fbpx
Wikipedia

Wilton culture

January 01, 1970

Wilton is a term archaeologists use to generalize archaeological sites and cultures that share similar stone and non-stone technology dating from 8,000-4,000 years ago. Archaeologists often refer to Wilton as a technocomplex (Archaeological culture), or Industry. Technological industries are defined by a common tradition of stone tool assemblages, but these technological industries extend to common cultural behaviors.[1] As such, archaeologists use these industries to define a discrete cultural taxonomy.[1] However, technological industries have the potential to generalize different cultures and communities at regional scales that, in more local settings, are distinguishable in both technology and cultural behaviors.

Map of Wilton culture sites and region

History edit

Wilton Site Locations
 
 
 
1200km
820miles
 
Zoovoorbij
Uniondale
Tshisiku Shelter
Tshangula Cave
Tloutle
Springbokoog
Siphiso
Shongweni South
Sehonghong
Rose Cottage Cave
Rooikrans
Pienaars Pan 1
Oakhurst
Numas Schlucht Cave
Nkupe Shelter
Nelson Bay Cave
Namtib
Mzinyashana Shelter
Mgede Shelter
Melkhoutboom
Meerlust 1
Matjies River
Maqonqo
Leliehoek
Kangkara Cave
Kabeljous River Shelter
Jubilee Shelter
Jakkalsberg N
Jagt Pan 1
Havens Cave
Grassridge
Good Hope Shelter
Gehle Shelter
Elands Bay Cave
Dikbosch 1
Diamond Shelter
Colwinton
Cave James
Byneskranskop 1
Buffelskloof
Boomplaas
Blydefontein
Blombosfontein
Amadzimba
Wilton
1
Wilton archaeological site locations
1
Wilton Large Rockshelter
2
Amadzimba Cave
3
Blombosfontein 1-6
4
Blydefontein
5
Boomplaas
6
Buffelskloof
7
Byneskranskop 1
8
Cave James
9
Colwinton
10
Diamond Shelter
11
Dikbosch 1
12
Elands Bay Cave
13
Gehle Shelter
14
Good Hope Shelter
15
Grassridge
16
Havens Cave
17
Jagt Pan 1
18
Jakkalsberg N
19
Jubilee Shelter
20
Kabeljous River Shelter
21
Kangkara Cave
22
Leliehoek
23
Maqonqo
24
Matjies River
25
Meerlust 1
26
Melkhoutboom
27
Mgede Shelter
28
Mzinyashana Shelter
29
Namtib
30
Nelson Bay Cave
31
Nkupe Shelter
32
Numas Schlucht Cave
33
Oakhurst
34
Pienaars Pan 1
35
Rooikrans
36
Rose Cottage Cave
37
Sehonghong
38
Shongweni South
39
Sophiso
40
Springbokoog 1,5,13,20
41
Tloutle
42
Tshangula Cave
43
Tshisiku Shelter
44
Uniondale
45
Zoovoorbij

Originally defined from archaeological assemblages recovered from Wilton rock shelter in 1921, archaeologists use Wilton to refer to stone age foraging and pastoral communities in portions of east Africa and throughout South Africa that are associated with small stone tools and an increase in the number of formal stone tools like scrappers and backed tools.[2][3] Archaeological assemblages in Zambia contains evidence for non-stone technology that has led some archaeologists to hypothesize an increased importance of wooden tools Wilton tool sets.[4][5]

Archaeologists initially recognized Wilton foraging communities from the Holocene beginning 8,000 years ago up through the Iron Age until 500 years ago,[2][6] though recent studies separate Wilton from the final late Stone Age at 4,000 years ago.[7] Despite Wilton as a term meant to generalize the behaviors of human populations, foraging communities that utilized Wilton-like technology and exhibited Wilton-like behaviors can be found in near-coastal,[8][2] inland,[9][4][10] and montane environments.[11][12] These diverse landscapes contradict the specificity of Wilton culture that archaeologists had hoped to encompass with this term. In fact, archaeological deposits and isotopic data show that Wilton foragers used a wide range of technologies and exhibited diverse behaviors including diets, mobility, and exchange networks.[2][4]

Early accounts of Wilton archaeological assemblages posit that similar technology equates to identical cultural identities, suggesting prehistoric communities represented a single culture that ranged from southernmost South Africa to as north as Zambia.[13][14][4][9] Archaeologists characterize Wilton by a greater variety of stone tools and smaller, more formal, stone technology.[15][16] Additional wooden and bone tools lead archaeologists to think that biological materials played an important role in communities that made Wilton technologies.[5][4] This technology distinguishes Wilton technology from earlier technological industries such as the Oakhurst. Oakhurst technology dates from 12,000-8,000 years ago and is defined as a technological industry that contains few formal tools and large stone tools, especially large stone scrappers.[17][7][18] Previous technological industries like the Oakhurst may have included biological tools like bone and wooden implements, but since biological remains do not survive in the archaeological record, archaeologists are not able to always use these biological tools to define technological industries. It is these changes in stone and non-stone technology that imply changes in cultural behaviors of foragers at these sites and thus, have caused some archaeologists to recognize Wilton technology as a single cultural entity.[19][5]

Wilton is widely described as a shift from large to small stone technology with an emphasis on stone scrappers and backed tools, though not all sites associated with Wilton contain high numbers of backed tools.[2][7] This discrepancy offers some evidence that broad categories like Wilton overgeneralize behaviors of people whom, though may have had some cultural activities in common, exhibit diverse tool sets.[20] Many archaeologists[specify] acknowledge that Wilton is not a single culture or identity but, instead, solely reflects general trends over small regions in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Transvaal, and most of South Africa from 8,000-4,000 years ago.[citation needed]

Wilton rock shelter edit

Wilton technology was first described by John Hewitt after he excavated with the collaboration of C. W. Wilmot a cave on the farm Wilton near Alicedale in the eastern Cape of South Africa.[2][3] Later sites are found along the coastal and the interior of South Africa and as north as the countries Zambia and Zimbabwe.[21][9][18] The Wilton site is adjacent to the Karoo region of South Africa and represents a diverse environment that could have easily supported forager groups living in this area.[2] Three dates came from the Wilton rock shelter that ranged from 8,260-2,270. This date range allowed archaeologists to track changes in the size and type of stone technology through the Wilton site and initially defined Wilton technology.[2] The observed environment and time constraints at this site, among others like the Oakhurst site and Matjes River, provide archaeologists with insight into a time range in which foragers produced Wilton technology and thus, exhibited shared technological industries.[22][17]

At the Wilton site, Hewitt first noted that this site contained remnants from two distinct cultures, distinguishable by the size of the stone tools. The stone preceding Wilton technology appeared much larger at the Wilton site. Based on the large size of the stone tools, Hewitt supposed that this material pertained to a predecessor of Wilton technology, known today as Oakhurst.[3] The significant component of Wilton sites is decreased tool size compared with Oakhurst and an increase frequency of stone scrapers.[1][2] Furthermore, the stone material at the Wilton rock shelter is predominantly Chalcedony.[2] This assemblage was dominated by stone scrapers and few backed tools. Scrapers were likely used for processing animal hides.[23][24] Backed tools were created by blunting one margin of the stone tool at a near-90 degree angle.[25] These backed tools were likely hafted to projectiles and served as barbs.[26] Archaeologists have used the assemblage at the Wilton rock shelter to define other Wilton-like assemblages throughout South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.[2][4][18]

Evolution of Wilton as a technological industry edit

In 1929, Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe initially used Wilton as a term to describe Microlith archaeological assemblages that contained small stone scrapers and backed tools.[19] During this early period of excavation, Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe broke up Wilton technology into two variations defined by the interior and coastal geography of South Africa. The technological industry they associate with interior sites was termed Smithfield, leaving Wilton to define coastal foragers.[19][10] Forager communities that used Smithfield technology were thought to be contemporaneous with Wilton but contained much larger stone technologies. During the mid-1900s, archaeologists began recovering more Wilton-like objects from other locations in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Zambia.[27][18][9] The stone technology in each of these regions reflects similar characteristics of Wilton technology but each contained slight variations in the technology, likely reflecting local differences due to the variation between environments. For instance, the site of Gwisho in Zambia had predominantly more backed tools than scrapers, contradicting what was originally found at the Wilton rock shelter.[2][5] Backed tools soon became a significant component of Wilton assemblages.[14] Building on the increased frequency of Wilton sites, Deacon used radiocarbon dates and backed tool frequencies to show that Smithfield could not be contemporaneous with Wilton and thus, must be the preceding technological industry, now termed Oakhurst.[28]

Today, Wilton technology covers much of the same geographical scale as the preceding industry, Oakhurst. Wilton was originally associated with the archaeological assemblage from Wilton farm, which included a high number of scrapers, though archaeological assemblages elsewhere showed additional evidence for backed technology. So, today, Wilton technology is associated with an increase in formal tools like scrapers and backed pieces as well as a significant reduction in size.[27][2] Wilton technology represents an increase in homogeneity across much of South Africa,[29] including some sites in Zambia and Zimbabwe.[18][13][9][4] This pattern of standard, Wilton, tool kits breaks down after 4,000 years, entering into the final late stone age.[27] Evidence for the introduction of ceramics, pastoralism, and ironworking post-dating 4,000 years ago has created a mosaic of final late stone age technological industries in Southern Africa.[30] This mosaic of industries makes it difficult to make regional generalizations of technological industries like Wilton. So, the term Wilton is now limited from 8,000-4,000 years.[citation needed]

Technology edit

Archaeologists associate Wilton assemblages with an assortment of different types of stone and non-stone technology. Stone materials are one of the longest-lasting artifacts and, as such, allow archaeologists to interpret the behaviors of past peoples. In rare instances, it is possible for archaeologists to recover non-stone technology, hereafter referred to as biological material. Biological materials like wooden shafts of spears or digging sticks give insight into the broader cultural pattern of past foraging communities that is usually only represented via stone materials. For the Wilton archaeological record, archaeologists have access to a wide variety of stone tools and cases where biological tools were recovered, allowing Wilton to be defined by not only stone but also non-stone technology.[citation needed]

Stone technology edit

 
Microlith segment that shows the typical geometric shape and the effect of backing on one margin.
 
Image of a scraper. In some contexts, this artifact is referred to as a thumbnail scraper.

Initially derived from the Wilton rock shelter in South Africa, Janette Deacon classified the Wilton assemblages into four phases that mark the beginning of Wilton (stage 0), a growth phase (stage 1), a mature phase (stage 2), and a decline phase (stage 3).[31] Janette Deacon recognizes a pre-ancestral stone industry at Wilton rock shelter dating to 10,000 years ago by the presence of large stone scrapers made from Quartzite materials. Furthermore, these stone materials are associated with large fauna, suggesting pre-ancestral peoples foraged large animals. These large stone tools are attributable to what Goodwin and Lowe would term Smithfield, a contemporaneous but distinct culture from Wilton.[32] At 8,000 years ago, scrapers at the Wilton site become much smaller, and very few tool types are represented at this time. Deacon claims that this forms the basis for a growth phase (stage 1) of Wilton, which turns towards a mature phase (stage 2) dating to around 4,800 years ago. Stage 2 is represented by the smallest variation in scraper size and shape as well as a faunal assemblage dominated by small animals, distinguishing the Wilton from its predecessor. Additionally, this period is correlated with an increase in backed tool manufacture at Wilton. Though Deacon does not bring attention to this increase, backed tools become a prevalent factor in Wilton assemblages with sites like Gwisho.[5] Then, around 2,270 years ago, the stone scrapers at Wilton become more variable, and formal tools decrease, suggesting a decline phase (stage 3). Stage 3 at the Wilton site is also correlated with the occurrence of pottery. Deacon suggests that "The correlation between the appearance of pottery and the 'death' of the Wilton cultural system is perhaps significant."[31] These observations at Wilton rock shelter formed the basis for how Wilton assemblages are colloquially recognized, but soon, archaeologists realized that Wilton assemblages do vary in technology depending on where they are located.

