Abstract
In the past few decades, a diverse array of research has emphasized the precocity of technically advanced and symbolic practices occurring during the southern African Middle Stone Age. However, uncertainties regarding the regional chrono-cultural framework constrain models and identification of the cultural and ecological mechanisms triggering the development of such early innovative behaviours. Here, we present new results and a refined chronology for the Pietersburg, a techno-complex initially defined in the late 1920’s, which has disappeared from the literature since the 1980’s. We base our revision of this techno-complex on ongoing excavations at Bushman Rock Shelter (BRS) in Limpopo Province, South Africa, where two Pietersburg phases (an upper phase called ‘21’ and a lower phase called ‘28’) are recognized. Our analysis focuses on the ‘28’ phase, characterized by a knapping strategy based on Levallois and semi-prismatic laminar reduction systems and typified by the presence of end-scrapers. Luminescence chronology provides two sets of ages for the upper and lower Pietersburg of BRS, dated respectively to 73±6ka and 75±6ka on quartz and to 91±10ka and 97±10ka on feldspar, firmly positioning this industry within MIS5. Comparisons with other published lithic assemblages show technological differences between the Pietersburg from BRS and other southern African MIS5 traditions, especially those from the Western and Eastern Cape. We argue that, at least for part of MIS5, human populations in South Africa were regionally differentiated, a process that most likely impacted the way groups were territorially and socially organized. Nonetheless, comparisons between MIS5 assemblages also indicate some typological similarities, suggesting some degree of connection between human groups, which shared similar innovations but manipulated them in different ways. We pay particular attention to the end-scrapers from BRS, which represent thus far the earliest documented wide adoption of such tool-type and provide further evidence for the innovative processes characterizing southern Africa from the MIS5 onwards.
Highlights
Background to the Pietersburg legacyOver the last three decades, archaeological research and excavations in South Africa have largely contributed to expand our knowledge on the way Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) were territorially, technologically and socio-economically organized
The lithic assemblage (n = 1586) is dominated by hornfels, which composes 50% to 90% of the collection (Table 7), and involves a fair amount of quartz that ranges from ca. 5% to 40%
Cortex identified on some lithic pieces indicates that hornfels and quartz were collected in different places
Summary
Over the last three decades, archaeological research and excavations in South Africa have largely contributed to expand our knowledge on the way Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) were territorially, technologically and socio-economically organized. Such studies have emphasized early manifestations of advanced technologies and symbolically-mediated behaviours during the Middle Stone Age (MSA). These two technocomplexes benefit from a large scientific exposure, though their definition is still disputed. While on the one hand the spatial and technological homogeneity of the Still Bay has recently been questioned [2,11,12,13,14], the Howiesons Poort, on the other hand, still presents a chronology [15,16,17,18] and technological subdivision into sub-phases [11,19,20,21,22] that require clarification
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
