Examining the Causes and Consequences of Short-Term Behavioral Change during the Middle Stone Age at Sibudu, South Africa - PubMed (original) (raw)

Examining the Causes and Consequences of Short-Term Behavioral Change during the Middle Stone Age at Sibudu, South Africa

Nicholas J Conard et al. PLoS One. 2015.

Abstract

Sibudu in KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) with its rich and high-resolution archaeological sequence provides an ideal case study to examine the causes and consequences of short-term variation in the behavior of modern humans during the Middle Stone Age (MSA). We present the results from a technological analysis of 11 stratified lithic assemblages which overlie the Howiesons Poort deposits and all date to ~58 ka. Based on technological and typological attributes, we conducted inter-assemblage comparisons to characterize the nature and tempo of cultural change in successive occupations. This work identified considerable short-term variation with clear temporal trends throughout the sequence, demonstrating that knappers at Sibudu varied their technology over short time spans. The lithic assemblages can be grouped into three cohesive units which differ from each other in the procurement of raw materials, the frequency in the methods of core reduction, the kind of blanks produced, and in the nature of tools the inhabitants of Sibudu made and used. These groups of assemblages represent different strategies of lithic technology, which build upon each other in a gradual, cumulative manner. We also identify a clear pattern of development toward what we have previously defined as the Sibudan cultural taxonomic unit. Contextualizing these results on larger geographical scales shows that the later phase of the MSA during MIS 3 in KwaZulu-Natal and southern Africa is one of dynamic cultural change rather than of stasis or stagnation as has at times been claimed. In combination with environmental, subsistence and contextual information, our high-resolution data on lithic technology suggest that short-term behavioral variability at Sibudu can be best explained by changes in technological organization and socio-economic dynamics instead of environmental forcing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1

Fig 1. Geographical location of Sibudu in KwaZulu-Natal and view on the excavation area within the rock shelter.

Fig 2

Fig 2. Stratigraphic section of the Eastern Excavation (combined north and east profile) of Sibudu.

Colored layers, beginning with BSP, were excavated by the Tübingen team between 2011–2014 and are located in the upper part of the sequence dated to ~58 ka.

Fig 3

Fig 3. Percentual abundance of raw materials throughout WOG1-BSP.

WOG1 = oldest layer; BSP = youngest layer.

Fig 4

Fig 4. Frequencies of the main debitage category produced throughout WOG1-BSP.

WOG1 = oldest layer; BSP = youngest layer.

Fig 5

Fig 5. Scatter plot of blade widths and lengths (left) and histogram of blade widths (right) for the combined sequence WOG1-BSP.

Fig 6

Fig 6. Selection of stone artifacts from assemblage BP.

1: Overshot flake from unidirectional platform blade core (dolerite, D3-955); 2: Levallois flake with partial core edge (dolerite, D3-922); 3: Levallois flake (dolerite, C3-896); 4: Unifacial point, Ndwedwe (hornfels, C3-951); 5: Asymmetric unifacial point, ACT (dolerite, C3-891); 6: Inclined core (dolerite, C3-929). (Drawings by L. Brandt and M. Lajmiri)

Fig 7

Fig 7. Selection of blanks from assemblage POX.

1–2: Inclined flake, invasive (both dolerite, E3-824, D3-599.4); 3–4: Inclined flake, central (both dolerite, E2-555, E2-638); 5–8: Inclined flake, partial core edge (all dolerite, E3-939, E3-973, D2-450, E3-909); 9: Blade, bidirectional (hornfels, D2-592); 10–11: Blade, bidirectional (dolerite, D3-600, E3-871); 12: Blade, orthogonal (E2-485); 13–16: Levallois flake (all dolerite, C2-934, D2-627, D2-646, D2-610.10). (Drawings by L. Brandt and M. Lajmiri)

Fig 8

Fig 8. Selection of cores from assemblage POX.

1–2: Inclined core, bifacial (both dolerite, E2-700; E2-708); 3: Single-platform core, blades (dolerite, C3-792). (Drawings by L. Brandt and M. Lajmiri; photograph by J. Becher)

Fig 9

Fig 9. Selection of blanks from assemblage SU.

1: Inclined flake, invasive (dolerite, D3-1111); 2: Inclined flake, central (dolerite, E2-852); 3–4: Inclined flake, partial core edge (both dolerite, C3-1022, E2-947); 5–8: Inclined flake, partial core edge (all dolerite, C2-1236, D3-1222.5, D2-791, D2-838); 9: Laminar flake, bidirectional (dolerite, D3-1184); 10: Blade, unidirectional (dolerite, C2-1091); 11–12: Blade, bidirectional (both dolerite; C2-1005.3, C2-1183); 13: Levallois flake, unidirectional (dolerite, C3-982); 14–15 Levallois point (both dolerite, C2-1234, E2-934); Levallois flake, centripetal (dolerite, C2-1220). (Drawings by M. Lajmiri)

Fig 10

Fig 10. Selection of cores from assemblages SU.