Where Goodwin and Lowe originally define Smithfield, now known as Oakhurst, as the interior cultural equivalent to Wilton, Deacon showed that Wilton is constrained to the middle-Holocene (~8,000-4,000 years ago) and excludes assemblages identified as Oakhurst.[33][32] Specifically, the main difference between Oakhurst and Wilton is a decrease in tool size and an increase in formal tools. Moreover, Deacon showed that there is a correlation between Wilton assemblages and an increasing quantity of formal tools like small segments, backed tools, and scrapers.[31] These stone implements are similar to previous stone technologies that show up in several archaeological assemblages dating back to the Howiesons Poort (~70,000 years ago). Stone segments are often geometric in shape forming crescents that are then backed. The process of backing involves repeated percussion against one edge of a stone tool at a nearly 90-degree angle.[34] Archaeologists associate these backed tools and segments as inserts that would have been hafted to form spear-like weapons.[35][36] Some archaeologists argue that the reoccurrence of standardized stone segments and backed tools reflect a similar adaptation to environmental stress including increasing populations and deteriorating climate.[37][16]

In Zambia, the stone technology from Luano Spring contains similar components to South African Wilton assemblages.[38] Zambian Wilton technology is defined from the Mumbwa site, which shares similar technologies to South African Wilton and dates to the same later stone age period (8,000-4,000 years ago).[39] Stone technology from Luano Spring consists of mostly quartz materials and, like South Africa, reflects a shift towards decreased size and emphasis on formal tools. However, this site is unique because of the frequency of Denticulate tools.[38] The prominence of these types of tools likely reflects regional adaptations to different environments and access to raw materials like quartz. Due to this variation, some have termed these assemblages in Zambia as Nachikufan.[40] Others have further noted that not all Nachikufan assemblages in Zambia reflect a similar Wilton-like appearance and thus, question their role in the later stone age industries.[41] The distinction between Wilton and Nachikufan is defined by the absence of large scrapers, which had defined the previous Oakhurst technologies.[42]

Similar sites in Zambia like that of Gwisho contained both inorganic (stone) and organic tools.[43] Stone technology at Gwisho was similarly made on quartz raw materials.[42] The stone flakes from Gwisho were irregular and accompanied by Wilton-like formal tools such as small scrapers and backed tools, but this site also contained denticulate tools, though not as many as was recovered from Luano Spring.[42] A comparison between Gwisho and Mumbwa shows that Gwisho varied by the frequency of heavy stone tools (defined as tools used for woodworking ) and Burins, showing local variations in Zambia assemblages.[39][42] However, like South Africa, the similarity in decreased stone technology, emphasis on small scrapers, and backed tools suggests Wilton technology in Zambia appears homogenous across space during the later stone age.[citation needed]

Non-stone technology edit

Archaeological sites in Zimbabwe and Zambia provide evidence of worked bone and wooden implements, providing an insight into the organic tools associated with Wilton technology.[44][45] Specifically, the site of Pomongwe in Zimbabwe as well as Gwisho and Amadzimba cave in Zambia provide an assortment of bone and wooden technologies. Pomongwe cave in Zimbabwe has preserved several wooden and bone tools dating around 2,000 years ago and assigned as a Wilton assemblage.[46] Two large and four small wooden projectile points and an element shaped like a hook were recovered from Pomongwe in association with notched bone shards, which are likely the result of scraping motions.[47] Cook suggests that the wooden tools may have been used as digging sticks to acquire food resources, whereas the hook-shaped element may have been used as an animal trap.[46] There was one cylindrical bone element that was hollowed out and may have been used as a flute or smoking pipe. Together, these biological tools allow archaeologists to infer the hunting and social behaviors of foragers associated with Wilton technologies. Furthermore, Cook contrasts the similarity of these biological tools with those found in South Africa and Zambia, arguing that Wilton technologies are similarly designed across southern Africa.[citation needed]

Gwisho hot springs in Zambia are broken up into three discrete sites, Gwisho A, B, and C. The Gwisho sites in Zambia contain several crushed bone and elephant ivory that was likely used for bone marrow as well as evidence for use-wear, suggesting these objects fall under the category of technology.[48] Examples of bone tools found at Gwisho include points, awls, and needles. These types of tools were also encountered at the Amadzimba Cave in Southern Rhodesia,[49][46] though Fagan and Van Noten argue that the bone technology at Gwisho is not as advanced as those recovered from Southern Rhodesia.[48] Other sites in Zambia like Mumbwa have not yielded any evidence for bone tools.[48][50] This variation could be the result of clear differences in technologies that foragers used at these sites, or taphonomic biases. That is, since biological materials rarely survive in the archaeological record, sites that lack evidence of biological tools may simply reflect instances with poor preservation, instead of technological changes.[citation needed]

Wooden fragments found at Gwisho are another form of technological strategy that implies the importance of wood-as-tools at these sites.[45][48] Many wooden tools at Gwisho Springs are fragmented and unidentifiable, but each one shows signs of chopping, smoothing, and cutting, implying the intentional working of these wooden implements.[48] Fagan and Von Noten identify several types of wooden tools at the Gwisho sites that include Pointed implements, digging sticks, club-shaped objects, and an array of smoothed fragments. They interpret the implements as evidence for pestles, knives, arrow shafts, and armaments.[48] Similar types of wooden fragments were recovered from the Pomongwe site in Zimbabwe.[46] Since these wooden tools are associated with Wilton-like stone technology, this relationship provides evidence of the importance that biological tools played in communities that made Wilton-like stone tools. Biological tools do not preserve in every archaeological context and thus, provide one explanation for why other sites associated with Wilton do not exhibit evidence of biological tools.[citation needed]

Cultural behavior edit

Archaeologists like Goodwin and Lowe first used the term Wilton to describe a distinct stone tool assemblage with the implication that these assemblages were associated with unique cultural behaviors of foraging communities.[51] Though some archaeologists show that Wilton sites dating between 8,000 and 4,000 years ago share similar stone and non-stone technology, contrasts between sites like Gwisho Spring, Pomongwe, Mumbwa, Wilton rock shelter, and Rose Cottage Cave show variability in the tools that foragers used during the middle Holocene.[52][47][53][54][55][56] Changes in frequency and types of tools present reflects the variability at each of these sites.[57] These changes might be a result of different environmental adaptations, however, Wilton-like assemblages still reflect homogeneous shifts from large to small tools and thus, may suggest a changes in behavioral adaptation that may include different diets, social networks, and population changes.[58][16][37]

Diet edit

Archaeologists use a variety of methods to understand the past diets of forager communities including the presence of faunal remains and isotope data. Diets of many Wilton sites have been interpreted through the presence of faunal material, while few sites along the Southern coast of South Africa interpret diets through isotopic data. Wilton sites located in the cape of South Africa are generally associated with the collection of small animals, differentiating the preceding phase in which Oakhurst assemblages are correlated with large animals.[57][59][60] Plant use also appeared to increase during Wilton occupations until 2,000 years ago.[61][62]

These trends of plant and animal use are also reflected in the South African interior at sites like Rose Cottage Cave.[53] At this inland site, an analysis of the stone tools shows that plant processing was a common task that foragers practiced. Preserved starch grains suggest that people at Rose Cottage Cave likely harvested underground plants including bulbs and tubers.[53] Specific animals that were consumed at this site include antelope, vlei rat, warthog, and springbok among many more species.

 
An antelope (left) and, for a size comparison, deer (right) browsing in Africa.

Northern Wilton assemblages also contain evidence for increased hunting of small game and heavy plant processing. In the Lunsemfwa basin, along the Lunsemfwa River in Zambia, the most dominant species present are bovids.[63] Among the list of bovids represented here, past peoples consumed zebra, tortoise, aardvark, and small browsing antelope. In this region of Zambia, these fauna represent a similar environment that exists in Zambia today.[63] Musonda and Gutin similarly show that the presence of fauna at the Mufulwe rock shelter in Zambia suggests periods of increased aridity that would have forced foraging communities to seasonally migrate between different sites on the landscape.[64] This contrasts South African interior sites where the environment was less stable, yet both sites show similar animal and plant use patterns among the inhabitants.[65]

 
Entrance to Nelson Bay Cave showing the vicinity to the ocean.

Even along the southern coast of South Africa, despite the vicinity to the ocean, the faunal assemblages reflect terrestrial hunting strategies but with a slight increase in marine resources. Sites like Nelson Bay Cave show continued dependence on small game animals from 9,000-5,000 years ago.[66] However, after 5,000 years ago diets at Nelson Bay Cave and other coastal sites reflect an increased dependence on marine resources. At Nelson bay cave 3,300 years ago, marine resources like fish and seals became a staple food source for these people.[67] The site of Matjes River, which lies 14km along the shore from Nelson Bay Cave shows a similar trend away from terrestrial foods but, instead of foraging marine resources, isotopic and archaeological data suggest the inhabitants of Matjes River had a mixed diet.[67] This mixed diet included terrestrial bovids with an increased emphasis on the collection marine of foods like shellfish.[67] Contrasting these two examples, skeletal remains from the inland site of Witcher's Cave show an exclusive terrestrial diet.[67] So, it is clear that, where other Wilton sites in South Africa and Zambia show a continued dependence on small bovids and plant processing through the middle Holocene, forager communities in the southernmost portion of South Africa along coastal environments reflect a variety of behaviors that diverge from the classic Wilton generalization after 4,000 years ago.[citation needed]

Material exchange edit

 
Image of the coastal region (Cape Town, South Africa) with a fynbos dominated environment.

Since archaeologists recognize Wilton as a shared system of cultural behaviors, there is an implied relationship Wilton communities have with one another that span from southernmost South Africa to Zambia. However, archaeological evidence suggest inter-regional and intra-regional variation. For instance, the way in which past peoples made arrowheads and backed stone tools, suggests different methods of production and thus, limited communication between foraging communities associated with Wilton technology.[68] Inter-regional variability can be seen between the Wilton rock shelter and sites like Zambia. At Wilton, there are few backed tools, something that, today, defines Wilton assemblages but in contrast, sites in Zambia exhibit a high number of backed tools.[69] In contrast, some archaeologists suggest that the reduction in stone tool size is a practice that spread through large social networks.[37] However, there is much more variety in the types of non-tool stone material remains including the use of shell beads and ochre. Shell beads are interpreted as materials that can be traded and represent group identities on the landscape.[70] On the other hand, ocher has functional uses such as ultraviolet protection and mastic for binding stone tools to spear-like weaponry, however, many scholars have also argued that ochre was used to symbolize group identities like shell beads.[71][72] Ochre was also recovered from burials that date to Wilton period, suggesting ceremonial importance for ochre.[73] Though stone technology may have been exchanged on the southern African landscape, the presence of non-tool stone materials during the mid-Holocene does suggest a diverse array of behaviors.[citation needed]

 
Image of Drakensberg Mountains, South Africa.

Among inter-regional variations in technology, there exist intra-regional burial practices primarily located along coastal environments that vary widely in the material culture that accompanies burials.[70] Hall and Binneman show increased emphasis in burial practices and material production from two South African sites, Klasies River Caves and Welgeluk Shelter.[74] These authors show an increase in shell bead production that accompanies burials and suggest that this reflects a stressed environment and increased emphasis on group identity.[74] These authors posit that such environments may drive increased social exchange between forager communities and further suggest this may indicate semi-permanent settlements.[70] However, differences in shell materials and non-stone technology between Nelson Bay Cave and Matjes River, in South Africa, suggest limited material exchange.[75][76] In this latter case, archaeologists interpret, not an increase in exchange networks, but evidence for exclusive behaviors associated with territorial defense.[77]

 
Ostrich eggshell beads showing size differences. Scale bar = 5 mm; (a) Nelson Bay Cave, South Africa; (b) Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa; (c) Magubike Rockshelter, Tanzania; (d) Daumboy 3 Rockshelter, Tanzania

To exemplify regional differences in Wilton communities, more recent studies of the Drakensberg montane region show large networks of forager communities. Stewart and colleagues use isotopes of strontium to show that ostrich eggshells traveled hundreds of kilometers into this region 8,000 years ago.[78] This pattern contrasts that seen along the coastal regions where foragers are grounding themselves to specific parts of the landscape of South Africa, suggesting regional differences in mobility and potential for material exchange. For 50,000 years, forager communities in Africa have used ostrich eggshell beads.[79] Archaeologists believe that the increase in bead production links prehistoric cultures to an increased need to symbolize group identities.[70][80] The extensive movement of shells inland and the symbolic potential of these objects suggests highly mobile groups of people during the first period of time that we see Wilton-like technology (8,000 years ago). These networks once used to span from East to South Africa but appear to be disconnected after the Last Glacial Maximum. For instance, the stylistic design of eggshell beads remained similar between southern and eastern Africa until 33,000 years ago, forming an inter-regional network of foraging communities. By 19,000 years ago, the design of these beads varied, and by the middle Holocene, eastern and southern African communities appeared separated from one another.[81] The spatial extent of social exchange was likely limited by prehistoric networks. The isolation of southern Africa may reflect the reason why Wilton-like technologies only extend as far north as Zimbabwe.[82]

Lastly, the use of Ochre during this period has been interpreted as both, a symbolic and functional material.[83][84] Ochre is a mineral pigment that past foraging communities have used since the Middle Stone Age for burials, symbolism, and hafting stone tools.[85][86] During the Holocene, there is an increased use of ochre with evidence that ochre was heavily used in burials[73][87] and hafting stone technology.[88] Given that Wilton technology is associated with an increase in backed tools, it is likely that ochre was used for hafting these implements to create weapons. However, sites in southern Namaqualand, South Africa, exhibit an absence of preserved ochre on the backed tools in Holocene assemblages.[89] This absence may suggest that ochre was used for other functional purposes during the Holocene and not exclusively for hafting stone tools. An additional use of ochre may be as an insect repellent and protection of UV light.[90] By contrast, ochre may have been used as a social adaptation. For instance, the symbolic use of ochre could be related to signaling group identity and artistic expressions in the form of rock art.[91] Most middle Holocene assemblages spanning from the coastal regions to inland montane environments do contain evidence that ochre was heavily used.[92][87] However, the vast majority of archaeological assemblages in South Africa do not provide adequate context to directly observe the use of ochre as symbolic material. Archaeologists use ethnographic data to interpret how prehistoric populations may have used ochre and to infer the magnitude of its cultural significance.[93]

Demographics edit

One implication of small, standard, stone tools that Wilton represents is related to the movement of peoples through southern Africa and hence, the interaction of different forager populations.[16][37] Goodwin and Lowe[19] initially considered Wilton to be a culture that migrated into South Africa from a more northern region, but Deacon showed that Wilton was likely an adopted feature of already existing technologies and was not an effect of a pioneering culture. Building on this hypothesis, Judith Sealy posits that Wilton technology was developed under low populations that occurred due to increased aridity throughout much of South Africa during the middle Holocene.[16]

Current[as of?] hypotheses suggest that the size of human populations is directly linked to changes in climate and hence, result in technological changes.[16] Environmental data shows favorable climate and increased site density from 12,000-8,000 years ago, corresponding to Oakhurst technology, which consists of large, informal tools.[7] Favorable climate fosters highly productive ecosystems and thus, adequate amount of resources to support large group sizes. Climate and demographics during this time implies large forager populations.[94][95] However, during the middle Holocene, temperatures increased, forming arid regions that became unsuitable for forager populations in South Africa.[96][97] Archaeological sites in South Africa show a discontinuous spatial distribution of Wilton technology and thus, suggests sparse populations.[98] The use and emphasis on small, formal, stools from 8,000-4,000 years ago can be explained as a strategy for coping with poor environmental conditions.[99][100] Yet, the uniform transition from large to small tools may suggest that there were extended networks between foraging communities in South Africa that extended north into portions of Zambia and Zimbabwe.[16] This evidence provides support that ameliorated climate and sparse, but well-connected, foraging populations may be a component to the development of Wilton technology.[citation needed]

Significance to modern African communities edit

Khoisan, sometimes just referred to as San, is the name for the Indigenous communities of South Africa and to many archaeologists, represents direct cultural descendants from later Stone Age foragers.[101][102] At an early account for the site of Mumbwa in Zambia, Protsch argued that Khoisan peoples emerged in central Africa around 20,000 years ago.[103] Other accounts by d'Errico and colleagues use evidence from Border Cave to suggest a much earlier emergence of Khoisan communities dating to 40,000 years ago.[101] These case studies argue that the stone and non-stone tools of early foraging communities in central and southern Africa reflect similar tools used by Khoisan today, but other archaeologists argue on the basis of scientific inference that the similarity of technology does not imply cultural continuity over 40,000 years.[104] These contrasting views reflect two main components of the Kalahari debate in which the question of cultural continuity between late Stone Age peoples and modern Indigenous communities comes under scrutiny. On one end, the cultural identities of African communities represent a direct link to prehistoric populations and can help to describe prehistoric behaviors. On the other end of this debate, cultural contact and transformation have been ongoing for thousands of years and so, modern communities do not reflect the exact cultural behaviors or identities of prehistoric populations.

