4.7 Article

Middle Stone Age technology from MIS 6 and MIS 5 at Klipfonteinrand 1, South Africa

期刊

QUATERNARY SCIENCE REVIEWS
卷 318, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.108289

关键词

Middle stone age; Southern africa; Fynbos biome; Lithic technology; Culture history

向作者/读者索取更多资源

KFR1, a poorly documented MSA site in South Africa, was examined to test the viability of prevailing technocomplex schemes. The analysis of artifacts from the oldest units showed that they did not align perfectly with existing schemes and were distinct from nearby assemblages of similar age. This study contributes to the understanding of variable technological adaptations during an important phase in human behavioral evolution.
Klipfonteinrand 1 (KFR1) is a foundational but poorly documented Middle Stone Age (MSA) site located in the south west of South Africa. Originally excavated by John Parkington in 1969 but undated for more than 50 years, the MSA component of the sequence formed a part of Thomas Volman's influential culture-historic technocomplex scheme. Renewed excavations identified four distinct MSA stratigraphic units at the site, the oldest two of which date to similar to 85 ka and similar to 156 ka. This paper presents an analysis of similar to 4500 artefacts from the oldest units to test the viability of Volman's scheme and its derivatives. Coeval assemblages from other regional sites are also reviewed to test alternative models of regional technological variability driven by demographic dynamics in MIS 6 and MIS 5. We find that assemblages from neither of the deepest two stratigraphic units at KFR1 map perfectly to prevailing technocomplex schemes for southern Africa, and that they are also distinct from nearby assemblages of comparable age. Ultimately, KFR1 provides an important data point furthering the identification of variable technological adaptations during an important phase in the evolution of human behaviour.

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

4.7
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