1: Parallel core, bidirectional (dolerite, E2-854); 2: Parallel core, centripetal (dolerite, D3-1082); 3: Parallel core, unidirectional (dolerite, E3-1246.1); 4: Inclined core, bifacial (E3-1214); 5: Single-platform core, blades (dolerite, C2-1192); 6: Single-platform core on flake, bladelets (hornfels, C2-1127); 7: Burin on tool, bladelets (hornfels, C2-1026). (Drawings by M. Lajmiri).

Fig 11

Fig 11. Selection of cores from assemblage SP.

1: Parallel core, centripetal (dolerite, C3-1070); 2: Parallel core, centripetal (dolerite, C2-773); 3: Single platform core, flakes (dolerite, D3-1152.3). (Photographs by J. Becher)

Fig 12

Fig 12. Lithic density (n/m3) of stone artefacts (<30 mm) throughout WOG1-BSP.

Sample sizes for each assemblage can be found in Table 1. WOG1 = oldest layer; BSP = youngest layer.

Fig 13

Fig 13. Selection of tools from assemblage POX.

1–3: Unifacial point, Tongati (all dolerite, C3-868, D2-596, C2-763.7); 4: Unifacial point, Tongati (hornfels, E3-977); 5: Unifacial point, ACT (hornfels, C2-717); 6–7: Unifacial point, ACT (both dolerite, D3-856; D3-615); 8) Denticulate (dolerite, D2-446); 9: Lateral retouch, Ndwedwe (dolerite, D3-619); 10: Lateral retouch, Ndwedwe (hornfels, D3-608). (Drawings by L. Brandt)

Fig 14

Fig 14. Selection of tools from assemblage SU.

1–2: Unifacial point, Tongati (both dolerite, C3-999, C3-991); 3: Unifacial point, Ndwedwe (dolerite, D3-1036); 4: Unifacial point (dolerite, E3-1092); 5: Unifacial point, notched (dolerite, E2-922); 6–7: Unifacial point, ACT (both dolerite, C3-1032, C2-1012.18); 8: Transverse scraper, NBT (dolerite, C3-996); 9: Lateral retouch (dolerite, D3-1078); 10: Denticulate, NBT (dolerite, C3-979.1). (Drawings by L. Brandt and M. Lajmiri)

Fig 15

Fig 15. Linear regression of tool percentage and hornfels percentage of assemblages WOG1-BSP (R2 = 0.873; p<0.01).

Fig 16

Fig 16. Schematic representation of hypotheses to conceptualize the short-term cultural changes at Sibudu throughout WOG1-BSP.

A) Gradual change with continuous cultural transmission among local populations throughout the entire sequence (broad Sibudan definition). B) Discontinuous change with two distinct units (Cx)–one encompassing internal gradual change–separated through disruption of information transmission or occupation hiatuses. This could either reflect two independent populations or cultural taxonomic units (SU-BSP as a narrow Sibudan definition). C) Discontinuous change with three distinct units (Cx), separated through disruption of information transmission or occupation hiatuses. This could either reflect three independent populations or cultural taxonomic units (“splitter” taxonomy with BM-BSP as originally defined Sibudan). D) Discontinuous change with three groupings reflecting different site function (Fx), technological organization, or raw material use (RMUx) at different time periods during the occupation of the locality. This hypothesis does not include statements about information transmission or population displacement. E) Gradual change with continuous cultural transmission among local populations in the region around Sibudu. Within this continuum, three groupings can be concerned based on differences in site function (Fx), technological organization, or raw material use (RMUx) at different time periods during the occupation of the locality.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Conard NJ (2001a) The future of archaeology In: Kobylinski Z, editor. Quo vadis archaeologia? Whither European archaeology in the 21st Century? Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences; pp. 106–117.
    1. Kuhn SL (2013) Questions of complexity and scale in explanations for cultural transitions in the Pleistocene: a case study from the early Upper Paleolithic. J Archaeol Method Theory 20: 194–211.
    1. Johnson AL (2014) Exploring Adaptive Variation among Hunter-gatherers with Binford’s Frames of Reference. J Archaeol Res 22: 1–42.
    1. Tixier J (1978) Méthode pour l’étude des outillages lithiques. Doctoral thesis. Université de Paris X.
    1. Foley RA (1987) Hominid species and stone tools assemblages: how are they related? Am Antiq 61: 380–392.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

The excavation and research at Sibudu was funded by the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft (The Role of Culture in Early Expansion of Humans), the Tübingen-Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoecology, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grant (CO 226/27-1). MW´s work on this study was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Grant of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. The authors acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Open Access Publishing Fund of Tuebingen University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

LinkOut - more resources