During the Holocene, the question becomes whether Wilton technology reflects the foundation for modern Indigenous communities in South Africa today. Wilton is the last colloquially recognized technological industry before the final late Stone Age that post-dates 4,000 years.[105] After 4,000 years ago, the technologies that foragers use become less standardized and more variable across Southern Africa.[106] Increased variability in the types of tools people made may reflect human choices to specialize to specific environments and may signal a disconnect from exchange networks that some posit existed from 8,000-4,000 years.[106] At 2,000 years ago, pastoral communities entered South Africa from northern regions and began to interact with foraging communities.[107][108] Contact between foraging and pastoral communities likely impacted the types of tools present and cultural behaviors. Some scholars show that not all foraging communities conformed to pastoral lifeways, but, instead, adapted to the presence of pastoralists by specializing in tools designed for a new economy.[109] A change in economy after 2,000 years may not have changed cultural practices of foragers during this time, but the introduction of this economy did change the kinds of stone technology.[109] Therefore, this brings up an issue with connecting present and past cultural identities based solely on technology.

During European contact, other scholars posit that this interaction created a kind of Creolization.[110] Creolization refers to the expression of new cultural traits as an effect of the contact between two unique cultures. Evidence for creolization in the historic past raises questions about whether cultural identities remained intact up until the present day. If cultural identities are intact, then archaeologists can use modern Indigenous communities to interpret Holocene behaviors, but the creolization may suggest a shift in cultural behaviors. This raises an additional question about what the difference between stone tools and cultural behaviors. In the instance where foragers in South Africa increased the production of stone scrapers as a result of changing economies with pastoral communities,[109] does this reflect a change in cultural behavior or material production? Furthermore, since tools may be driven by changes in the economy and not necessarily cultural behaviors, this makes it difficult to argue that cultural identities are directly linked to stone technology. This brings us back to the concerns that stone industries like Wilton overgeneralize cultural behaviors and may not accurately reflect groups identities across southern Africa.

