How confident are we in the chronology of the transition between Howieson's Poort and Still Bay?

Center for Nuclear Technologies, Technical University of Denmark, DTU Risø Campus, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark. Electronic address: .
Journal of Human Evolution (Impact Factor: 3.87). 04/2013; 64(4):314-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.01.006
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Guillaume Guérin, Jun 22, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Here we conduct the first direct metric examination of two early regional manifestations of microlithic industries – the Howiesons Poort of southern Africa (c. 65–60 ka) and the Microlithic industry of South Asia (c. 38–12 ka). Inter-regional comparative analysis of microlithic industries is rare, but can contribute much to our understanding of technological systems in the past. Metric and qualitative variables were recorded on cores, debitage, and tools from Rose Cottage Cave and Umhlatuzana, South Africa, and Batadomba-lena, Sri Lanka, with the aim of conducting a first-stage technological assessment of the degree of technological homogeneity and diversity within these rich microlithic assemblages. The lithic methodology employed here uses the full range of lithic by-products, as opposed to an approach based on tool typology alone. Preliminary analyses reveal areas of significant variation in inter-regional technological strategies. These include differences in blade production and blank selection, variation in microlith typology and morphology, disparate quartz reduction processes designed to produce similar tool types, varying degrees of utilisation of bipolar technology, and the existence of distinct reduction trajectories within sites. The examination of the diversity of microlithic assemblages through the use of detailed technological attribute analyses demonstrates a useful alternative methodology for the way we examine behavioural variability, and is a first step towards a thorough assessment of the place of microliths in models of human dispersals.
    Quaternary International 11/2014; 350. DOI:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.09.013 · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Middle Stone Age (MSA) of southern Africa represents a period during which anatomically modern humans adopted a series of diverse cultural innovations. Researchers generally attribute these behavioral changes to environmental, neurological, or demographic causes, but none of these alone offers a satisfactory explanation. Even as patterns at site level come into focus, large-scale trends in cultural expansions remain poorly understood. This paper presents different ways to view diachronic datasets from localities in southern Africa and specifically tests hypotheses of environmental and cultural causality. We employ an array of analyses in an attempt to understand large-scale variability observed during the MSA. We evaluated the diversity of stone tool assemblages to model site use, examined transport distances of lithic raw materials to understand patterns of movement, assessed the cultural capacities required to manufacture and use different sets of tools, applied stochastic models to examine the geographic distribution of sites, and reconstructed biome classes and climatic constraints. Our large-scale analysis allowed the research team to integrate different types of information and examine diachronic trends during the MSA. Based on our results, the range of cultural capacity expanded during the MSA. We define cultural capacity as the behavioral potential of a group expressed through the problem-solution distance required to manufacture and use tools. Our dataset also indicates that the actual behavior exhibited by MSA people, their cultural performance as expressed in the archaeological record, is not equivalent to their cultural capacity. Instead we observe that the main signature of the southern African MSA is its overall variability, as demonstrated by changing sets of cultural performances. Finally, at the scale of resolution considered here, our results suggest that climate is not the most significant factor driving human activities during the MSA. Instead, we postulate that behavioral flexibility itself became the key adaptation.
    Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 06/2015; DOI:10.1007/s10816-015-9254-y · 1.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Current Anthropology 12/2013; 54(8):S305-@319. · 2.93 Impact Factor