4.2 Article

Using Trampling Modification to Infer Occupational Intensity During the Still Bay at Blombos Cave, Southern Cape, South Africa

期刊

AFRICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 1-19

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10437-018-9286-2

关键词

Middle Stone Age; Still Bay; Blombos Cave; Trampling; Taphonomy; Occupational intensity

资金

  1. South African National Research Foundation (NRF) [107082]
  2. Palaeontological Scientific Trust (PAST)
  3. Faculty Research Committee (FRC) Grant
  4. Diversifying the Academy from the University of the Witwatersrand
  5. NRF/Department of Science and Technology
  6. CSH's SARChI Chair
  7. Research Council of Norway through its Centre's of Excellence funding scheme
  8. Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapienCE) [262618]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Demography probably had a significant influence on the transmission of cultural innovation during the late Pleistocene. In enclosed sites such as rockshelters, trampling marks are likely direct evidence for human occupations and can possibly be used to infer occupational patterns. In this study, we explore trampling modification as a proxy for occupational intensity. We examined trampling data at the Middle Stone Age site of Blombos Cave in South Africa to investigate whether these marks may inform on occupational intensity during the Still Bay period-a significant era for the development of behavioural modernity. Trampling is defined by pitting, scratches, abrasion and linear marks. These marks were then compared to other taphonomic proxies (e.g., faunal density per volume, transverse fractures, non-anthropogenic modification) to explore the relationships between these indicators. Our results indicate that trampling modifications can provide information on a site's occupational history and that the data indicate that there are two phases within the Blombos sequence showing more intense/frequency occupations, corresponding to the early and middle Still Bay deposits.

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

4.2
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