References edit

  1. ^ a b c Lombard, Marlize; Wadley, Lyn; Deacon, Janette; Wurz, Sarah; Parsons, Isabelle; Mohapi, Moleboheng; Swart, Joane; Mitchell, Peter (2012-06-01). "South African and Lesotho Stone age sequence updated (I)". South African Archaeological Bulletin. 67 (195): 123–144.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Deacon, J. (1972). "Wilton: An Assessment after Fifty Years". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 27 (105/106): 10–48. doi:10.2307/3888813. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888813.
  3. ^ a b c Hewitt J. (1921). On several implements and ornaments from Strandloper sites in the Eastern Province. S. Afr. J. Sci. 18: 454-467
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Fagan, Brian M.; van Noten, Francis L.; Vynckier, J. R. (1966). "Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot-springs, Lochinvar, Zambia". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 32: 246–261. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00014407. ISSN 2050-2729. S2CID 129406647.
  5. ^ a b c d e Gabel, Creighton (1965). Stone age hunters of the Kafue; the Gwisho A site. Boston University, African Studies Center.
  6. ^ Fagan, Brian M.; Phillipson, D. W. (1965). "Sebanzi: The Iron Age Sequence at Lochinvar, and the Tonga". The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 95 (2): 253–294. doi:10.2307/2844428. ISSN 0307-3114. JSTOR 2844428.
  7. ^ a b c d Lombard, Marlize; Bradfield, Justin; Caruana, Matthew; Makhubela, Tebogo; Dusseldorp, Gerrit; Kramers, Jan; Wurz, Sarah (2022). "The Southern African Stone Age Sequence Updated (II)". South African Bulletin. 77 (217): 172–212.
  8. ^ Binneman, JNF (2007). "Archaeological research along the South-Eastern Cape coast part 2, caves and shelters: Kabeljous River Shelter 1 and associated stone tool industries". Southern African Field Archaeology. 15 (16): 57–74.
  9. ^ a b c d e Phillipson, D. W. (1970). "The Prehistoric Sequence at Nakapapula Rockshelter, Zambia". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 35: 172–202. doi:10.1017/S0079497X0001344X. ISSN 2050-2729. S2CID 129982824.
  10. ^ a b Wadley, Lyn (1986). "Segments of Time: A Mid-Holocene Wilton Site in the Transvaal". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 41 (144): 54–62. doi:10.2307/3888190. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888190.
  11. ^ Kaplan, Jonathan; Mitchell, Peter (2012). "The archaeology of the Lesotho Highlands water project phases IA and IB". Southern African Humanities. 24 (1): 1–32.
  12. ^ Mitchell, P. J. (1990). "Preliminary Report on the Later Stone Age Sequence from Tloutle Rock Shelter, Western Lesotho". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 45 (152): 100–105. doi:10.2307/3887968. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887968.
  13. ^ a b Gutin, Jo Ann; Musonda, Francis B. (1985). "Faunal Remains from Mufulwe Rock Shelter, Zambia, and Their Implications". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 40 (141): 11–16. doi:10.2307/3887990. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887990.
  14. ^ a b Musonda, Francis B. (1984). "Late Pleistocene and Holocene Microlithic Industries from the Lunsemfwa Basin, Zambia". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 39 (139): 24–36. doi:10.2307/3888592. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888592.
  15. ^ Curtin, Philip; Feierman, Steven; Thompson, Leonard; Vansina, Jan. African History: From Earliest Times to Independence (print) (Second ed.). Pearson. p. 2.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g Sealy, Judith (2016), Jones, Sacha C.; Stewart, Brian A. (eds.), "Cultural Change, Demography, and the Archaeology of the Last 100 kyr in Southern Africa", Africa from MIS 6-2: Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 65–75, doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7520-5_4, ISBN 978-94-017-7520-5, retrieved 2023-03-07
  17. ^ a b Schrire, C. (1962). "Oakhurst: A Re-Examination and Vindication". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 17 (67): 181–195. doi:10.2307/3887544. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887544.
  18. ^ a b c d e Cooke, C. K. (1980). "Wooden and Bone Artefacts: Pomongwe Cave Matobo District, Zimbabwe". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 35 (131): 25–29. doi:10.2307/3888720. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888720.
  19. ^ a b c d Goodwin, Astley; Lowe, Clarence (1929). The stone age cultures of South Africa. AMS Press.
  20. ^ Shea, John J. (2014-11-06). "Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool industries (NASTIES) as obstacles to investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the Later Middle Paleolithic Levant". Quaternary International. Lithics of the Late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its implications. 350: 169–179. Bibcode:2014QuInt.350..169S. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.01.024. ISSN 1040-6182.
  21. ^ Sampson, C. Garth (1991). Atlas of Stone Age settlement in the central and upper Seacow Valley. Borchardt Library, La Trobe University. ISBN 0-947014-06-3. OCLC 954141595.
  22. ^ Singer, R.; Inskeep, R. R.; Louw, J. T. (1961). "Prehistory of the Matjes River Rock Shelter". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 16 (61): 29. doi:10.2307/3887423. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887423.
  23. ^ Gallagher, James P. (1977-01-01). "Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia: Implications for Archaeology". Journal of Field Archaeology. 4 (4): 407–414. doi:10.1179/009346977791490131. ISSN 0093-4690.
  24. ^ Longo, Laura; Skakun, Natalia; Saracino, Massimo; Dalla Riva, Martina, eds. (2008). 'Prehistoric Technology' 40 years later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy: Proceedings of the International Congress Verona (Italy) 20-23 April 2005. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.30861/9781407302713. ISBN 978-1-4073-0271-3.
  25. ^ Hiscock, Peter; Attenbrow, Val (1998). "Early Holocene backed artefacts from Australia". Archaeology in Oceania. 33 (2): 49–62. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4453.1998.tb00404.x. hdl:1885/41382.
  26. ^ Robertson, Gail; Attenbrow, Val; Hiscock, Peter (2009). "Multiple uses for Australian backed artefacts". Antiquity. 83 (320): 296–308. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00098446. ISSN 0003-598X. S2CID 162566863.
  27. ^ a b c Wadley, Lyn (2000). "The Wilton and Pre-Ceramic Post-Classic Wilton Industries at Rose Cottage Cave and Their Context in the South African Sequence". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 55 (172): 90–106. doi:10.2307/3888959. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888959.
  28. ^ Deacon, Janette (1974). "Patterning in the Radiocarbon Dates for the Wilton/Smithfield Complex in Southern Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 29 (113/114): 3–18. doi:10.2307/3887932. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887932.
  29. ^ Wurz, Sarah (2019), Knight, Jasper; Rogerson, Christian M. (eds.), "Human Evolution, Archaeology and the South African Stone Age Landscape During the Last 100,000 Years", The Geography of South Africa : Contemporary Changes and New Directions, World Regional Geography Book Series, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 125–132, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94974-1_13, ISBN 978-3-319-94974-1, S2CID 134679297, retrieved 2023-03-09
  30. ^ Bollig, Michael; Schnegg, Michael; Wotzka, Hans-Peter (2013-07-01). Pastoralism in Africa: Past, Present and Future. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-909-1.
  31. ^ a b c Deacon, J. (1972). "Wilton: An Assessment after Fifty Years". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 27 (105/106): 10–48. doi:10.2307/3888813. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888813.
  32. ^ a b Goodwin, Astley; Lowe, Clarence (1929). The stone age cultures of South Africa. AMS Press.
  33. ^ Deacon, Janette (1974). "Patterning in the Radiocarbon Dates for the Wilton/Smithfield Complex in Southern Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 29 (113/114): 3–18. doi:10.2307/3887932. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887932.
  34. ^ Hiscock, Peter; Attenbrow, Val (1998). "Early Holocene backed artefacts from Australia". Archaeology in Oceania. 33 (2): 49–62. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4453.1998.tb00404.x. hdl:1885/41382.
  35. ^ Pargeter, Justin; Chen, Caleb; Buchanan, Briggs; Fisch, Michael; Bebber, Michelle; Eren, Metin I. (2022-10-01). "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. ISSN 2352-409X. S2CID 252498980.
  36. ^ Goldstein, Steven T.; Shaffer, Christopher M. (2017-12-01). "Experimental and archaeological investigations of backed microlith function among Mid-to-Late Holocene herders in southwestern Kenya". Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 9 (8): 1767–1788. doi:10.1007/s12520-016-0329-9. ISSN 1866-9565. S2CID 130502857.
  37. ^ a b c d Wadley, Lyn (1989). "Legacies from the Later Stone Age". Goodwin Series. 6: 42–53. doi:10.2307/3858131. ISSN 0304-3460. JSTOR 3858131.
  38. ^ a b Bisson, Michael S. (1990-12-01). "Lithic reduction sequences as an aid to the analysis of Late Stone Age quartz assemblages from the Luano Spring, Chingola, Zambia". African Archaeological Review. 8 (1): 103–138. doi:10.1007/BF01116873. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 128881756.
  39. ^ a b Clark, J. Desmond. "Further excavations (1939) at the Mumbwa caves, Northern Rhodesia." Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 29, no. 3 (1942): 133-201.
  40. ^ Musonda, F. B. 1985. Aspects of the Prehistoryof the Lunsemfwa Drainage Basin, Zambia, during the last 20,O00years. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
  41. ^ Phillipson, D. W. (1976-01-01). "The Early Iron Age in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Critical Re-appraisal". Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa. 11 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1080/00672707609511229. ISSN 0067-270X.
  42. ^ a b c d Fagan, Brian M., and Francis L. Van Noten. The hunter-gatherers of Gwisho. No. 74. Musée royal de l'Afrique centralo, 1971.
  43. ^ Fagan, Brian M.; Noten, Francis L. van; Vynckier, J. R. (1966). "Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot-springs, Lochinvar, Zambia". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 32: 246–261. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00014407. ISSN 2050-2729. S2CID 129406647.
  44. ^ Gabel, Creighton (1965). Stone age hunters of the Kafue; the Gwisho A site. Boston University, African Studies Center.
  45. ^ a b Fagan, Brian M.; van Noten, Francis L.; Vynckier, J. R. (1966). "Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot-springs, Lochinvar, Zambia". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 32: 246–261. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00014407. ISSN 2050-2729. S2CID 129406647.
  46. ^ a b c d Cooke, C. K. (1980). "Wooden and Bone Artefacts: Pomongwe Cave Matobo District, Zimbabwe". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 35 (131): 25–29. doi:10.2307/3888720. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888720.
  47. ^ a b Cooke, C. K. (1980). "Wooden and Bone Artefacts: Pomongwe Cave Matobo District, Zimbabwe". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 35 (131): 25–29. doi:10.2307/3888720. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888720.
  48. ^ a b c d e f Fagan, Brian M., and Francis L. Van Noten. The hunter-gatherers of Gwisho. No. 74. Musée royal de l'Afrique centralo, 1971.
  49. ^ Cooke, C. K., and K. R. Robinson. "Excavations at Amadzimba Cave, located in the Matopo Hills, Southern Rhodesia." Occasional Papers of the National Museum of Southern Rhodesia 19 (1954): 699-728.
  50. ^ Clark, J. Desmond. "Further excavations (1939) at the Mumbwa caves, Northern Rhodesia." Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 29, no. 3 (1942): 133-201.
  51. ^ Goodwin, Astley; Lowe, Clarence (1929). The stone age cultures of South Africa. AMS Press.
  52. ^ Fagan, Brian M., and Francis L. Van Noten. The hunter-gatherers of Gwisho. No. 74. Musée royal de l'Afrique centralo, 1971.
  53. ^ a b c Wadley, Lyn (2000). "The Wilton and Pre-Ceramic Post-Classic Wilton Industries at Rose Cottage Cave and Their Context in the South African Sequence". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 55 (172): 90–106. doi:10.2307/3888959. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888959.
  54. ^ Clark, J. Desmond. "Further excavations (1939) at the Mumbwa caves, Northern Rhodesia." Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 29, no. 3 (1942): 133-201.
  55. ^ Fagan, Brian M.; van Noten, Francis L.; Vynckier, J. R. (1966). "Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot-springs, Lochinvar, Zambia". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 32: 246–261. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00014407. ISSN 2050-2729. S2CID 129406647.
  56. ^ Hewitt J. (1921). On several implements and ornaments from Strandloper sites in the Eastern Province. S. Afr. J. Sci. 18: 454-467
  57. ^ a b Deacon, J. (1972). "Wilton: An Assessment after Fifty Years". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 27 (105/106): 10–48. doi:10.2307/3888813. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888813.
  58. ^ Deacon, Janette (1984). The Later Stone Age of Southernmost Africa. BAR Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4073-3681-7.
  59. ^ Discamps, Emmanuel; Henshilwood, Christopher S.; van Niekerk, Karen L. (2020). "Large mammal exploitation during the c. 14-11 ka Oakhurst techno-complex at Klipdrift Cave, South Africa". South African Journal of Science. 116 (5–6): 1–7. doi:10.17159/sajs.2020/6754. hdl:11250/2760810. ISSN 0038-2353. S2CID 219460952.
