site is likely destroyed due\nto terrace erosion, leaving a truncated scatter of artifacts. The remaining site area was excavated\nin seven 2 m2 units in two strata, and to a final depth of 30 cm.\nNsangwini (quoted from Supplementary Text section 2.3)\nThe site also has an archaeological sequence, excavated by both Beaumont in 1966, and again by\nPrice Williams in 1978. Beaumont excavated ca. 7 m² in front of the shelter and reached a\nmaximum depth of 30 inches (76.2 cm). In his field notes, he refers to the presence of Iron Age,\nLSA and MSA artifacts. There is comparably less information regarding the Price Williams\nexcavation – the only information we have is from the old find tags from the excavation\ncollection. The excavated sequence yielded a surface layer, a mixed MSA/LSA assemblage\nbelow, and an MSA assemblage at the base deposit. No 14C ages were pursued. Based on our\ninitial screening of the material, the MSA assemblage contains several bifacial points made from\nvarious raw materials. This could suggest that the assemblage, like Sibebe, belongs to a late stage\nof the MSA. For this ochre provenance study, we selected the only three ochre artifacts available\nfor provenance analysis; one a surface find and the other two from the mixed MSA/LSA layer.\nHlalakahle (quoted from Supplementary Text section 2.6)\nHlalakahle was one of the first sites excavated by David Price Williams in 1977. It is situated\nabove the Komati river banks overlooking the modern Maguga Dam. Deposits of 1-2 m\nthickness are surrounded by big boulders. According to Price Williams’ interpretation,\nHlalakahle is a collapsed rock shelter, although this could never be confirmed. The majority of\nthe artifact-bearing deposits were found outside the boulder formation in a recent road cut. Price\nWilliams excavated no less than 5 m² of the site and interpreted the entire assemblage as a\npalimpsest of secondary dislocated sediments. No radiocarbon ages exist for the site. The lithic\nassemblage recovered and stored in the Eswatini National Museum in Lobamba is large and\nindicates an exclusively MSA occupation. Big blades and points, several of them knapped from\ndifferent chert varieties are characteristic.\nNdhlozane shelter (quoted from Supplementary Text section 2.8)\nNdhlozane Shelter is located in the south west of the country near the Ndhlozane Gorge. The\nshelter contains several well-preserved examples of rock art on the backwalls. No excavations\nhave been carried out at the site, although deposits are potentially deep. Surface finds include\nstone artifacts, pottery and ochre indicating at least an occupation during the Later Stone Age\nand Iron Age. Six ochre artifact surface finds from Ndhlozane are included in the provenance\nstudy presented here.\nMphatiphati I (quoted from Supplementary Text section 2.9)\nThis Iron Age site was originally excavated by Ohinata, who studied the settlement patterns and\nmaterial culture of sites bearing ceramic and metallurgical kilns. This site was included in this\nstudy because its excavation yielded several pieces of unprocessed ochre raw materials in\nassociation with several dozen nodules of raw ore in association with a metallurgical kiln.\nConsidering this association, we inferred that the ochre raw materials from this site represent a\nknown locally available source of iron ore material from the Mahalamanti Valley.\nPage 15\n- In figure legend 2b, what do the authors mean exactly by “use wear”?\nReply: We have clarified our description of usewear in the figure caption. The term usewear\nrefers to any evidence for anthropogenic modification of the ochres resulting from processing,\nsuch as grinding or scoring.\n“Figure 2a (upper) Selected hand specimens of samples from sources included in this study.\nFigure 2b. (lower) Examples of modified ochre artifacts from Sibebe, showing evidence for\nmodification, including grooves created during grinding or scoring.”\nPage 16\n- Figure 3 is missing\nReply: This was omitted in error. Figure 3 has been added to the manuscript file.\nPage 17\n- Figure 4 is missing.\nReply: This was omitted in error. Figure 4 has been added to the manuscript file.\nPage 19-20\n- Figure 5 and 6: I recommend specifying in the figure legend that the scatterplot represents the\nPCA of NAA results.\nReply: We have updated the figure captions to specify that they represent the NAA results.\nPage 27-28\n- Figures 8 and 9: adding the total number of iron and manganese artifacts per phase to the figure\nmight be useful to evaluate how significative these proportions are, and to have an idea of the\nstratigraphic distribution of these pieces.