4.3 Article

Coalescence and fragmentation in the late Pleistocene archaeology of southernmost Africa

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
Volume 72, Issue -, Pages 26-51

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.03.003

Keywords

Lithic technology; Middle and Later Stone Age; Still Bay; Howiesons Poort; Ornaments; Cultural transmission

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP1092445, DE130100068]
  2. British Academy [SG-50844]
  3. Wenner-Gren [8166]
  4. McDonald Institute, Cambridge University
  5. European Research Council (European Union) [258657]
  6. Australian Research Council [DE130100068, DP1092445] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
  7. European Research Council (ERC) [258657] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The later Pleistocene archaeological record of southernmost Africa encompasses several Middle Stone Age industries and the transition to the Later Stone Age. Through this period various signs of complex human behaviour appear episodically, including elaborate lithic technologies, osseous technologies, ornaments, motifs and abstract designs. Here we explore the regional archaeological record using different components of lithic technological systems to track the transmission of cultural information and the extent of population ihteraction within and between different climatic regions. The data suggest a complex set of coalescent and fragmented relationships between populations in different climate regions through the late Pleistocene, with maximum interaction (coalescence) during MIS 4 and MIS 2, and fragmentation during MIS 5 and MIS 3. Coalescent phases correlate with increases in the frequency of ornaments and other forms of symbolic expression, leading us to suggest that population interaction was a significant driver in their appearance. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available