  60. ^ Brain, C. K. (1969). "Faunal Remains from the Bushman Rock Shelter, Eastern Transvaal". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 24 (94): 52–55. doi:10.2307/3887661. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887661.
  61. ^ Deacon, Janette (1974). "Patterning in the Radiocarbon Dates for the Wilton/Smithfield Complex in Southern Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 29 (113/114): 3–18. doi:10.2307/3887932. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887932.
  62. ^ Ecker, Michaela; Brink, James; Horwitz, Liora Kolska; Scott, Louis; Lee-Thorp, Julia A. (2018-01-15). "A 12,000 year record of changes in herbivore niche separation and palaeoclimate (Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa)". Quaternary Science Reviews. 180: 132–144. Bibcode:2018QSRv..180..132E. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.11.025. ISSN 0277-3791. S2CID 135081746.
  63. ^ a b Musonda, Francis B. (1984). "Late Pleistocene and Holocene Microlithic Industries from the Lunsemfwa Basin, Zambia". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 39 (139): 24–36. doi:10.2307/3888592. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888592.
  64. ^ Gutin, Jo Ann; Musonda, Francis B. (1985). "Faunal Remains from Mufulwe Rock Shelter, Zambia, and Their Implications". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 40 (141): 11–16. doi:10.2307/3887990. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3887990.
  65. ^ Chase, Brian M.; Boom, Arnoud; Carr, Andrew S.; Meadows, Michael E.; Reimer, Paula J. (2013). "Holocene climate change in southernmost South Africa: rock hyrax middens record shifts in the southern westerlies". Quaternary Science Reviews. 82: 199–205. Bibcode:2013QSRv...82..199C. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.10.018. ISSN 0277-3791.
  66. ^ Klein, Richard G. (1972). "The Late Quaternary Mammalian Fauna of Nelson Bay Cave (Cape Province, South Africa): Its Implications for Megafaunal Extinctions and Environmental and Cultural Change". Quaternary Research. 2 (02): 135–142. Bibcode:1972QuRes...2..135K. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(72)90034-8. ISSN 0033-5894. S2CID 129779582.
  67. ^ a b c d Sealy, Judith (2006). "Diet, mobility, and settlement pattern among Holocene Hunter-Gatherers in southernmost Africa". Current Anthropology. 47 (4): 569–595. doi:10.1086/504163. S2CID 142284403.
  68. ^ Wadley, Lyn (2000). "The Wilton and Pre-Ceramic Post-Classic Wilton Industries at Rose Cottage Cave and Their Context in the South African Sequence". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 55 (172): 90–106. doi:10.2307/3888959. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888959.
  69. ^ Deacon, J. (1972). "Wilton: An Assessment after Fifty Years". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 27 (105/106): 10–48. doi:10.2307/3888813. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888813.
  70. ^ a b c d Henshilwood, Christopher; d'Errico, Francesco; Vanhaeren, Marian; van Niekerk, Karen; Jacobs, Zenobia (2004-04-16). "Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa". Science. 304 (5669): 404. doi:10.1126/science.1095905. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 15087540. S2CID 32356688.
  71. ^ Wadley, Lyn (2015-04-03). "Those marvellous millennia: the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa". Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa. 50 (2): 155–226. doi:10.1080/0067270x.2015.1039236. ISSN 0067-270X. S2CID 162432908.
  72. ^ Lombard, Marlize. "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, no. 4 (2007): 406-419.
  73. ^ a b Dewar, Genevieve (2010). "Late Holocene Burial Cluster at Diaz Street Midden, Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 65 (191): 26–34. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 40985508.
  74. ^ a b Hall, Simon; Binneman, Johan (1987). "Later Stone Age Burial Variability in the Cape: A Social Interpretation". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 42 (146): 140–152. doi:10.2307/3888740. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888740.
  75. ^ Ludwig, Ben. "A comparison of hunter-gatherer material culture from Matjes River Rock Shelter and Nelson Bay Cave." Thesis., University of Cape Town ,Faculty of Science ,Department of Archaeology, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/8732
  76. ^ Sealy, Judith (2006). "Diet, mobility, and settlement pattern among Holocene Hunter-Gatherers in southernmost Africa". Current Anthropology. 47 (4): 569–595. doi:10.1086/504163. S2CID 142284403.
  77. ^ Ludwig, Ben (2005). A comparison of hunter-gatherer material culture from Matjes River Rock Shelter and Nelson Bay Cave. Thesis, University of Cape Town (Master Thesis).
  78. ^ Stewart, Brian A.; Zhao, Yuchao; Mitchell, Peter J.; Dewar, Genevieve; Gleason, James D.; Blum, Joel D. (2020-03-24). "Ostrich eggshell bead strontium isotopes reveal persistent macroscale social networking across late Quaternary southern Africa". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (12): 6453–6462. Bibcode:2020PNAS..117.6453S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1921037117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 7104358. PMID 32152113.
  79. ^ Mcbrearty, Sally; Brooks, Alison S. (2000-11-01). "The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior". Journal of Human Evolution. 39 (5): 453–563. doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0435. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 11102266.
  80. ^ d'Errico, Francesco; Henshilwood, Christopher; Vanhaeren, Marian; van Niekerk, Karen (2005-01-01). "Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age". Journal of Human Evolution. 48 (1): 3–24. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.002. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 15656934.
  81. ^ Miller, Jennifer M.; Wang, Yiming V. (2022). "Ostrich eggshell beads reveal 50,000-year-old social network in Africa". Nature. 601 (7892): 234–239. Bibcode:2022Natur.601..234M. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04227-2. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 8755535. PMID 34931044.
  82. ^ Cooke, C. K. (1980). "Wooden and Bone Artefacts: Pomongwe Cave Matobo District, Zimbabwe". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 35 (131): 25–29. doi:10.2307/3888720. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888720.
  83. ^ Lombard, Marlize (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.
  84. ^ Wadley, Lyn. "Where have all the dead men gone? Stone Age burial practices in South Africa." Our gendered past: archaeological studies of gender in southern Africa 107 (1997): 133.
  85. ^ Lombard, Marlize. "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, no. 4 (2007): 406-419.
  86. ^ Deacon, H. J. (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.
  87. ^ a b Hall, Simon (2000). "Burial and Sequence in the Later Stone Age of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 55 (172): 137–146. doi:10.2307/3888962. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 3888962.
  88. ^ Kaplan, Jonathan. "The Umhlatuzana rock shelter sequence: 100 000 years of Stone Age history." Southern African Humanities 2, no. 11 (1990): 1-94.
  89. ^ Orton, Jayson, Richard G. Klein, Alex Mackay, Steve Schwortz, and Teresa E. Steele. "Two Holocene rock shelter deposits from the Knersvlakte, southern Namaqualand, South Africa." Southern African Humanities 23, no. 1 (2011): 109-150.
  90. ^ Rifkin, Riaan F. (2015). "Ethnographic and Experimental Perspectives on the Efficacy of Ochre As a Mosquito Repellent". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 70 (201): 64–75. ISSN 0038-1969. JSTOR 24643609.
  91. ^ Witelson, David M. (2022-06-01). "The Many Meanings of "Integration": Some Thoughts on Relating Rock Art and Excavated Archaeology in South Africa". African Archaeological Review. 39 (2): 221–240. doi:10.1007/s10437-022-09478-6. ISSN 1572-9842. S2CID 254193401.
  92. ^ Mitchell, Peter J. "Filling a gap: the early and middle Holocene assemblages from new excavations at Sehonghong Rock Shelter, Lesotho." Southern African Field Archaeology 5, no. 1 (1996): 17-27.
  93. ^ Orton, Jayson (2008-07-01). "Later Stone Age ostrich eggshell bead manufacture in the Northern Cape, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 35 (7): 1765–1775. Bibcode:2008JArSc..35.1765O. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.11.014. ISSN 0305-4403.
  94. ^ Esteban, Irene; Bamford, Marion K.; House, Alisoun; Miller, Charlotte S.; Neumann, Frank H.; Schefuß, Enno; Pargeter, Justin; Cawthra, Hayley C.; Fisher, Erich C. (2020-12-15). "Coastal palaeoenvironments and hunter-gatherer plant-use at Waterfall Bluff rock shelter in Mpondoland (South Africa) from MIS 3 to the Early Holocene". Quaternary Science Reviews. 250: 106664. Bibcode:2020QSRv..25006664E. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106664. ISSN 0277-3791. S2CID 228916156.
  95. ^ Scott, L.; Steenkamp, M.; Beaumont, P. B. (1995-01-01). "Palaeoenvironmental conditions in South Africa at the pleistocene-holocene transition". Quaternary Science Reviews. 14 (9): 937–947. Bibcode:1995QSRv...14..937S. doi:10.1016/0277-3791(95)00072-0. ISSN 0277-3791.
  96. ^ Neumann, Frank H.; Stager, J. Curt; Scott, Louis; Venter, Hendrik J. T.; Weyhenmeyer, Constanze (2008-12-01). "Holocene vegetation and climate records from Lake Sibaya, KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa)". Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology. 152 (3): 113–128. Bibcode:2008RPaPa.152..113N. doi:10.1016/j.revpalbo.2008.04.006. ISSN 0034-6667.
  97. ^ Chase, Brian M.; Boom, Arnoud; Carr, Andrew S.; Meadows, Michael E.; Reimer, Paula J. (2013-12-15). "Holocene climate change in southernmost South Africa: rock hyrax middens record shifts in the southern westerlies". Quaternary Science Reviews. 82: 199–205. Bibcode:2013QSRv...82..199C. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.10.018. ISSN 0277-3791.
  98. ^ Sealy, Judith (2016), Jones, Sacha C.; Stewart, Brian A. (eds.), "Cultural Change, Demography, and the Archaeology of the Last 100 kyr in Southern Africa", Africa from MIS 6-2: Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 65–75, doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7520-5_4, ISBN 978-94-017-7520-5, retrieved 2023-03-07
  99. ^ Deacon, J. (1984). The Later Stone Age of southernmost Africa (BAR International Series No. 213). Oxford: Archaeopress.
  100. ^ Wadley, L. (1989). Legacies from the Later Stone Age. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series, 6, 42–53.
  101. ^ a b d’Errico, Francesco; Backwell, Lucinda; Villa, Paola; Degano, Ilaria; Lucejko, Jeannette J.; Bamford, Marion K.; Higham, Thomas F. G.; Colombini, Maria Perla; Beaumont, Peter B. (2012-08-14). "Early evidence of San material culture represented by organic artifacts from Border Cave, South Africa". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (33): 13214–13219. Bibcode:2012PNAS..10913214D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204213109. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3421171. PMID 22847420.
  102. ^ Morris, A. G. (2002). "Isolation and the origin of the khoisan: Late pleistocene and early holocene human evolution at the southern end of Africa". Human Evolution. 17 (3): 231–240. doi:10.1007/BF02436374. ISSN 1824-310X. S2CID 85291675.
  103. ^ Protsch, R. R. R. (1977). "Mumbwa: Its absolute chronology and archaeology". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie. 68 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1127/zma/68/1977/1. ISSN 0044-314X. JSTOR 25756291. PMID 595785. S2CID 40773745.
  104. ^ Pargeter, Justin; MacKay, Alex; Mitchell, Peter; Shea, John; Stewart, Brian A. (2016). "Primordialism and the 'Pleistocene San' of southern Africa". Antiquity. 90 (352): 1072–1079. doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.100. ISSN 0003-598X. S2CID 163277811.
  105. ^ Lombard, Marlize; Bradfield, Justin; Caruana, Matthew; Makhubela, Tebogo; Dusseldorp, Gerrit; Kramers, Jan; Wurz, Sarah (2022). "The Southern African Stone Age Sequence Updated (II)". South African Bulletin. 77 (217): 172–212.
  106. ^ a b Sealy, Judith (2016), Jones, Sacha C.; Stewart, Brian A. (eds.), "Cultural Change, Demography, and the Archaeology of the Last 100 kyr in Southern Africa", Africa from MIS 6-2: Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 65–75, doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7520-5_4, ISBN 978-94-017-7520-5, retrieved 2023-03-07
  107. ^ Sealy, Judith; Yates, Royden (1994). "The chronology of the introduction of pastoralism to the Cape, South Africa". Antiquity. 68 (258): 58–67. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00046196. ISSN 0003-598X. S2CID 161249617.
  108. ^ Coutu, Ashley N.; Taurozzi, Alberto J.; Mackie, Meaghan; Jensen, Theis Zetner Trolle; Collins, Matthew J.; Sealy, Judith (2021). "Palaeoproteomics confirm earliest domesticated sheep in southern Africa ca. 2000 BP". Scientific Reports. 11 (1): 6631. Bibcode:2021NatSR..11.6631C. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85756-8. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7988125. PMID 33758223.
  109. ^ a b c Forssman, Tim (2022). "An Archaeological Contribution to the Kalahari Debate from the Middle Limpopo Valley, Southern Africa". Journal of Archaeological Research. 30 (3): 447–495. doi:10.1007/s10814-021-09166-0. ISSN 1573-7756. S2CID 254610375.
  110. ^ Challis, Sam (2012). "Creolisation on the Nineteenth-century Frontiers of Southern Africa: A Case Study of the AmaTola 'Bushmen' in the Maloti-Drakensberg". Journal of Southern African Studies. 38 (2): 265–280. doi:10.1080/03057070.2012.666905. ISSN 0305-7070. S2CID 145673044.

January 01, 1970
wilton, culture, wilton, term, archaeologists, generalize, archaeological, sites, cultures, that, share, similar, stone, stone, technology, dating, from, years, archaeologists, often, refer, wilton, technocomplex, archaeological, culture, industry, technologic. Wilton is a term archaeologists use to generalize archaeological sites and cultures that share similar stone and non stone technology dating from 8 000 4 000 years ago Archaeologists often refer to Wilton as a technocomplex Archaeological culture or Industry Technological industries are defined by a common tradition of stone tool assemblages but these technological industries extend to common cultural behaviors 1 As such archaeologists use these industries to define a discrete cultural taxonomy 1 However technological industries have the potential to generalize different cultures and communities at regional scales that in more local settings are distinguishable in both technology and cultural behaviors Map of Wilton culture sites and region Contents 1 History 1 1 Wilton rock shelter 1 2 Evolution of Wilton as a technological industry 2 Technology 2 1 Stone technology 2 2 Non stone technology 3 Cultural behavior 3 1 Diet 3 2 Material exchange 3 3 Demographics 4 Significance to modern African communities 5 ReferencesHistory editWilton Site Locations nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 1200km820miles nbsp ZoovoorbijUniondaleTshisiku ShelterTshangula CaveTloutleSpringbokoogSiphisoShongweni SouthSehonghongRose Cottage CaveRooikransPienaars Pan 1OakhurstNumas Schlucht CaveNkupe ShelterNelson Bay CaveNamtibMzinyashana ShelterMgede ShelterMelkhoutboomMeerlust 1Matjies RiverMaqonqoLeliehoekKangkara CaveKabeljous River ShelterJubilee ShelterJakkalsberg NJagt Pan 1Havens CaveGrassridgeGood Hope ShelterGehle ShelterElands Bay CaveDikbosch 1Diamond ShelterColwintonCave JamesByneskranskop 1BuffelskloofBoomplaasBlydefonteinBlombosfontein Amadzimba Wilton1 Wilton archaeological site locations1 Wilton Large Rockshelter2 Amadzimba Cave3 Blombosfontein 1 64 Blydefontein5 Boomplaas6 Buffelskloof7 Byneskranskop 18 Cave James9 Colwinton10 Diamond Shelter11 Dikbosch 112 Elands Bay Cave13 Gehle Shelter14 Good Hope Shelter15 Grassridge16 Havens Cave17 Jagt Pan 118 Jakkalsberg N19 Jubilee Shelter20 Kabeljous River Shelter21 Kangkara Cave22 Leliehoek23 Maqonqo24 Matjies River25 Meerlust 126 Melkhoutboom27 Mgede Shelter28 Mzinyashana Shelter29 Namtib30 Nelson Bay Cave31 Nkupe Shelter32 Numas Schlucht Cave33 Oakhurst34 Pienaars Pan 135 Rooikrans36 Rose Cottage Cave37 Sehonghong38 Shongweni South39 Sophiso40 Springbokoog 1 5 13 2041 Tloutle42 Tshangula Cave43 Tshisiku Shelter44 Uniondale45 Zoovoorbij Originally defined from archaeological assemblages recovered from Wilton rock shelter in 1921 archaeologists use Wilton to refer to stone age foraging and pastoral communities in portions of east Africa and throughout South Africa that are associated with small stone tools and an increase in the number of formal stone tools like scrappers and backed tools 2 3 Archaeological assemblages in Zambia contains evidence for non stone technology that has led some archaeologists to hypothesize an increased importance of wooden tools Wilton tool sets 4 5 Archaeologists initially recognized Wilton foraging communities from the Holocene beginning 8 000 years ago up through the Iron Age until 500 years ago 2 6 though recent studies separate Wilton from the final late Stone Age at 4 000 years ago 7 Despite Wilton as a term meant to generalize the behaviors of human populations foraging communities that utilized Wilton like technology and exhibited Wilton like behaviors can be found in near coastal 8 2 inland 9 4 10 and montane environments 11 12 These diverse landscapes contradict the specificity of Wilton culture that archaeologists had hoped to encompass with this term In fact archaeological deposits and isotopic data show that Wilton foragers used a wide range of technologies and exhibited diverse behaviors including diets mobility and exchange networks 2 4 Early accounts of Wilton archaeological assemblages posit that similar technology equates to identical cultural identities suggesting prehistoric communities represented a single culture that ranged from southernmost South Africa to as north as Zambia 13 14 4 9 Archaeologists characterize Wilton by a greater variety of stone tools and smaller more formal stone technology 15 16 Additional wooden and bone tools lead archaeologists to think that biological materials played an important role in communities that made Wilton technologies 5 4 This technology distinguishes Wilton technology from earlier technological industries such as the Oakhurst Oakhurst technology dates from 12 000 8 000 years ago and is defined as a technological industry that contains few formal tools and large stone tools especially large stone scrappers 17 7 18 Previous technological industries like the Oakhurst may have included biological tools like bone and wooden implements but since biological remains do not survive in the archaeological record archaeologists are not able to always use these biological tools to define technological industries It is these changes in stone and non stone technology that imply changes in cultural behaviors of foragers at these sites and thus have caused some archaeologists to recognize Wilton technology as a single cultural entity 19 5 Wilton is widely described as a shift from large to small stone technology with an emphasis on stone scrappers and backed tools though not all sites associated with Wilton contain high numbers of backed tools 2 7 This discrepancy offers some evidence that broad categories like Wilton overgeneralize behaviors of people whom though may have had some cultural activities in common exhibit diverse tool sets 20 Many archaeologists specify acknowledge that Wilton is not a single culture or identity but instead solely reflects general trends over small regions in Zambia Zimbabwe Transvaal and most of South Africa from 8 000 4 000 years ago citation needed Wilton rock shelter edit Wilton technology was first described by John Hewitt after he excavated with the collaboration of C W Wilmot a cave on the farm Wilton near Alicedale in the eastern Cape of South Africa 2 3 Later sites are found along the coastal and the interior of South Africa and as north as the countries Zambia and Zimbabwe 21 9 18 The Wilton site is adjacent to the Karoo region of South Africa and represents a diverse environment that could have easily supported forager groups living in this area 2 Three dates came from the Wilton rock shelter that ranged from 8 260 2 270 This date range allowed archaeologists to track changes in the size and type of stone technology through the Wilton site and initially defined Wilton technology 2 The observed environment and time constraints at this site among others like the Oakhurst site and Matjes River provide archaeologists with insight into a time range in which foragers produced Wilton technology and thus exhibited shared technological industries 22 17 At the Wilton site Hewitt first noted that this site contained remnants from two distinct cultures distinguishable by the size of the stone tools The stone preceding Wilton technology appeared much larger at the Wilton site Based on the large size of the stone tools Hewitt supposed that this material pertained to a predecessor of Wilton technology known today as Oakhurst 3 The significant component of Wilton sites is decreased tool size compared with Oakhurst and an increase frequency of stone scrapers 1 2 Furthermore the stone material at the Wilton rock shelter is predominantly Chalcedony 2 This assemblage was dominated by stone scrapers and few backed tools Scrapers were likely used for processing animal hides 23 24 Backed tools were created by blunting one margin of the stone tool at a near 90 degree angle 25 These backed tools were likely hafted to projectiles and served as barbs 26 Archaeologists have used the assemblage at the Wilton rock shelter to define other Wilton like assemblages throughout South Africa Zambia and Zimbabwe 2 4 18 Evolution of Wilton as a technological industry edit In 1929 Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe initially used Wilton as a term to describe Microlith archaeological assemblages that contained small stone scrapers and backed tools 19 During this early period of excavation Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe broke up Wilton technology into two variations defined by the interior and coastal geography of South Africa The technological industry they associate with interior sites was termed Smithfield leaving Wilton to define coastal foragers 19 10 Forager communities that used Smithfield technology were thought to be contemporaneous with Wilton but contained much larger stone technologies During the mid 1900s archaeologists began recovering more Wilton like objects from other locations in South Africa Zimbabwe and Zambia 27 18 9 The stone technology in each of these regions reflects similar characteristics of Wilton technology but each contained slight variations in the technology likely reflecting local differences due to the variation between environments For instance the site of Gwisho in Zambia had predominantly more backed tools than scrapers contradicting what was originally found at the Wilton rock shelter 2 5 Backed tools soon became a significant component of Wilton assemblages 14 Building on the increased frequency of Wilton sites Deacon used radiocarbon dates and backed tool frequencies to show that Smithfield could not be contemporaneous with Wilton and thus must be the preceding technological industry now termed Oakhurst 28 Today Wilton technology covers much of the same geographical scale as the preceding industry Oakhurst Wilton was originally associated with the archaeological assemblage from Wilton farm which included a high number of scrapers though archaeological assemblages elsewhere showed additional evidence for backed technology So today Wilton technology is associated with an increase in formal tools like scrapers and backed pieces as well as a significant reduction in size 27 2 Wilton technology represents an increase in homogeneity across much of South Africa 29 including some sites in Zambia and Zimbabwe 18 13 9 4 This pattern of standard Wilton tool kits breaks down after 4 000 years entering into the final late stone age 27 Evidence for the introduction of ceramics pastoralism and ironworking post dating 4 000 years ago has created a mosaic of final late stone age technological industries in Southern Africa 30 This mosaic of industries makes it difficult to make regional generalizations of technological industries like Wilton So the term Wilton is now limited from 8 000 4 000 years citation needed Technology editArchaeologists associate Wilton assemblages with an assortment of different types of stone and non stone technology Stone materials are one of the longest lasting artifacts and as such allow archaeologists to interpret the behaviors of past peoples In rare instances it is possible for archaeologists to recover non stone technology hereafter referred to as biological material Biological materials like wooden shafts of spears or digging sticks give insight into the broader cultural pattern of past foraging communities that is usually only represented via stone materials For the Wilton archaeological record archaeologists have access to a wide variety of stone tools and cases where biological tools were recovered allowing Wilton to be defined by not only stone but also non stone technology citation needed Stone technology edit nbsp Microlith segment that shows the typical geometric shape and the effect of backing on one margin nbsp Image of a scraper In some contexts this artifact is referred to as a thumbnail scraper Initially derived from the Wilton rock shelter in South Africa Janette Deacon classified the Wilton assemblages into four phases that mark the beginning of Wilton stage 0 a growth phase stage 1 a mature phase stage 2 and a decline phase stage 3 31 Janette Deacon recognizes a pre ancestral stone industry at Wilton rock shelter dating to 10 000 years ago by the presence of large stone scrapers made from Quartzite materials Furthermore these stone materials are associated with large fauna suggesting pre ancestral peoples foraged large animals These large stone tools are attributable to what Goodwin and Lowe would term Smithfield a contemporaneous but distinct culture from Wilton 32 At 8 000 years ago scrapers at the Wilton site become much smaller and very few tool types are represented at this time Deacon claims that this forms the basis for a growth phase stage 1 of Wilton which turns towards a mature phase stage 2 dating to around 4 800 years ago Stage 2 is represented by the smallest variation in scraper size and shape as well as a faunal assemblage dominated by small animals distinguishing the Wilton from its predecessor Additionally this period is correlated with an increase in backed tool manufacture at Wilton Though Deacon does not bring attention to this increase backed tools become a prevalent factor in Wilton assemblages with sites like Gwisho 5 Then around 2 270 years ago the stone scrapers at Wilton become more variable and formal tools decrease suggesting a decline phase stage 3 Stage 3 at the Wilton site is also correlated with the occurrence of pottery Deacon suggests that The correlation between the appearance of pottery and the death of the Wilton cultural system is perhaps significant 31 These observations at Wilton rock shelter formed the basis for how Wilton assemblages are colloquially recognized but soon archaeologists realized that Wilton assemblages do vary in technology depending on where they are located Where Goodwin and Lowe originally define Smithfield now known as Oakhurst as the interior cultural equivalent to Wilton Deacon showed that Wilton is constrained to the middle Holocene 8 000 4 000 years ago and excludes assemblages identified as Oakhurst 33 32 Specifically the main difference between Oakhurst and Wilton is a decrease in tool size and an increase in formal tools Moreover Deacon showed that there is a correlation between Wilton assemblages and an increasing quantity of formal tools like small segments backed tools and scrapers 31 These stone implements are similar to previous stone technologies that show up in several archaeological assemblages dating back to the Howiesons Poort 70 000 years ago Stone segments are often geometric in shape forming crescents that are then backed The process of backing involves repeated percussion against one edge of a stone tool at a nearly 90 degree angle 34 Archaeologists associate these backed tools and segments as inserts that would have been hafted to form spear like weapons 35 36 Some archaeologists argue that the reoccurrence of standardized stone segments and backed tools reflect a similar adaptation to environmental stress including increasing populations and deteriorating climate 37 16 In Zambia the stone technology from Luano Spring contains similar components to South African Wilton assemblages 38 Zambian Wilton technology is defined from the Mumbwa site which shares similar technologies to South African Wilton and dates to the same later stone age period 8 000 4 000 years ago 39 Stone technology from Luano Spring consists of mostly quartz materials and like South Africa reflects a shift towards decreased size and emphasis on formal tools However this site is unique because of the frequency of Denticulate tools 38 The prominence of these types of tools likely reflects regional adaptations to different environments and access to raw materials like quartz Due to this variation some have termed these assemblages in Zambia as Nachikufan 40 Others have further noted that not all Nachikufan assemblages in Zambia reflect a similar Wilton like appearance and thus question their role in the later stone age industries 41 The distinction between Wilton and Nachikufan is defined by the absence of large scrapers which had defined the previous Oakhurst technologies 42 Similar sites in Zambia like that of Gwisho contained both inorganic stone and organic tools 43 Stone technology at Gwisho was similarly made on quartz raw materials 42 The stone flakes from Gwisho were irregular and accompanied by Wilton like formal tools such as small scrapers and backed tools but this site also contained denticulate tools though not as many as was recovered from Luano Spring 42 A comparison between Gwisho and Mumbwa shows that Gwisho varied by the frequency of heavy stone tools defined as tools used for woodworking and Burins showing local variations in Zambia assemblages 39 42 However like South Africa the similarity in decreased stone technology emphasis on small scrapers and backed tools suggests Wilton technology in Zambia appears homogenous across space during the later stone age citation needed Non stone technology edit Archaeological sites in Zimbabwe and Zambia provide evidence of worked bone and wooden implements providing an insight into the organic tools associated with Wilton technology 44 45 Specifically the site of Pomongwe in Zimbabwe as well as Gwisho and Amadzimba cave in Zambia provide an assortment of bone and wooden technologies Pomongwe cave in Zimbabwe has preserved several wooden and bone tools dating around 2 000 years ago and assigned as a Wilton assemblage 46 Two large and four small wooden projectile points and an element shaped like a hook were recovered from Pomongwe in association with notched bone shards which are likely the result of scraping motions 47 Cook suggests that the wooden tools may have been used as digging sticks to acquire food resources whereas the hook shaped element may have been used as an animal trap 46 There was one cylindrical bone element that was hollowed out and may have been used as a flute or smoking pipe Together these biological tools allow archaeologists to infer the hunting and social behaviors of foragers associated with Wilton technologies Furthermore Cook contrasts the similarity of these biological tools with those found in South Africa and Zambia arguing that Wilton technologies are similarly designed across southern Africa citation needed Gwisho hot springs in Zambia are broken up into three discrete sites Gwisho A B and C The Gwisho sites in Zambia contain several crushed bone and elephant ivory that was likely used for bone marrow as well as evidence for use wear suggesting these objects fall under the category of technology 48 Examples of bone tools found at Gwisho include points awls and needles These types of tools were also encountered at the Amadzimba Cave in Southern Rhodesia 49 46 though Fagan and Van Noten argue that the bone technology at Gwisho is not as advanced as those recovered from Southern Rhodesia 48 Other sites in Zambia like Mumbwa have not yielded any evidence for bone tools 48 50 This variation could be the result of clear differences in technologies that foragers used at these sites or taphonomic biases That is since biological materials rarely survive in the archaeological record sites that lack evidence of biological tools may simply reflect instances with poor preservation instead of technological changes citation needed Wooden fragments found at Gwisho are another form of technological strategy that implies the importance of wood as tools at these sites 45 48 Many wooden tools at Gwisho Springs are fragmented and unidentifiable but each one shows signs of chopping smoothing and cutting implying the intentional working of these wooden implements 48 Fagan and Von Noten identify several types of wooden tools at the Gwisho sites that include Pointed implements digging sticks club shaped objects and an array of smoothed fragments They interpret the implements as evidence for pestles knives arrow shafts and armaments 48 Similar types of wooden fragments were recovered from the Pomongwe site in Zimbabwe 46 Since these wooden tools are associated with Wilton like stone technology this relationship provides evidence of the importance that biological tools played in communities that made Wilton like stone tools Biological tools do not preserve in every archaeological context and thus provide one explanation for why other sites associated with Wilton do not exhibit evidence of biological tools citation needed Cultural behavior editArchaeologists like Goodwin and Lowe first used the term Wilton to describe a distinct stone tool assemblage with the implication that these assemblages were associated with unique cultural behaviors of foraging communities 51 Though some archaeologists show that Wilton sites dating between 8 000 and 4 000 years ago share similar stone and non stone technology contrasts between sites like Gwisho Spring Pomongwe Mumbwa Wilton rock shelter and Rose Cottage Cave show variability in the tools that foragers used during the middle Holocene 52 47 53 54 55 56 Changes in frequency and types of tools present reflects the variability at each of these sites 57 These changes might be a result of different environmental adaptations however Wilton like assemblages still reflect homogeneous shifts from large to small tools and thus may suggest a changes in behavioral adaptation that may include different diets social networks and population changes 58 16 37 Diet edit Archaeologists use a variety of methods to understand the past diets of forager communities including the presence of faunal remains and isotope data Diets of many Wilton sites have been interpreted through the presence of faunal material while few sites along the Southern coast of South Africa interpret diets through isotopic data Wilton sites located in the cape of South Africa are generally associated with the collection of small animals differentiating the preceding phase in which Oakhurst assemblages are correlated with large animals 57 59 60 Plant use also appeared to increase during Wilton occupations until 2 000 years ago 61 62 These trends of plant and animal use are also reflected in the South African interior at sites like Rose Cottage Cave 53 At this inland site an analysis of the stone tools shows that plant processing was a common task that foragers practiced Preserved starch grains suggest that people at Rose Cottage Cave likely harvested underground plants including bulbs and tubers 53 Specific animals that were consumed at this site include antelope vlei rat warthog and springbok among many more species nbsp An antelope left and for a size comparison deer right browsing in Africa Northern Wilton assemblages also contain evidence for increased hunting of small game and heavy plant processing In the Lunsemfwa basin along the Lunsemfwa River in Zambia the most dominant species present are bovids 63 Among the list of bovids represented here past peoples consumed zebra tortoise aardvark and small browsing antelope In this region of Zambia these fauna represent a similar environment that exists in Zambia today 63 Musonda and Gutin similarly show that the presence of fauna at the Mufulwe rock shelter in Zambia suggests periods of increased aridity that would have forced foraging communities to seasonally migrate between different sites on the landscape 64 This contrasts South African interior sites where the environment was less stable yet both sites show similar animal and plant use patterns among the inhabitants 65 nbsp Entrance to Nelson Bay Cave showing the vicinity to the ocean Even along the southern coast of South Africa despite the vicinity to the ocean the faunal assemblages reflect terrestrial hunting strategies but with a slight increase in marine resources Sites like Nelson Bay Cave show continued dependence on small game animals from 9 000 5 000 years ago 66 However after 5 000 years ago diets at Nelson Bay Cave and other coastal sites reflect an increased dependence on marine resources At Nelson bay cave 3 300 years ago marine resources like fish and seals became a staple food source for these people 67 The site of Matjes River which lies 14km along the shore from Nelson Bay Cave shows a similar trend away from terrestrial foods but instead of foraging marine resources isotopic and archaeological data suggest the inhabitants of Matjes River had a mixed diet 67 This mixed diet included terrestrial bovids with an increased emphasis on the collection marine of foods like shellfish 67 Contrasting these two examples skeletal remains from the inland site of Witcher s Cave show an exclusive terrestrial diet 67 So it is clear that where other Wilton sites in South Africa and Zambia show a continued dependence on small bovids and plant processing through the middle Holocene forager communities in the southernmost portion of South Africa along coastal environments reflect a variety of behaviors that diverge from the classic Wilton generalization after 4 000 years ago citation needed Material exchange edit nbsp Image of the coastal region Cape Town South Africa with a fynbos dominated environment Since archaeologists recognize Wilton as a shared system of cultural behaviors there is an implied relationship Wilton communities have with one another that span from southernmost South Africa to Zambia However archaeological evidence suggest inter regional and intra regional variation For instance the way in which past peoples made arrowheads and backed stone tools suggests different methods of production and thus limited communication between foraging communities associated with Wilton technology 68 Inter regional variability can be seen between the Wilton rock shelter and sites like Zambia At Wilton there are few backed tools something that today defines Wilton assemblages but in contrast sites in Zambia exhibit a high number of backed tools 69 In contrast some archaeologists suggest that the reduction in stone tool size is a practice that spread through large social networks 37 However there is much more variety in the types of non tool stone material remains including the use of shell beads and ochre Shell beads are interpreted as materials that can be traded and represent group identities on the landscape 70 On the other hand ocher has functional uses such as ultraviolet protection and mastic for binding stone tools to spear like weaponry however many scholars have also argued that ochre was used to symbolize group identities like shell beads 71 72 Ochre was also recovered from burials that date to Wilton period suggesting ceremonial importance for ochre 73 Though stone technology may have been exchanged on the southern African landscape the presence of non tool stone materials during the mid Holocene does suggest a diverse array of behaviors citation needed nbsp Image of Drakensberg Mountains South Africa Among inter regional variations in technology there exist intra regional burial practices primarily located along coastal environments that vary widely in the material culture that accompanies burials 70 Hall and Binneman show increased emphasis in burial practices and material production from two South African sites Klasies River Caves and Welgeluk Shelter 74 These authors show an increase in shell bead production that accompanies burials and suggest that this reflects a stressed environment and increased emphasis on group identity 74 These authors posit that such environments may drive increased social exchange between forager communities and further suggest this may indicate semi permanent settlements 70 However differences in shell materials and non stone technology between Nelson Bay Cave and Matjes River in South Africa suggest limited material exchange 75 76 In this latter case archaeologists interpret not an increase in exchange networks but evidence for exclusive behaviors associated with territorial defense 77 nbsp Ostrich eggshell beads showing size differences Scale bar 5 mm a Nelson Bay Cave South Africa b Wonderwerk Cave South Africa c Magubike Rockshelter Tanzania d Daumboy 3 Rockshelter Tanzania To exemplify regional differences in Wilton communities more recent studies of the Drakensberg montane region show large networks of forager communities Stewart and colleagues use isotopes of strontium to show that ostrich eggshells traveled hundreds of kilometers into this region 8 000 years ago 78 This pattern contrasts that seen along the coastal regions where foragers are grounding themselves to specific parts of the landscape of South Africa suggesting regional differences in mobility and potential for material exchange For 50 000 years forager communities in Africa have used ostrich eggshell beads 79 Archaeologists believe that the increase in bead production links prehistoric cultures to an increased need to symbolize group identities 70 80 The extensive movement of shells inland and the symbolic potential of these objects suggests highly mobile groups of people during the first period of time that we see Wilton like technology 8 000 years ago These networks once used to span from East to South Africa but appear to be disconnected after the Last Glacial Maximum For instance the stylistic design of eggshell beads remained similar between southern and eastern Africa until 33 000 years ago forming an inter regional network of foraging communities By 19 000 years ago the design of these beads varied and by the middle Holocene eastern and southern African communities appeared separated from one another 81 The spatial extent of social exchange was likely limited by prehistoric networks The isolation of southern Africa may reflect the reason why Wilton like technologies only extend as far north as Zimbabwe 82 Lastly the use of Ochre during this period has been interpreted as both a symbolic and functional material 83 84 Ochre is a mineral pigment that past foraging communities have used since the Middle Stone Age for burials symbolism and hafting stone tools 85 86 During the Holocene there is an increased use of ochre with evidence that ochre was heavily used in burials 73 87 and hafting stone technology 88 Given that Wilton technology is associated with an increase in backed tools it is likely that ochre was used for hafting these implements to create weapons However sites in southern Namaqualand South Africa exhibit an absence of preserved ochre on the backed tools in Holocene assemblages 89 This absence may suggest that ochre was used for other functional purposes during the Holocene and not exclusively for hafting stone tools An additional use of ochre may be as an insect repellent and protection of UV light 90 By contrast ochre may have been used as a social adaptation For instance the symbolic use of ochre could be related to signaling group identity and artistic expressions in the form of rock art 91 Most middle Holocene assemblages spanning from the coastal regions to inland montane environments do contain evidence that ochre was heavily used 92 87 However the vast majority of archaeological assemblages in South Africa do not provide adequate context to directly observe the use of ochre as symbolic material Archaeologists use ethnographic data to interpret how prehistoric populations may have used ochre and to infer the magnitude of its cultural significance 93 Demographics edit One implication of small standard stone tools that Wilton represents is related to the movement of peoples through southern Africa and hence the interaction of different forager populations 16 37 Goodwin and Lowe 19 initially considered Wilton to be a culture that migrated into South Africa from a more northern region but Deacon showed that Wilton was likely an adopted feature of already existing technologies and was not an effect of a pioneering culture Building on this hypothesis Judith Sealy posits that Wilton technology was developed under low populations that occurred due to increased aridity throughout much of South Africa during the middle Holocene 16 Current as of hypotheses suggest that the size of human populations is directly linked to changes in climate and hence result in technological changes 16 Environmental data shows favorable climate and increased site density from 12 000 8 000 years ago corresponding to Oakhurst technology which consists of large informal tools 7 Favorable climate fosters highly productive ecosystems and thus adequate amount of resources to support large group sizes Climate and demographics during this time implies large forager populations 94 95 However during the middle Holocene temperatures increased forming arid regions that became unsuitable for forager populations in South Africa 96 97 Archaeological sites in South Africa show a discontinuous spatial distribution of Wilton technology and thus suggests sparse populations 98 The use and emphasis on small formal stools from 8 000 4 000 years ago can be explained as a strategy for coping with poor environmental conditions 99 100 Yet the uniform transition from large to small tools may suggest that there were extended networks between foraging communities in South Africa that extended north into portions of Zambia and Zimbabwe 16 This evidence provides support that ameliorated climate and sparse but well connected foraging populations may be a component to the development of Wilton technology citation needed Significance to modern African communities editKhoisan sometimes just referred to as San is the name for the Indigenous communities of South Africa and to many archaeologists represents direct cultural descendants from later Stone Age foragers 101 102 At an early account for the site of Mumbwa in Zambia Protsch argued that Khoisan peoples emerged in central Africa around 20 000 years ago 103 Other accounts by d Errico and colleagues use evidence from Border Cave to suggest a much earlier emergence of Khoisan communities dating to 40 000 years ago 101 These case studies argue that the stone and non stone tools of early foraging communities in central and southern Africa reflect similar tools used by Khoisan today but other archaeologists argue on the basis of scientific inference that the similarity of technology does not imply cultural continuity over 40 000 years 104 These contrasting views reflect two main components of the Kalahari debate in which the question of cultural continuity between late Stone Age peoples and modern Indigenous communities comes under scrutiny On one end the cultural identities of African communities represent a direct link to prehistoric populations and can help to describe prehistoric behaviors On the other end of this debate cultural contact and transformation have been ongoing for thousands of years and so modern communities do not reflect the exact cultural behaviors or identities of prehistoric populations During the Holocene the question becomes whether Wilton technology reflects the foundation for modern Indigenous communities in South Africa today Wilton is the last colloquially recognized technological industry before the final late Stone Age that post dates 4 000 years 105 After 4 000 years ago the technologies that foragers use become less standardized and more variable across Southern Africa 106 Increased variability in the types of tools people made may reflect human choices to specialize to specific environments and may signal a disconnect from exchange networks that some posit existed from 8 000 4 000 years 106 At 2 000 years ago pastoral communities entered South Africa from northern regions and began to interact with foraging communities 107 108 Contact between foraging and pastoral communities likely impacted the types of tools present and cultural behaviors Some scholars show that not all foraging communities conformed to pastoral lifeways but instead adapted to the presence of pastoralists by specializing in tools designed for a new economy 109 A change in economy after 2 000 years may not have changed cultural practices of foragers during this time but the introduction of this economy did change the kinds of stone technology 109 Therefore this brings up an issue with connecting present and past cultural identities based solely on technology During European contact other scholars posit that this interaction created a kind of Creolization 110 Creolization refers to the expression of new cultural traits as an effect of the contact between two unique cultures Evidence for creolization in the historic past raises questions about whether cultural identities remained intact up until the present day If cultural identities are intact then archaeologists can use modern Indigenous communities to interpret Holocene behaviors but the creolization may suggest a shift in cultural behaviors This raises an additional question about what the difference between stone tools and cultural behaviors In the instance where foragers in South Africa increased the production of stone scrapers as a result of changing economies with pastoral communities 109 does this reflect a change in cultural behavior or material production Furthermore since tools may be driven by changes in the economy and not necessarily cultural behaviors this makes it difficult to argue that cultural identities are directly linked to stone technology This brings us back to the concerns that stone industries like Wilton overgeneralize cultural behaviors and may not accurately reflect groups identities across southern Africa References edit a b c Lombard Marlize Wadley Lyn Deacon Janette Wurz Sarah Parsons Isabelle Mohapi Moleboheng Swart Joane Mitchell Peter 2012 06 01 South African and Lesotho Stone age sequence updated I South African Archaeological Bulletin 67 195 123 144 a b c d e f g h i j k l m Deacon J 1972 Wilton An Assessment after Fifty Years The South African Archaeological Bulletin 27 105 106 10 48 doi 10 2307 3888813 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888813 a b c Hewitt J 1921 On several implements and ornaments from Strandloper sites in the Eastern Province S Afr J Sci 18 454 467 a b c d e f g Fagan Brian M van Noten Francis L Vynckier J R 1966 Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot springs Lochinvar Zambia Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32 246 261 doi 10 1017 S0079497X00014407 ISSN 2050 2729 S2CID 129406647 a b c d e Gabel Creighton 1965 Stone age hunters of the Kafue the Gwisho A site Boston University African Studies Center Fagan Brian M Phillipson D W 1965 Sebanzi The Iron Age Sequence at Lochinvar and the Tonga The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 95 2 253 294 doi 10 2307 2844428 ISSN 0307 3114 JSTOR 2844428 a b c d Lombard Marlize Bradfield Justin Caruana Matthew Makhubela Tebogo Dusseldorp Gerrit Kramers Jan Wurz Sarah 2022 The Southern African Stone Age Sequence Updated II South African Bulletin 77 217 172 212 Binneman JNF 2007 Archaeological research along the South Eastern Cape coast part 2 caves and shelters Kabeljous River Shelter 1 and associated stone tool industries Southern African Field Archaeology 15 16 57 74 a b c d e Phillipson D W 1970 The Prehistoric Sequence at Nakapapula Rockshelter Zambia Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35 172 202 doi 10 1017 S0079497X0001344X ISSN 2050 2729 S2CID 129982824 a b Wadley Lyn 1986 Segments of Time A Mid Holocene Wilton Site in the Transvaal