\nReply: Thank you for your comment. We are unable to embed a table within the figures due to\nprint specifications, but the information you seek can be found in Table 2 [Extended Data],\nwhich, if published, be readily viewable online alongside Figures 8 and 9.\nPage 32\n- “Hunter-gatherers would have conducted some testing (grinding, scoring, mixing, applying to\nvarious surfaces, see SI-Text 2.0) to understand their qualities for rock art or body paint,\nadhesives, and other potential uses”.\nI was surprised by the fact that the technological observations conducted on the archaeological\nassemblage are only mentioned in the supplementary materials. I think that, although very few\npieces show modifications, this aspect deserves to appear in the main text, and maybe they could\nbe presented in the form of a table. Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think there is detailed\ninformation on the stratigraphic provenance of modified pieces (in addition to what appears in\npage 29 of the Supplementary text). In the case of Sibebe, it is not specified in the supplementary\ndata which ochre typologies show anthropogenic modifications.\nReply: We moved the discussion of the observations on modifications and usewear to the main\ntext. We added text on the types that had evident usewear (specularite and fine-grained\nconsolidated hematite, Types 2 and 1c). In all instances, the finds are restricted to LSA deposits.\nPage 33\n“The infrequent long-distance transport of ochre could be indicative of the itinerant movement of\npainters or tangoma (…) the localized activities associated with its chaîne opératoire were varied\nand contextually-contingent communities of practice”.\nWhile these ethnographic examples are of great interest and show the cultural significance of\nochre, I think that using this information to discuss MSA and LSA societies is a complex task. I\nwould suggest the authors mention the fact that there are debates surrounding ethnoarchaeology,\nand on whether one should establish analogies between prehistoric societies and ethnographic\ndata. Maybe it would be interesting to cite some authors that have discussed this issue, such as\nDavid and Kramer 2001 (David N, Kramer C. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge:\nCambridge University Press; 2001.).\nReply: We agree. While ethnographic analogy cannot and does not explain the past, it is a useful\ntool for expanding our understanding of possible drivers of human behaviours and decision-\nmaking. We have added this clarification to the text.\nReviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):\nLSA in Eswatini. The authors have sampled ochre from known archaeological sites from recent\nor ancient excavations, as well as from potential ancient mining sites. A panel of physico-\nchemical analyses (NAA, La-ICPMS, Raman spectroscopy, XRD, XRF) has allowed them to\ndefined different groups of ochre (Mn or Fe rich types) and to propose sourcing for the\narchaeological samples. Then discussions about procurement strategies over time are presented.\nThe paper is overall well written and structured with a very complete set of data and documents.\nI am not competent to judge the way in which the statistical study was carried out. I am also a bit\nsceptical about the fact that part of the discussion could be derived from general considerations\non ochre use (ex: the need to share the location of sources and the way to use them) and not from\nthe data presented and analysed here. This should not prevent the paper to be published however.\nI have only minor suggestions and comments:\n- I think a summary map (or several) showing relations between archaeological sites and mining\nsources deduced from the analyses would be useful. I add to draw arrows on the map in order to\nfollow the conclusions, so it might be good if this was already provided by the authors.\nReply: We appreciate this comment. It has been difficult to convey the directionality of\nmovement in a map format for a few reasons. For several of the sources (G2b, G2c, G2d, G3,\nG4, MnG2, MnG3, MnG6), we do not actually know where they were collected, therefore have\nnowhere to pinpoint on a map, and there is too much missing information. We are also hesitant\nto provide maps with arrows (to publish in print) that could imply that we actually know the\npathway of movement – provenance studies can only determine the origin and final deposition of\na raw material, but the route those materials took to get there is not possible to know. By drawing\narrows, we do not want readers to assume that we are falsely implying the direction of\nmovement. Finally, there are so many sources and sites included in this study that adding more\nthan a dozen directional arrows is simply visually confusing and unappealing.