PCI Archaeology

Title *

Experimentation preceding innovation in a MIS5 Pre-Still Bay layer from Diepkloof Rock Shelter (South Africa): emerging technologies and symbolsuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Guillaume Porraz, John E. Parkington, Patrick Schmidt, Gérald Bereiziat, Jean-Philip Brugal, Laure Dayet, Marina Igreja, Christopher E. Miller, Viola C. Schmid, Chantal Tribolo, Aurore Val, Christine Verna, Pierre-Jean TexierPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2020

Picture *

Abstract *

<p>In South Africa, key technologies and symbolic behaviors develop as early as the later Middle Stone Age in MIS5. These innovations arise independently in various places, contexts and forms, until their full expression during the Still Bay and the Howiesons Poort. We elaborate here on the Middle Stone Age sequence of Diepkloof Rock Shelter (South Africa) and focus on the Stratigraphic Unit Lynn, which immediately precedes the Still Bay at the site. The pre-Still Bay Lynn documents the transport of rocks over long distance (>20 km), the heat treatment of silcrete, the coexistence of seven lithic reduction strategies (including the production of bladelets and the manufacture of unifacial and bifacial points), the use of adhesives and the processing of ochre. Beside this set of novelties, the layer yields one of the oldest abstract engravings so far discovered in Africa, taking the form of cross-hatched markings in the cortical surface of an ungulate long bone shaft. At Diepkloof, these new practices appear in a context that demonstrates a shift in rock procurement and a diversification in lithic reduction strategies, suggesting these behavioral practices acted as a cultural answer to cope with new environmental and/or socio-economical circumstances. We argue that the innovations later found during the Still Bay and the Howiesons Poort were then already in the making during the MIS5 pre-Still Bay, though not all the benefits were yet taken advantage of by the populations.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Late Pleistocene, Middle Stone Age, behavioral evolution, early symbols, bone engraving, cultural exaptation, heat treatment

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Africa, Lithic technology, Middle Palaeolithic, Symbolic behaviours

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCIArchaeology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2020-08-04 09:13:27

Recommender

Anne Delagnes

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint