Wikipedia

Howiesons Poort

Howiesons Poort (also called HP) is a technological and cultural period characterized by material evidence with shared design features found in South Africa, Lesotho, and Namibia.[1] It was named after the Howieson's Poort Shelter archaeological site near Grahamstown in South Africa, where the first assemblage of these tools was discovered.[2] Howiesons Poort is believed, based on chronological comparisons between many sites, to have started around 64.8 thousand years ago and ended around 59.5 thousand years ago.[1] It is considered to be a technocomplex, or a cultural period in archaeology classified by distinct and specific technological materials. Howiesons Poort is notable for its relatively complex tools, technological innovations, and cultural objects evidencing symbolic expression. One site in particular, Sibudu Cave, provides one of the key reference sequences for Howiesons Poort.[3] Howiesons Poort assemblages are primarily found at sites south of the Limpopo River.[2]

While the emergence of this techno-complex is still highly debated, one leading hypothesis postulates that it emerged during a period of harsh environmental conditions and unpredictable landscapes,[4] which may have spurned inhabitants to develop more complex tools and social structures as an adaptive response. Humans of this period as in the earlier Stillbay period showed signs of having practiced symbolic behaviors and having engaged in between-group exchanges of backed tools for the proposed function of solidifying bonds and strengthening social networks.[5]

Many of the tools associated with Howiesons Poort resemble and seemingly anticipate many tool styles that do not appear again until far later in the archaeological record.[6] Interestingly, the succeeding period, the "post-Howiesons Poort", lacks many of the complex technologies that characterize Howiesons Poort. While there is no universally agreed-upon explanation as to why this happened, there are several leading proposed theories, some of which involve shifts in resource availability and foraging strategies.[4]

Discovery edit

Artifacts associated with Howiesons Poort were first described in 1927 by Reverend P. Stapleton, a Jesuit schoolteacher at St Aidan's College, and John Hewitt, a zoologist and director of the local Albany museum.[7][8] The two were excavating a rock shelter in the eastern Cape (later named the Howiesons Poort Rock Shelter) when they discovered an assemblage consisting of "burins, large segments, obliquely pointed blades, and trimmed points."[2] Stapleton and Hewitt had meant to name the poort after a Mr. Howison, but they misspelled it "Howieson" in their publication.[7] This name stuck and has been used with this spelling ever since.[9]

Due to its affinities to Later Stone Age microliths and Upper Paleolithic tools, Howiesons Poort was originally proposed to be a variety of Magosian tools produced during a transition between the Middle Stone Age and the Later Stone Age.[10] This transitional theory, however, was discredited during an excavation of Klasies River Caves undertaken by Ronald Singer and John J. Wymer in 1967-8.[11] During the excavation, they uncovered key reference stratigraphic layers which showed that Howiesons Poort materials were situated both before and after Middle Stone Age layers. This finding not only contradicts the notion of Howiesons Poort as a transitional technocomplex, but pushes back the dates for these so-called "advanced" technologies.

Paleoenvironment edit

Sites that contain Howiesons Poort assemblages are spread geographically throughout southern Africa, encompassing a variety of environments that include coastal, near-coastal, inland and mountainous.[12] Based on an analysis of faunal remains at Klipdrift Shelter, Jerome P. Reynard et al. (2016) have proposed an environmental shift during the period, from a mixed-terrain context during early Howiesons Poort to open grasslands in mid-to-later Howiesons Poort.[13] Upon an analysis of the frequency of faunal remains, the team found increased levels of human occupation during the period of open grasslands.

Southern African regional marine and terrestrial data indicate that Marine Isotope Stage 4, which encapsulates the known dates for Howiesons Poort,[14] was a period of cool and moist climates.[15] Macrofaunal data from Sibudu Cave indicate that inhabitants of the cave were hunting animals that occupied closed or semi closed environments, pointing to an access to forests.[15] There is, however, small but significant frequencies of the faunal remains of grazers, which indicates that the inhabitants of the cave also had some access to grasslands. Therefore, there is evidence that the changing of the climate into moister conditions resulted in the development of more extensive forests, at least in the near-coastal region which includes Sibudu Cave, without completely eliminating more open savannah woodlands.

Date edit

The date range for Howiesons Poort has been debated. During their 1965 excavation of the name site, archaeologists Janette Deacon and Hilary Deacon dated charcoal remains using radiocarbon dating to 19,000-4,000 years ago. However, this does not match the dates ascertained for Howiesons Poort materials at other sites, which were dated to much older time ranges.[16] While relative dating using the stratigraphic layers at this site appeared simple to the archaeologists at first, J. Deacon noted that the range of dates contradicted those at other sites where other Howiesons Poort assemblages had been found. Deacon concluded that all Howiesons Poort materials date to beyond the range of radiocarbon dating, meaning that they are all at least 50,000 years old.[17]

This is consistent with later dates obtained at sites along the coastline of South Africa, near-coastal areas, as well as sites at Lesotho and Namibia, which came to light with the advent of optically stimulated luminescence, which dates the Howiesons Poort layers to between 64.8 and 59.5 thousand years ago.[18] This date matches the oxygen isotope stageOIS4, which was a period of aridity and lowering of sea levels in southern Africa. This study also points out that these dates indicate that Howiesons Poort only lasted for around 5,000 years and occurred during a genetic bottleneck that took place in Africa 60,000-80,000 years ago which was accompanied by an expansion of modern human populations out of the continent.

These dates, which were obtained by a group led by researcher Zenobia Jacobs, have been contested by contrasting dates reported by researcher Chantal Tribolo. While Jacobs used OSL (optically stimulated luminescence), which dates the last time sediment was exposed to light before being buried,[19] Tribolo used thermoluminescence, which dates the last time a material was subjected to extreme heat.[20] This method of dating pushes back the proposed ages of Howiesons Poort to 55 to 80 thousand years ago, which would make it significantly older than previously believed.[21] In response, Jacobs and Richard G. Roberts reran their methods and reported new ages with smaller error margins.[22] The ages they reported in this study were consistent with their old ones, and did not match Tribolo and colleagues' 2008 reported ages.

Technology edit

 
Diagram of characteristic Howiesons Poort implements. Typologies are as follows: 1-6, blades, etc.; 7-10, concave scrapers ; 11-14, lance-heads; 15, trapezoid ; 16 and 18, crescents; 17, blade.

Typology edit

Many Howiesons Poort assemblages, such as the ones found at Klasies River, are characterized by backed tool.[2] Backed tools have had an edge intentionally blunted by the removal of many small flakes.[23] There is also evidence of the recurring practice of shortening blades into a trapeze-like shape.[2] There are several possible benefits of backing pieces, including facilitating hand grip as well as hafting. A 2022 experimental study run by a group led by researcher Justin Pargeter, however, found that backed stone tools were less successfully stuck to wooden shafts than were non-backed tools.[24] This contradicts the hypothesis that tools were backed for hafting and suggests alternative reasons, such as potential symbolic functions.[25][26]

There are relatively high levels of between-site variability in term of tool typology frequencies, even for sites that are geographically close to one another.[27] While the sites of Border Cave, Klasies River, and Nelson Bay Cave have many segments and trapezes, Rose Cottage Cave stands out as having very few.[27] Rose Cottage assemblages appear to be dominated by the presence of backed blades, which are also common at the other three sites but to a lesser extent.[2] Neither Rose Cottage Cave, Sibudu Cave, or Klasies River Cave have very many points or scrapers, which are common at sites such as Montagu Cave[28] and Umhlatuzana.[29]

Hafted Tools edit

Micro-residue analysis on Howiesons Poort stone tools, such as those from KwaZulu-Natal sites, show evidence of the use of ochre as an organic adhesive for hafting.[30] In the past, ochre has been considered as evidence for early human displays of symbolic behavior,[31] and ochre has been found extensively at many sites associated with Howiesons Poort, such as Apollo 11, Boomplaas, Border Cave, Sibudu, and others.[30] This micro-residue analysis, however, indicates that ochre was used not only for symbolic purposes, but also as a functional device for complex tool manufacturing. Replication experiments have shown that ochre is a useful loading agent for adhesion; however, there are other alternative ingredients that people during the Middle Stone Age likely knew about and could have been using instead.[32]

Raw Materials edit

Howiesons Poort assemblages show increased use of quartz and other fine-grained materials.[2] At Klasies River, locally source quartize was primarily used through most of the Middle Stone Age. Within the Howiesons Poort layers, however, there is considerably more raw material diversity through the additions of quartz, silcrete, hornfels and chalcedony.[2] As the closest silcrete outcrop to Klasies River is more than 20 kilometers away, there is evidence of non-local raw material sourcing and transport. An analysis of the cores found at this site show that the non-quartzite cores appear to be smaller and thinner, implying a higher degree of reduction for non-quartzite than for quartzite.[33][34]

For most sites, there is a clear preference of Howiesons Poort knappers for using fine-grained materials, such as quartz and silcrete, to produce the small blades and backed tools that are seen in the assemblages. This had led researchers to propose that Howiesons Poort was accompanied by a time of increased mobility.[35][36] However, the primary raw material found in assemblages at Umhlatuzana is locally available vein quartz,[29] and most backed tools at Sibudu Cave are made from local raw materials such as hornfels and dolerite, while only a few are made from quartz.[37]

Bone and Antler edit

The discovery of bone points within Howiesons Poort layers at Sibudu Cave in South Africa has expanded the confirmed tool types for the technocomplex and has expanded the variety of technological innovations associated with the Middle Stone Age.[38] The points, and a spatula-shaped polished piece of bone, were found to be older than ~61,000 years.[38] Experimental studies have shown that the polished piece has similar use-wear marks to bones used to work animal hides.

Foraging and Diets edit

The tools that characterize Howiesons Poort are highly specialized and reliable, which has led researchers to propose that the technocomplex came about during a time of planned and strategic foraging of predictable, known, and localized resources.[39] Foragers likely targeted resources through knowledge of seasonal ecological changes.[39] This is also indicative of hunting trips of further distances designed to target clumps of resources in a specialized way.[40] This strategy was probably accompanied with more complex social structures and more frequent instances of information sharing about the environment,[39] which mitigates risk while foraging and is also evidenced by the discoveries of symbolic objects seen with Howiesons Poort assemblages.[5][41][42][25] Groups participated in the exchange of hunting tools, which helped maintain social networks and information sharing amidst a difficult climate.[5]

Faunal analysis of the Howiesons Poort layers at Sibudu Cave show a high frequency of small animals as well as animals that prefer forested environments (such as blue duikers and bushpigs), while the post-Howiesons Poort layers show a greater abundance of open-environment fauna.[43] The focus on small bovids (although other small mammals and suids are also found[43]) indicates specialized hunting strategies, which have been proposed to have been in the form of snares and traps[44] or an early instance of the bow and arrow.[45]

Evidence for Symbolic Behavior edit

Like the earlier Stillbay industry, creators of Howiesons Poort artifacts seem to have engaged in symbolic behavior, having left behind engraved ochre, ostrich eggshells and shell beads.[46][47] There is a particularly abundant and diverse use of ochre as a pigment for objects or skin, which has been interpreted as reflecting an increasingly complex symbolic culture.[48]

Researcher Sarah Wurz noted that "Not only was ochre collected and returned to the site but there is evidence in the ochre 'pencils' with ground facets that it was powdered for use. Ochre may have had many uses but the possibility that it was used as a body paint, and therefore had served a symbolic purpose."[25]

At Diepkloof and Klipdrift, there is evidence of engraved ostrich eggshell containers.[46] These were likely used to store water. At Diepkloof, these materials are found in at least eighteen different stratigraphic layers, indicating that this was a tradition that was passed down for thousands of years at the site.[40]

Notched bone pieces have been found at sites such as Klasies River, Sibudu Cave, and Apollo 11.[40] Additionally, a bone pin was found at Sibudu Cave and dates to around 26,000-35,000 years ago.[49][50]

At Border Cave, the remains of a four to six-month-old infant were found along with a shell.[51] The shell appears to have been perforated in order for it to hang.[52] This finding has been interpreted as the oldest discovered modern human burial in Africa and the earliest instance of a human buried with personal ornamentation.[52]

Transition to Post-Howiesons edit

Interestingly, the end of the Howiesons Poort period is marked by a movement toward tool simplification and decreasing technological complexity.[4] There is an absence of backed tools during this period as well as less strategic core reduction and unstandardized subsequent blanks.[4][53] Assemblages that have been found consist mostly of unifacial flakes and scrapers.[54] There are several hypotheses as to why tool technology seemed to become less sophisticated during this time.[4]

Mobility Shift edit

One theory purports that this period was marked by an increase in residential mobility, and so the costs of investing time into carefully crafting tools began to outweigh the benefits of having a complex toolkit.[4] When much time is invested into crafting tools, the tools must be used for relatively long periods of time. During periods of high mobility, however, it may become more advantageous to spend less time producing simpler tools. This way, more time can be spent exploiting resources before the group moves again.[4][55] This theory is supported by ethnographic evidence showing that toolkits increase in complexity when the frequencies of annual moves decrease.[4]

Climate Change edit

Another hypothesis is that Howiesons Poort and the preceding Stillbay period were developed as an adaptive response to very cold climates during MIS 4.[39] The preceding period, MIS 5, had had warm temperatures, and so the human population increased.[56] When this large population was faced with climatic deterioration during MIS 4, they developed Stillbay and Howiesons Poort through the pressure to survive.[39] When MIS 3 emerged with warmer temperatures, these techno complexes were no longer necessary.[4][57] Another hypothesis states that the severe conditions of MIS 4 caused a population increase towards the latter part, and so as groups of people became extinct the Howiesons Poort tools that they had been producing were abandoned.[4][58] These hypotheses are supported by oxygen isotope records suggesting less favorable conditions during MIS 4.[59]

A competing theory purports that, during MIS 4, climatic conditions made the areas of inland southern African inhospitable for human occupation.[60] This caused a large-scale migration to and subsequent population increase in near-coastal sites.[61] These high population densities facilitated transmission of complex skills and the development of Howiesons Poort tools. When inland areas became hospitable again during MIS 3, populations spread out again and these transmissions were lost.[4][60] This hypothesis is supported by a between-site comparison of backed tools from Howiesons Poort layers, which found consistency in the templates and morphological similarities indicating that information on production of these tools was being spread throughout social networks.[62]

Population Shift edit

A separate hypothesis argues that Howiesons Poort shows a period of population expansion and strong networks, allowing for the transmission of skills.[63][64] The Post-Howiesons Poort era occurs during a period of population contraction and isolation of living groups, promoting instead the production of simpler tools.[4][63] This is also supported by evidence of ubiquity in seemingly-symbolic material during the Howiesons Poort and the subsequent near-absence of it during the post-Howiesons Poort.[65]

Finally, some believe that the end of Howiesons Poort was caused by an overall population decrease following MIS 4.[66] This is supported by genetic data showing a population increase in Africa between 90,000-70,000 years ago. Although the model used does not show a subsequent decrease after this point, the research team has postulated that this may be due to insufficient data from the time.[4][66]

Sites edit

 
Selected Howiesons Poort sites from the ROAD database (CC BY-SA 4.0 ROCEEH)

References edit

  1. ^ a b Jacobs, Zenobia; Roberts, Richard G. (June 2017). "Single-grain OSL chronologies for the Still Bay and Howieson's Poort industries and the transition between them: Further analyses and statistical modelling". Journal of Human Evolution. 107: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.02.004. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 28526285.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Lombard, Marlize (2005). "The Howiesons Poort of South Africa: what we know, what we think we know, what we need to know". Southern African Humanities. 17 (1): 33–55 – via Sabinet.
  3. ^ Wadley, Lyn (2008). "The Howieson's poort industry of Sibudu cave". Goodwin Series: 122–133.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Dusseldorp, Gerrit L. (2014-07-03). "Explaining the Howiesons Poort to post-Howiesons Poort transition: a review of demographic and foraging adaptation models". Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa. 49 (3): 317–353. doi:10.1080/0067270x.2014.937080. ISSN 0067-270X. S2CID 162703580.
  5. ^ a b c Soriano, Sylvain; Villa, Paola; Wadley, Lyn (May 2007). "Blade technology and tool forms in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa: the Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort at Rose Cottage Cave". Journal of Archaeological Science. 34 (5): 681–703. Bibcode:2007JArSc..34..681S. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.06.017. ISSN 0305-4403.
  6. ^ Vishnyatsky, L. B. (March 1994). "'Running ahead of time' in the development of Palaeolithic industries". Antiquity. 68 (258): 134–140. doi:10.1017/s0003598x00046287. ISSN 0003-598X. S2CID 163033882.
  7. ^ a b Stapleton, P; Hewitt, J (1927). "Stone implements from a rockshelter at Howieson's Poort near Grahamstown". South African Journal of Science. 24: 574–87.
  8. ^ Stapleton, P; Hewitt, J. "Stone implements from Howieson's Poort, near Grahamstown". South African Journal of Science. 25: 399–409.
  9. ^ Goodwin, A.J.H. (1929). "The Middle Stone Age". Annals of the South African Museum. 29: 95–145.
  10. ^ G.C.T. (July 1955). "The Prehistoric Cultures of the Horn of Africa, byJ. Desmond Clark. pp. XIII + 374, pls. 52, text figs. 36. Occasional Publications of the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge University Press, 1954. £5 5s". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 20 (1): 122–125. doi:10.1017/s0079497x00017862. ISSN 0079-497X.
  11. ^ Singer, Ronald; Wymer, John J. "The middle stone age at Klasies river Mouth in South Africa". University of Chicago Press.
  12. ^ Jacobs, Zenobia; Roberts, Richard (2008). "Testing times: old and new chronologies for the Howieson's Poort and Still Bay industries in environmental context". Goodwin Series: 9–34.
  13. ^ Reynard, Jerome P.; Discamps, Emmanuel; Wurz, Sarah; van Niekerk, Karen L.; Badenhorst, Shaw; Henshilwood, Christopher S. (May 2016). "Occupational intensity and environmental changes during the Howiesons Poort at Klipdrift Shelter, southern Cape, South Africa". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 449: 349–364. Bibcode:2016PPP...449..349R. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.02.035. ISSN 0031-0182.
  14. ^ Martinson, Douglas G.; Pisias, Nicklas G.; Hays, James D.; Imbrie, John; Moore, Theodore C.; Shackleton, Nicholas J. (January 1987). "Age Dating and the Orbital Theory of the Ice Ages: Development of a High-Resolution 0 to 300,000-Year Chronostratigraphy". Quaternary Research. 27 (1): 1–29. Bibcode:1987QuRes..27....1M. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(87)90046-9. ISSN 0033-5894. S2CID 25817557.
  15. ^ a b Chase, Brian M. (June 2010). "South African palaeoenvironments during marine oxygen isotope stage 4: a context for the Howiesons Poort and Still Bay industries". Journal of Archaeological Science. 37 (6): 1359–1366. Bibcode:2010JArSc..37.1359C. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.040. ISSN 0305-4403.
  16. ^ Deacon, Janette (December 1995). "An Unsolved Mystery at the Howieson's Poort Name Site". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 50 (162): 110–120. doi:10.2307/3889060. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3889060.
  17. ^ Guilderson, Tom P.; Reimer, Paula J.; Brown, Tom A. (2005). "The Boon and Bane of Radiocarbon Dating" (PDF). Science. 307 (5708): 362–364. doi:10.1126/science.1104164. PMID 15661996. S2CID 128466798.
  18. ^ Jacobs, Zenobia; Roberts, Richard G.; Galbraith, Rex F.; Deacon, Hilary J.; Grün, Rainer; Mackay, Alex; Mitchell, Peter; Vogelsang, Ralf; Wadley, Lyn (2008-10-31). "Ages for the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa: Implications for Human Behavior and Dispersal". Science. 322 (5902): 733–735. Bibcode:2008Sci...322..733J. doi:10.1126/science.1162219. hdl:1885/32902. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 18974351. S2CID 206514762.
  19. ^ Galbraith, R.F.; Roberts, R.G. (August 2012). "Statistical aspects of equivalent dose and error calculation and display in OSL dating: An overview and some recommendations". Quaternary Geochronology. 11: 1–27. Bibcode:2012QuGeo..11....1G. doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2012.04.020. ISSN 1871-1014.
  20. ^ Wintle, A.G.; Huntley, D.J. (January 1982). "Thermoluminescence dating of sediments". Quaternary Science Reviews. 1 (1): 31–53. Bibcode:1982QSRv....1...31W. doi:10.1016/0277-3791(82)90018-x. ISSN 0277-3791.
  21. ^ Tribolo, C.; Mercier, N.; Valladas, H.; Joron, J.L.; Guibert, P.; Lefrais, Y.; Selo, M.; Texier, P.-J.; Rigaud, J.-Ph.; Porraz, G.; Poggenpoel, C.; Parkington, J.; Texier, J.-P.; Lenoble, A. (March 2009). "Thermoluminescence dating of a Stillbay–Howiesons Poort sequence at Diepkloof Rock Shelter (Western Cape, South Africa)". Journal of Archaeological Science. 36 (3): 730–739. Bibcode:2009JArSc..36..730T. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.10.018. ISSN 0305-4403.
  22. ^ Jacobs, Zenobia (2014). "An improved single grain OSL chronology for the sedimentary deposits from Diepkloof Rockshelter, Western Cape, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 63: 175–192. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.01.023.
  23. ^ Wiśniewski, Andrzej; Chłoń, Marcin; Weiss, Marcel; Pyżewicz, Katarzyna; Migal, Witold (2020-09-24). "On Making of Micoquian Bifacial Backed Tools at Pietraszyn 49a, SW Poland". Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. 3 (4): 856–888. doi:10.1007/s41982-020-00069-y. hdl:21.11116/0000-0007-13BF-D. ISSN 2520-8217. S2CID 224885681.
  24. ^ Pargeter, Justin; Chen, Caleb; Buchanan, Briggs; Fisch, Michael; Bebber, Michelle; Eren, Metin (2022). "Stone tool backing and adhesion in hunting weaponry: First results of an experimental program". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 45: 103639. Bibcode:2022JArSR..45j3639P. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103639. S2CID 252498980.
  25. ^ a b c Wurz, S. (1999). "The Howiesons Poort Backed Artefacts from Klasies River: An Argument for Symbolic Behaviour Author(s)". South African Archaeological Bulletin. 54 (169): 38–50. doi:10.2307/3889138. JSTOR 3889138.
  26. ^ Wadley, Lyn (2011), "Chapter 5. Complex cognition required for compound adhesive manufacture in the Middle Stone Age implies symbolic capacity", Homo Symbolicus, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 97–110, doi:10.1075/z.168.05wad, ISBN 978-90-272-1189-7, retrieved 2023-04-14
  27. ^ a b Wadley, Lyn; Harper, Philip (June 1989). "Rose Cottage Cave Revisited: Malan's Middle Stone Age Collection". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 44 (149): 23. doi:10.2307/3888316. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888316.
  28. ^ Keller, Charles M. (1973). "Montagu Cave in prehistory: a descriptive analysis". University of California Publications. Anthropological Records. 28: 1–98.
  29. ^ a b Kaplan, Jonathan (1990). "The Umhlatuzana rock shelter sequence: 100 000 years of Stone Age history". Southern African Humanities. 2 (11): 1–94.
  30. ^ a b Lombard, Marlize (October 2007). "The gripping nature of ochre: The association of ochre with Howiesons Poort adhesives and Later Stone Age mastics from South Africa". Journal of Human Evolution. 53 (4): 406–419. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.05.004. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 17643475.
  31. ^ Wreschner, Ernst E.; Bolton, Ralph; Butzer, Karl W.; Delporte, Henri; Häusler, Alexander; Heinrich, Albert; Jacobson-Widding, Anita; Malinowski, Tadeusz; Masset, Claude; Miller, Sheryl F.; Ronen, Avraham; Solecki, Ralph; Stephenson, Peter H.; Thomas, Lynn L.; Zollinger, Heinrich (October 1980). "Red Ochre and Human Evolution: A Case for Discussion [and Comments and Reply]". Current Anthropology. 21 (5): 631–644. doi:10.1086/202541. ISSN 0011-3204. S2CID 88099778.
  32. ^ Wadley, Lyn (November 2005). "Putting ochre to the test: replication studies of adhesives that may have been used for hafting tools in the Middle Stone Age". Journal of Human Evolution. 49 (5): 587–601. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.06.007. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 16126249.
  33. ^ Wurz, Sarah Jacoba Deborah (2000). "The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River, South Africa". Stellenbosch University.
  34. ^ Wurz, Sarah (September 2002). "Variability in the Middle Stone Age Lithic Sequence, 115,000–60,000 Years Ago at Klasies River, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (9): 1001–1015. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29.1001W. doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0799. ISSN 0305-4403.
  35. ^ Ambrose, Stanley H; Lorenz, Karl G. (1991-01-31), "1. Social and Ecological Models for the Middle Stone Age in Southern Africa", Emergence of Modern Humans, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 3–33, doi:10.1515/9781474470957-003, ISBN 9781474470957, S2CID 246718805, retrieved 2023-03-13
  36. ^ Minichillo, Tom (March 2006). "Raw material use and behavioral modernity: Howiesons Poort lithic foraging strategies". Journal of Human Evolution. 50 (3): 359–364. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.08.013. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 16469361.
  37. ^ Wadley, Lyn (2005). "A typological study of the final Middle Stone Age stone tools from Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal". South African Archaeological Bulletin. 60 (182): 51–63.
  38. ^ a b Backwell, Lucinda; d'Errico, Francesco; Wadley, Lyn (June 2008). "Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 35 (6): 1566–1580. Bibcode:2008JArSc..35.1566B. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.11.006. ISSN 0305-4403.
  39. ^ a b c d e McCall, Grant S.; Thomas, Jonathan T. (2012-03-23). "Still Bay and Howiesons Poort Foraging Strategies: Recent Research and Models of Culture Change". African Archaeological Review. 29 (1): 7–50. doi:10.1007/s10437-012-9107-y. ISSN 0263-0338. S2CID 254194368.
  40. ^ a b c de la Peña, Paloma (2020-07-30), "Howiesons Poort", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Anthropology, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190854584.013.34, ISBN 978-0-19-085458-4, retrieved 2023-03-14
  41. ^ Deacon, H.J. (1989). "Late Pleistocene palaeoecology and archaeology in the southern Cape, South Africa". The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans: 547–564.
  42. ^ Deacon, H. J. (December 1995). "Two Late Pleistocene-Holocene Archaeological Depositories from the Southern Cape, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 50 (162): 121–131. doi:10.2307/3889061. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3889061.
  43. ^ a b Clark, Jamie L.; Plug, Ina (2008). "Animal exploitation strategies during the South African Middle Stone Age: Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort fauna from Sibudu Cave". Journal of Human Evolution. 54 (6): 886–898. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.12.004. PMID 18234284.
  44. ^ Wadley, Lyn (February 2010). "Were snares and traps used in the Middle Stone Age and does it matter? A review and a case study from Sibudu, South Africa". Journal of Human Evolution. 58 (2): 179–192. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.10.004. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 20031191.
  45. ^ Lombard, Marlize; Phillipson, Laurel (2010-09-01). "Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64 000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa". Antiquity. 84 (325): 635–648. doi:10.1017/s0003598x00100134. ISSN 0003-598X. S2CID 162438490.
  46. ^ a b Texier, Pierre-Jean; Porraz, Guillaume; Parkington, John; Rigaud, Jean-Phillipe; Poggenpoel, Cedric; Miller, Christopher; Tribolo, Chantal; Cartwright, Caroline; Coudenneau, Caude; Klein, Richard; Steele, Teresa; Verna, Christine (2010). "A Howiesons Poort tradition of engraving ostrich eggshell containers dated to 60,000 years ago at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, South Africa". PNAS. 107 (14): 6180–6185. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913047107. PMC 2851956. PMID 20194764.
  47. ^ d'Errico, Francesco; Vanhaeren, Marian; Wadley, Lyn (October 2008). "Possible shell beads from the Middle Stone Age layers of Sibudu Cave, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 35 (10): 2675–2685. Bibcode:2008JArSc..35.2675D. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.04.023. ISSN 0305-4403.
  48. ^ Dayet Bouillot, Laure; Wurz, Sarah; Daniel, Floréal (2017-12-07). "Ochre Resources, Behavioural Complexity and Regional Patterns in the Howiesons Poort". Journal of African Archaeology. 15 (1): 20–41. doi:10.1163/21915784-12340002. ISSN 1612-1651.
  49. ^ Cain, Chester R. (2004). "Notched, flaked and ground bone artefacts from Middle Stone Age and Iron Age layers of Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Sibudu Cave". South African Journal of Science. 100 (3): 195–197.
  50. ^ d'Errico, Francesco; Henshilwood, Christopher S. (February 2007). "Additional evidence for bone technology in the southern African Middle Stone Age". Journal of Human Evolution. 52 (2): 142–163. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.08.003. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 16996574.
  51. ^ d'Errico, Francesco; Backwell, Lucinda (April 2016). "Earliest evidence of personal ornaments associated with burial: The Conus shells from Border Cave". Journal of Human Evolution. 93: 91–108. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.01.002. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 27086058.
  52. ^ a b Cooke, H. B. S.; Malan, B. D.; Wells, L. H. (January 1945). "3. Fossil Man in the Lebombo Mountains, South Africa: The 'Border Cave,' Ingwavuma District, Zululand". Man. 45: 6–13. doi:10.2307/2793006. ISSN 0025-1496. JSTOR 2793006.
  53. ^ Villa, Paola; Delagnes, Anne; Wadley, Lyn (March 2005). "A late Middle Stone Age artifact assemblage from Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal): comparisons with the European Middle Paleolithic". Journal of Archaeological Science. 32 (3): 399–422. Bibcode:2005JArSc..32..399V. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.11.007.
  54. ^ Wurz, Sarah (2002). "Variability in the middle stone age lithic sequence, 115,000–60,000 years ago at Klasies river, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (9): 1001–1015. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29.1001W. doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0799.
  55. ^ Ugan, Andrew; Bright, Jason; Rogers, Alan (October 2003). "When is technology worth the trouble?". Journal of Archaeological Science. 30 (10): 1315–1329. Bibcode:2003JArSc..30.1315U. doi:10.1016/S0305-4403(03)00022-0.
  56. ^ Petraglia, Michael D.; Alsharekh, Abdullah M.; Crassard, Rémy; Drake, Nick A.; Groucutt, Huw; Parker, Adrian G.; Roberts, Richard G. (June 2011). "Middle Paleolithic occupation on a Marine Isotope Stage 5 lakeshore in the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia". Quaternary Science Reviews. 30 (13–14): 1555–1559. Bibcode:2011QSRv...30.1555P. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.04.006. ISSN 0277-3791.
  57. ^ G., McCall; J., Thomas (2012). "Still Bay and Howiesons Poort foraging strategies: recent research and models of culture change". African Archaeological Review. 29: 7–50. doi:10.1007/s10437-012-9107-y. S2CID 254194368.
  58. ^ Cochrane, Grant W.G. (2008). "The transition from Howieson's Poort to post-Howieson's Poort industries in southern Africa". South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series. 10: 157–167.
  59. ^ Railsback, L. Bruce; Gibbard, Philip L.; Head, Martin J.; Voarintsoa, Ny Riavo G.; Toucanne, Samuel (March 2015). "An optimized scheme of lettered marine isotope substages for the last 1.0 million years, and the climatostratigraphic nature of isotope stages and substages". Quaternary Science Reviews. 111: 94–106. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.01.012. ISSN 0277-3791.
  60. ^ a b Lombard, Marlize; Parsons, Isabelle (November 2011). "What happened to the human mind after the Howiesons Poort?". Antiquity. 85 (330): 1433–1443. doi:10.1017/s0003598x00062153. ISSN 0003-598X. S2CID 163143107.
  61. ^ Compton, John S. (March 2011). "Pleistocene sea-level fluctuations and human evolution on the southern coastal plain of South Africa". Quaternary Science Reviews. 30 (5–6): 506–527. Bibcode:2011QSRv...30..506C. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.12.012. ISSN 0277-3791.
  62. ^ Way, Amy M.; de la Peña, Paloma; de la Peña, Eduardo; Wadley, Lyn (2022-06-09). "Howiesons Poort backed artifacts provide evidence for social connectivity across southern Africa during the Final Pleistocene". Scientific Reports. 12 (1): 9227. Bibcode:2022NatSR..12.9227W. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12677-5. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 9184481. PMID 35680943. S2CID 249545031.
  63. ^ a b Jacobs, Zenobia; Roberts, Richard G. (March 2009). "Catalysts for Stone Age innovations". Communicative & Integrative Biology. 2 (2): 191–193. doi:10.4161/cib.7743. ISSN 1942-0889. PMC 2686379. PMID 19513276. S2CID 31774794.
  64. ^ Jacobs, Zenobia; Roberts, Richard G. (2010-01-19). "Were environmental or demographic factors the driving force behind Middle Stone Age innovations in southern Africa?". South African Journal of Science. 105 (9/10). doi:10.4102/sajs.v105i9/10.105. ISSN 1996-7489.
  65. ^ Mackay, Alex; Stewart, Brian A.; Chase, Brian M. (July 2014). "Coalescence and fragmentation in the late Pleistocene archaeology of southernmost Africa". Journal of Human Evolution. 72: 26–51. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2014.03.003. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 24746546.
  66. ^ a b Powell, Adam; Shennan, Stephen; Thomas, Mark G. (2009-06-05). "Late Pleistocene Demography and the Appearance of Modern Human Behavior". Science. 324 (5932): 1298–1301. Bibcode:2009Sci...324.1298P. doi:10.1126/science.1170165. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19498164. S2CID 206518315.
  67. ^ a b c Wurz, S. (1999). "The Howiesons Poort Backed Artefacts from Klasies River: An Argument for Symbolic Behaviour Author(s)". South African Archaeological Bulletin. 54 (169): 38–50. doi:10.2307/3889138. JSTOR 3889138.
  68. ^ Singer, R; Wymer, J (1982). The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-76103-9.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howiesons_Poort&oldid=1187541340"