\nIn order to be helpful for the review process, here are the only maps that we could reasonably\nproduce with the information in hand. Please bear in mind that no locational information is\ncurrently available for sources G2b, G2c, G2d, G3, G4, MnG2, MnG3, and MnG6.\nFigure: Origin and deposition of Ngwenya ochre (G1) and manganese oxide (MnG4)\nFigure: Origin and deposition of Bulembu ochre (G1b) and manganese oxide (MnG1).\nFigure: Origin and deposition of G2a (Siphiso vicinity) ochre.\nFigure: Origin and deposition of Mahalamanti Valley ochre (G5).\nFigure: Origin and deposition of Kubuta manganese oxide (MnG5).\n- Fig. 5b: why don’t you plot G1b there?\nReply: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the icons in Figure 5b to show the\ndistribution of G1b samples in the plot.\n- Fig 6 (and SI fig24): I am confused: the % indicated for PC1 and 2 on the axes does not\ncorrespond to the ones indicated in the caption. Was it supposed to be a “zoom” of Fig 5a for the\n“east” groups? Or do you change the composition of the PC for better separation? It may help to\nuse the same symbols in Fig 5 and 6. Please also indicate the source corresponding to the ellipses\nas you do for Fig 5b. The caption says they are known but the text suggests it is not really the\ncase. Please modify/explain.\nReply: Thank you for noting this error. The caption has been corrected to reflect the axes in the\nfigures and the description of what the icons and ellipses represent.\n- Fig 7: again maybe, label the ellipse with the corresponding source.\nReply: We have updated the figure caption to clarify which Mn-Ox groups correspond to\nsources, where applicable.\nFigure 7b (lower): Scatterplot of PC1 (41.9%) vs PC2 (22.6%), showing the distribution of Mn-\nOx artifacts and source materials. Mn-G1 corresponds to the Ngwenya Bulembu source. Mn-G4\ncorresponds to the Ngwenya Banda Cavern source. Mn-G5 corresponds to the Kubuta source.\nGroups Mn-G2, Mn-G3, and Mn-G6 are exclusively artifacts with no known source origins at\nthis time. Unassigned samples are individually labelled. Ellipses are drawn at 90% confidence.\n- Line 295: “the use of a proportionally higher number of different sources of both iron and\nmanganese oxides is evident”. I wonder. There are only one or two more compare to the LSA or\nfinal LSA phases…\nReply: Yes, there are limited samples to be able to compare to. We have added mention to this in\nthe text.\n- Fig8 and 9: I would suggest you also add chronological indications for each phase, and you\nindicate (for example with dashes or stars), which groups are “local” and which one are not.\nReply: The temporal phases for each phase are now described in the caption, and all calendrical\ndates that correspond to each phase are fully detailed in Table 1. We have also clarified in the\ncaption which excavation units the artifacts were selected from.\nFigure 8: Excavation profile and major temporal phases (left) and the relative proportions of\niron and manganese artifacts in each phase (right) for Sibebe. Note that all artifacts included in\nthe compositional analysis were selected from units I10, J10, K10, L10, and M10. The reported\ncalendrical dates for each phase are detailed in Table 1. Strata I and II correspond to mixed\nIron Age and Ceramic LSA deposits. Stratum III corresponds to pre-ceramic LSA. Stratum V\ncorrelates with late final MSA. Stratum VI corresponds to early final MSA.\n- You indicate 20 samples for G2a, but I can count only eight on the figures.\nReply: The additional 12 samples were assigned to G2a through analysis of the LA-ICP-MS\ndata, which is a different dataset than what is presented in the NAA figures in the article main\ntext. Those were analyzed using LA-ICP-MS due to physical sample size (to small, avoiding\nconsuming the entire sample by NAA). This sequence of statistical interpretation is detailed in\nthe Supplementary Text.\n- “but not predating the Oakhurst litho-technocomplex phase” : which one is it?\nReply: we have added clarification in the text that the LSA Oakhurst litho-technocomplex phase\npostdates 12.2 - 9.7 cal BP kya.\n- “Subsequent experimentation would have been needed to test the extracted ochres and their\nphysicochemical properties”: I understand what you mean, but I find it odd to speak about testing\nphysicochemical properties when Stone Age experimenters did not know any thing about physics\nand chemistry. Maybe another wording would be more appropriate?\nReply: To remove any confusion, we have removed the term “physicochemical properties” in\nthis context and instead referred to the “extracted ochres and their properties for intended use”,\nas quoted below.\n“Subsequent experimentation would have been needed to test the extracted ochres and their\nproperties for their intended use, among which would have included colorfastness, impurities,\nhue, dispersion in a binding medium (such as blood, fat, water, plant exudates), resistance to\nweathering, and adhesion to a surface.”\n- “the impurities present in most of the eastern ochre sources led to the reduced the tinting\nstrength of the material”-> “led to reduce”\nReply: We have corrected this phrasing in the manuscript text.\n- Concerning the OSL analysis at Lion’s Cavern: In addition to the photo (Fig. SI2), it would be\ngood to have a drawing of the stratigraphy with localized OSL samples. A short explanation also\non the build-up of stratigraphic sequence would be welcome, since the way in which a quarry\nsites is forms might be different from the way in which any living sites builds up.\nReply: We have added a new figure to the Supplementary Text to illustrate the stratigraphic\nsequence at Lion Cavern relative to where the OSL samples were taken.\nSI Figure 25: Profile view of Lion Cavern showing the distribution of archaeological deposits,\nlocations of OSL sample collection, and 14C samples where relevant.\n- I guess (but maybe I am wrong?) that the matrix embedding the quartz grains is unusually rich\nin iron. Did you consider this in your calculations of dose rate? How different would be the\nabsorption coefficients?\nReply: Thank you for this comment. We added the following section to the supplementary\nmaterial to outline our considerations:\n“Following Cunningham et al. (2022), U and Th are expected to be located on the surface of the\ngrains. The entire sediment matrix is characterised by homogeneous, fine grained, mostly silty\nmaterial. The grain size used for luminescence dating is thus a valid representation of the\nsediment matrix. Due to the small grain size of the sediment fraction used for OSL dating, we\nassumed full penetration by alpha particles, likely emitted by U sources, located on the surface\nof the grains.”\n- Lines 742-749: you do not explicitly tell which system you use for the alpha efficiency. It looks\ntypical of a a-value but you should say it.\nReply: Yes, we used the a-value system. We have added this information to the supplementary\nmaterial. We furthermore added the following sentence to the supplementary section outlining\ndetails of the performed age calculations.\n“To account for the different efficiencies in producing luminescence of alpha-particles,\ncompared to beta and gamma radiation, the a-value determined for our samples (0.042 ± 0.005)\nwas used.”\n- While you calculate the gamma dose rate from the U, Th, K content of the surrounding, you are\nnot very explicit about the process and Table 6 presents the data only for the OSL samples. How\nmany samples did you use to reconstruct the gamma dose? How did you deal with\nheterogeneities if any?\nReply: Thank you for your comment. We added the following sentence to supplementary section\n6.1:\n“Due to the homogeneity of the surrounding sediment, one dosimetry sample per OSL sample\nwas taken and used for external dose rate calculations for each OSL sample, respectively.”\nWe also modified the section regarding “dose rate determination” slightly, to accommodate more\ninformation.\n- In Table 6: I guess the K content is actually in %, not in ppm. Please also indicate that the DR\nis in Gy/ka. I think the second digit is not significant for the De, nor for the Age. Please remove\nthem. This is also the case in Table 1 in the main text.\nReply: Thank you very much for pointing out the error in the units used for K. It should be %\nand not ppm. We changed this accordingly. We also added the units for the cosmic and\nenvironmental dose rates. Furthermore, we rounded the values given for doses and ages."}, {"round": 2, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "As I already stated in my first review, this paper is in my opinion an outstanding contribution to\nochre studies. By using different analytical techniques, including pXRF, NAA, LA-ICP-MS, XRD and\nRaman spectroscopy, the authors reconstruct patterns of raw material acquisition that are of great\ninterest to the understanding of late MSA and LSA cultures. The authors have thoroughly taken into\naccount suggestions made by myself and reviewer #2. All of the data is presented in the article and\nsupplementary data. I have no additional comments on the paper and I strongly recommend\npublication."}, "author_response": ""}]

Decision letter