4.5 Article

Technological successions in the Middle Stone Age sequence of Diepkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 40, 期 9, 页码 3376-3400

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.012

关键词

Middle Stone Age; Anatomically modern humans; Upper Pleistocene; Lithic technology; Still Bay; Howiesons Poort

资金

  1. French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAE)
  2. Aquitaine region
  3. Provence-Alpes-Cote-d'Azur region
  4. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  5. Paleontological Scientific Trust (PAST)
  6. National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa
  7. Fyssen foundation
  8. Alexander von Humboldt Foundations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The southern African MSA comprises a series of phases of unique technological innovations that fuel current models on the evolutionary processes of Anatomically Modern Humans. However, the nature and variability of these technological phases remain poorly documented. This study reports on the previously unpublished sequence of Diepkloof Rock Shelter (South Africa) and investigates the main technological changes therein, particularly emphasizing the emergence, succession and disappearance of the Still Bay (SB) and the Howiesons Poort (HP). We argue for technological change that occurred at different rates and under the influence of variable driving factors. Our model implies that the SB and the HP are not related to the influx of new populations but have regionally specific origins. Unlike the other techno-complexes, the HP at Diepkloof is subdivided into different phases (Early, Intermediate and Late) but only the upper phases resemble the so-called classic HP. Finally, the technological sequence of Diepkloof questions the homogeneous picture which has been so far assumed for the southern African MSA and places emphasis on the importance of exploring long regional sequences. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据