The South African Archaeological Bulletin 41 144 54 62 doi 10 2307 3888190 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888190 Kaplan Jonathan Mitchell Peter 2012 The archaeology of the Lesotho Highlands water project phases IA and IB Southern African Humanities 24 1 1 32 Mitchell P J 1990 Preliminary Report on the Later Stone Age Sequence from Tloutle Rock Shelter Western Lesotho The South African Archaeological Bulletin 45 152 100 105 doi 10 2307 3887968 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887968 a b Gutin Jo Ann Musonda Francis B 1985 Faunal Remains from Mufulwe Rock Shelter Zambia and Their Implications The South African Archaeological Bulletin 40 141 11 16 doi 10 2307 3887990 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887990 a b Musonda Francis B 1984 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Microlithic Industries from the Lunsemfwa Basin Zambia The South African Archaeological Bulletin 39 139 24 36 doi 10 2307 3888592 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888592 Curtin Philip Feierman Steven Thompson Leonard Vansina Jan African History From Earliest Times to Independence print Second ed Pearson p 2 a b c d e f g Sealy Judith 2016 Jones Sacha C Stewart Brian A eds Cultural Change Demography and the Archaeology of the Last 100 kyr in Southern Africa Africa from MIS 6 2 Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Dordrecht Springer Netherlands pp 65 75 doi 10 1007 978 94 017 7520 5 4 ISBN 978 94 017 7520 5 retrieved 2023 03 07 a b Schrire C 1962 Oakhurst A Re Examination and Vindication The South African Archaeological Bulletin 17 67 181 195 doi 10 2307 3887544 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887544 a b c d e Cooke C K 1980 Wooden and Bone Artefacts Pomongwe Cave Matobo District Zimbabwe The South African Archaeological Bulletin 35 131 25 29 doi 10 2307 3888720 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888720 a b c d Goodwin Astley Lowe Clarence 1929 The stone age cultures of South Africa AMS Press Shea John J 2014 11 06 Sink the Mousterian Named stone tool industries NASTIES as obstacles to investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the Later Middle Paleolithic Levant Quaternary International Lithics of the Late Middle Palaeolithic Post MIS 5 technological variability and its implications 350 169 179 Bibcode 2014QuInt 350 169S doi 10 1016 j quaint 2014 01 024 ISSN 1040 6182 Sampson C Garth 1991 Atlas of Stone Age settlement in the central and upper Seacow Valley Borchardt Library La Trobe University ISBN 0 947014 06 3 OCLC 954141595 Singer R Inskeep R R Louw J T 1961 Prehistory of the Matjes River Rock Shelter The South African Archaeological Bulletin 16 61 29 doi 10 2307 3887423 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887423 Gallagher James P 1977 01 01 Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia Implications for Archaeology Journal of Field Archaeology 4 4 407 414 doi 10 1179 009346977791490131 ISSN 0093 4690 Longo Laura Skakun Natalia Saracino Massimo Dalla Riva Martina eds 2008 Prehistoric Technology 40 years later Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy Proceedings of the International Congress Verona Italy 20 23 April 2005 Ann Arbor MI University of Michigan Press doi 10 30861 9781407302713 ISBN 978 1 4073 0271 3 Hiscock Peter Attenbrow Val 1998 Early Holocene backed artefacts from Australia Archaeology in Oceania 33 2 49 62 doi 10 1002 j 1834 4453 1998 tb00404 x hdl 1885 41382 Robertson Gail Attenbrow Val Hiscock Peter 2009 Multiple uses for Australian backed artefacts Antiquity 83 320 296 308 doi 10 1017 S0003598X00098446 ISSN 0003 598X S2CID 162566863 a b c Wadley Lyn 2000 The Wilton and Pre Ceramic Post Classic Wilton Industries at Rose Cottage Cave and Their Context in the South African Sequence The South African Archaeological Bulletin 55 172 90 106 doi 10 2307 3888959 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888959 Deacon Janette 1974 Patterning in the Radiocarbon Dates for the Wilton Smithfield Complex in Southern Africa The South African Archaeological Bulletin 29 113 114 3 18 doi 10 2307 3887932 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887932 Wurz Sarah 2019 Knight Jasper Rogerson Christian M eds Human Evolution Archaeology and the South African Stone Age Landscape During the Last 100 000 Years The Geography of South Africa Contemporary Changes and New Directions World Regional Geography Book Series Cham Springer International Publishing pp 125 132 doi 10 1007 978 3 319 94974 1 13 ISBN 978 3 319 94974 1 S2CID 134679297 retrieved 2023 03 09 Bollig Michael Schnegg Michael Wotzka Hans Peter 2013 07 01 Pastoralism in Africa Past Present and Future Berghahn Books ISBN 978 0 85745 909 1 a b c Deacon J 1972 Wilton An Assessment after Fifty Years The South African Archaeological Bulletin 27 105 106 10 48 doi 10 2307 3888813 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888813 a b Goodwin Astley Lowe Clarence 1929 The stone age cultures of South Africa AMS Press Deacon Janette 1974 Patterning in the Radiocarbon Dates for the Wilton Smithfield Complex in Southern Africa The South African Archaeological Bulletin 29 113 114 3 18 doi 10 2307 3887932 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887932 Hiscock Peter Attenbrow Val 1998 Early Holocene backed artefacts from Australia Archaeology in Oceania 33 2 49 62 doi 10 1002 j 1834 4453 1998 tb00404 x hdl 1885 41382 Pargeter Justin Chen Caleb Buchanan Briggs Fisch Michael Bebber Michelle Eren Metin I 2022 10 01 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 ISSN 2352 409X S2CID 252498980 Goldstein Steven T Shaffer Christopher M 2017 12 01 Experimental and archaeological investigations of backed microlith function among Mid to Late Holocene herders in southwestern Kenya Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9 8 1767 1788 doi 10 1007 s12520 016 0329 9 ISSN 1866 9565 S2CID 130502857 a b c d Wadley Lyn 1989 Legacies from the Later Stone Age Goodwin Series 6 42 53 doi 10 2307 3858131 ISSN 0304 3460 JSTOR 3858131 a b Bisson Michael S 1990 12 01 Lithic reduction sequences as an aid to the analysis of Late Stone Age quartz assemblages from the Luano Spring Chingola Zambia African Archaeological Review 8 1 103 138 doi 10 1007 BF01116873 ISSN 1572 9842 S2CID 128881756 a b Clark J Desmond Further excavations 1939 at the Mumbwa caves Northern Rhodesia Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 29 no 3 1942 133 201 Musonda F B 1985 Aspects of the Prehistoryof the Lunsemfwa Drainage Basin Zambia during the last 20 O00years Ph D thesis University of California Berkeley Phillipson D W 1976 01 01 The Early Iron Age in Eastern and Southern Africa A Critical Re appraisal Azania Archaeological Research in Africa 11 1 1 23 doi 10 1080 00672707609511229 ISSN 0067 270X a b c d Fagan Brian M and Francis L Van Noten The hunter gatherers of Gwisho No 74 Musee royal de l Afrique centralo 1971 Fagan Brian M Noten Francis L van Vynckier J R 1966 Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot springs Lochinvar Zambia Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32 246 261 doi 10 1017 S0079497X00014407 ISSN 2050 2729 S2CID 129406647 Gabel Creighton 1965 Stone age hunters of the Kafue the Gwisho A site Boston University African Studies Center a b Fagan Brian M van Noten Francis L Vynckier J R 1966 Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot springs Lochinvar Zambia Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32 246 261 doi 10 1017 S0079497X00014407 ISSN 2050 2729 S2CID 129406647 a b c d Cooke C K 1980 Wooden and Bone Artefacts Pomongwe Cave Matobo District Zimbabwe The South African Archaeological Bulletin 35 131 25 29 doi 10 2307 3888720 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888720 a b Cooke C K 1980 Wooden and Bone Artefacts Pomongwe Cave Matobo District Zimbabwe The South African Archaeological Bulletin 35 131 25 29 doi 10 2307 3888720 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888720 a b c d e f Fagan Brian M and Francis L Van Noten The hunter gatherers of Gwisho No 74 Musee royal de l Afrique centralo 1971 Cooke C K and K R Robinson Excavations at Amadzimba Cave located in the Matopo Hills Southern Rhodesia Occasional Papers of the National Museum of Southern Rhodesia 19 1954 699 728 Clark J Desmond Further excavations 1939 at the Mumbwa caves Northern Rhodesia Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 29 no 3 1942 133 201 Goodwin Astley Lowe Clarence 1929 The stone age cultures of South Africa AMS Press Fagan Brian M and Francis L Van Noten The hunter gatherers of Gwisho No 74 Musee royal de l Afrique centralo 1971 a b c Wadley Lyn 2000 The Wilton and Pre Ceramic Post Classic Wilton Industries at Rose Cottage Cave and Their Context in the South African Sequence The South African Archaeological Bulletin 55 172 90 106 doi 10 2307 3888959 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888959 Clark J Desmond Further excavations 1939 at the Mumbwa caves Northern Rhodesia Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 29 no 3 1942 133 201 Fagan Brian M van Noten Francis L Vynckier J R 1966 Wooden Implements from Late Stone Age Sites at Gwisho Hot springs Lochinvar Zambia Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32 246 261 doi 10 1017 S0079497X00014407 ISSN 2050 2729 S2CID 129406647 Hewitt J 1921 On several implements and ornaments from Strandloper sites in the Eastern Province S Afr J Sci 18 454 467 a b Deacon J 1972 Wilton An Assessment after Fifty Years The South African Archaeological Bulletin 27 105 106 10 48 doi 10 2307 3888813 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888813 Deacon Janette 1984 The Later Stone Age of Southernmost Africa BAR Publishing ISBN 978 1 4073 3681 7 Discamps Emmanuel Henshilwood Christopher S van Niekerk Karen L 2020 Large mammal exploitation during the c 14 11 ka Oakhurst techno complex at Klipdrift Cave South Africa South African Journal of Science 116 5 6 1 7 doi 10 17159 sajs 2020 6754 hdl 11250 2760810 ISSN 0038 2353 S2CID 219460952 Brain C K 1969 Faunal Remains from the Bushman Rock Shelter Eastern Transvaal The South African Archaeological Bulletin 24 94 52 55 doi 10 2307 3887661 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887661 Deacon Janette 1974 Patterning in the Radiocarbon Dates for the Wilton Smithfield Complex in Southern Africa The South African Archaeological Bulletin 29 113 114 3 18 doi 10 2307 3887932 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887932 Ecker Michaela Brink James Horwitz Liora Kolska Scott Louis Lee Thorp Julia A 2018 01 15 A 12 000 year record of changes in herbivore niche separation and palaeoclimate Wonderwerk Cave South Africa Quaternary Science Reviews 180 132 144 Bibcode 2018QSRv 180 132E doi 10 1016 j quascirev 2017 11 025 ISSN 0277 3791 S2CID 135081746 a b Musonda Francis B 1984 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Microlithic Industries from the Lunsemfwa Basin Zambia The South African Archaeological Bulletin 39 139 24 36 doi 10 2307 3888592 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888592 Gutin Jo Ann Musonda Francis B 1985 Faunal Remains from Mufulwe Rock Shelter Zambia and Their Implications The South African Archaeological Bulletin 40 141 11 16 doi 10 2307 3887990 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3887990 Chase Brian M Boom Arnoud Carr Andrew S Meadows Michael E Reimer Paula J 2013 Holocene climate change in southernmost South Africa rock hyrax middens record shifts in the southern westerlies Quaternary Science Reviews 82 199 205 Bibcode 2013QSRv 82 199C doi 10 1016 j quascirev 2013 10 018 ISSN 0277 3791 Klein Richard G 1972 The Late Quaternary Mammalian Fauna of Nelson Bay Cave Cape Province South Africa Its Implications for Megafaunal Extinctions and Environmental and Cultural Change Quaternary Research 2 02 135 142 Bibcode 1972QuRes 2 135K doi 10 1016 0033 5894 72 90034 8 ISSN 0033 5894 S2CID 129779582 a b c d Sealy Judith 2006 Diet mobility and settlement pattern among Holocene Hunter Gatherers in southernmost Africa Current Anthropology 47 4 569 595 doi 10 1086 504163 S2CID 142284403 Wadley Lyn 2000 The Wilton and Pre Ceramic Post Classic Wilton Industries at Rose Cottage Cave and Their Context in the South African Sequence The South African Archaeological Bulletin 55 172 90 106 doi 10 2307 3888959 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888959 Deacon J 1972 Wilton An Assessment after Fifty Years The South African Archaeological Bulletin 27 105 106 10 48 doi 10 2307 3888813 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888813 a b c d Henshilwood Christopher d Errico Francesco Vanhaeren Marian van Niekerk Karen Jacobs Zenobia 2004 04 16 Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa Science 304 5669 404 doi 10 1126 science 1095905 ISSN 0036 8075 PMID 15087540 S2CID 32356688 Wadley Lyn 2015 04 03 Those marvellous millennia the Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa Azania Archaeological Research in Africa 50 2 155 226 doi 10 1080 0067270x 2015 1039236 ISSN 0067 270X S2CID 162432908 Lombard Marlize 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 no 4 2007 406 419 a b Dewar Genevieve 2010 Late Holocene Burial Cluster at Diaz Street Midden Saldanha Bay Western Cape South Africa The South African Archaeological Bulletin 65 191 26 34 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 40985508 a b Hall Simon Binneman Johan 1987 Later Stone Age Burial Variability in the Cape A Social Interpretation The South African Archaeological Bulletin 42 146 140 152 doi 10 2307 3888740 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888740 Ludwig Ben A comparison of hunter gatherer material culture from Matjes River Rock Shelter and Nelson Bay Cave Thesis University of Cape Town Faculty of Science Department of Archaeology 2005 http hdl handle net 11427 8732 Sealy Judith 2006 Diet mobility and settlement pattern among Holocene Hunter Gatherers in southernmost Africa Current Anthropology 47 4 569 595 doi 10 1086 504163 S2CID 142284403 Ludwig Ben 2005 A comparison of hunter gatherer material culture from Matjes River Rock Shelter and Nelson Bay Cave Thesis University of Cape Town Master Thesis Stewart Brian A Zhao Yuchao Mitchell Peter J Dewar Genevieve Gleason James D Blum Joel D 2020 03 24 Ostrich eggshell bead strontium isotopes reveal persistent macroscale social networking across late Quaternary southern Africa Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 12 6453 6462 Bibcode 2020PNAS 117 6453S doi 10 1073 pnas 1921037117 ISSN 0027 8424 PMC 7104358 PMID 32152113 Mcbrearty Sally Brooks Alison S 2000 11 01 The revolution that wasn t a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior Journal of Human Evolution 39 5 453 563 doi 10 1006 jhev 2000 0435 ISSN 0047 2484 PMID 11102266 d Errico Francesco Henshilwood Christopher Vanhaeren Marian van Niekerk Karen 2005 01 01 Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age Journal of Human Evolution 48 1 3 24 doi 10 1016 j jhevol 2004 09 002 ISSN 0047 2484 PMID 15656934 Miller Jennifer M Wang Yiming V 2022 Ostrich eggshell beads reveal 50 000 year old social network in Africa Nature 601 7892 234 239 Bibcode 2022Natur 601 234M doi 10 1038 s41586 021 04227 2 ISSN 1476 4687 PMC 8755535 PMID 34931044 Cooke C K 1980 Wooden and Bone Artefacts Pomongwe Cave Matobo District Zimbabwe The South African Archaeological Bulletin 35 131 25 29 doi 10 2307 3888720 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888720 Lombard Marlize 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 Wadley Lyn Where have all the dead men gone Stone Age burial practices in South Africa Our gendered past archaeological studies of gender in southern Africa 107 1997 133 Lombard Marlize 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 no 4 2007 406 419 Deacon H J 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 a b Hall Simon 2000 Burial and Sequence in the Later Stone Age of the Eastern Cape Province South Africa The South African Archaeological Bulletin 55 172 137 146 doi 10 2307 3888962 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 3888962 Kaplan Jonathan The Umhlatuzana rock shelter sequence 100 000 years of Stone Age history Southern African Humanities 2 no 11 1990 1 94 Orton Jayson Richard G Klein Alex Mackay Steve Schwortz and Teresa E Steele Two Holocene rock shelter deposits from the Knersvlakte southern Namaqualand South Africa Southern African Humanities 23 no 1 2011 109 150 Rifkin Riaan F 2015 Ethnographic and Experimental Perspectives on the Efficacy of Ochre As a Mosquito Repellent The South African Archaeological Bulletin 70 201 64 75 ISSN 0038 1969 JSTOR 24643609 Witelson David M 2022 06 01 The Many Meanings of Integration Some Thoughts on Relating Rock Art and Excavated Archaeology in South Africa African Archaeological Review 39 2 221 240 doi 10 1007 s10437 022 09478 6 ISSN 1572 9842 S2CID 254193401 Mitchell Peter J Filling a gap the early and middle Holocene assemblages from new excavations at Sehonghong Rock Shelter Lesotho Southern African Field Archaeology 5 no 1 1996 17 27 Orton Jayson 2008 07 01 Later Stone Age ostrich eggshell bead manufacture in the Northern Cape South Africa Journal of Archaeological Science 35 7 1765 1775 Bibcode 2008JArSc 35 1765O doi 10 1016 j jas 2007 11 014 ISSN 0305 4403 Esteban Irene Bamford Marion K House Alisoun Miller Charlotte S Neumann Frank H Schefuss Enno Pargeter Justin Cawthra Hayley C Fisher Erich C 2020 12 15 Coastal palaeoenvironments and hunter gatherer plant use at Waterfall Bluff rock shelter in Mpondoland South Africa from MIS 3 to the Early Holocene Quaternary Science Reviews 250 106664 Bibcode 2020QSRv 25006664E doi 10 1016 j quascirev 2020 106664 ISSN 0277 3791 S2CID 228916156 Scott L Steenkamp M Beaumont P B 1995 01 01 Palaeoenvironmental conditions in South Africa at the pleistocene holocene transition Quaternary Science Reviews 14 9 937 947 Bibcode 1995QSRv 14 937S doi 10 1016 0277 3791 95 00072 0 ISSN 0277 3791 Neumann Frank H Stager J Curt Scott Louis Venter Hendrik J T Weyhenmeyer Constanze 2008 12 01 Holocene vegetation and climate records from Lake Sibaya KwaZulu Natal South Africa Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 152 3 113 128 Bibcode 2008RPaPa 152 113N doi 10 1016 j revpalbo 2008 04 006 ISSN 0034 6667 Chase Brian M Boom Arnoud Carr Andrew S Meadows Michael E Reimer Paula J 2013 12 15 Holocene climate change in southernmost South Africa rock hyrax middens record shifts in the southern westerlies Quaternary Science Reviews 82 199 205 Bibcode 2013QSRv 82 199C doi 10 1016 j quascirev 2013 10 018 ISSN 0277 3791 Sealy Judith 2016 Jones Sacha C Stewart Brian A eds Cultural Change Demography and the Archaeology of the Last 100 kyr in Southern Africa Africa from MIS 6 2 Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Dordrecht Springer Netherlands pp 65 75 doi 10 1007 978 94 017 7520 5 4 ISBN 978 94 017 7520 5 retrieved 2023 03 07 Deacon J 1984 The Later Stone Age of southernmost Africa BAR International Series No 213 Oxford Archaeopress Wadley L 1989 Legacies from the Later Stone Age South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 6 42 53 a b d Errico Francesco Backwell Lucinda Villa Paola Degano Ilaria Lucejko Jeannette J Bamford Marion K Higham Thomas F G Colombini Maria Perla Beaumont Peter B 2012 08 14 Early evidence of San material culture represented by organic artifacts from Border Cave South Africa Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 33 13214 13219 Bibcode 2012PNAS 10913214D doi 10 1073 pnas 1204213109 ISSN 0027 8424 PMC 3421171 PMID 22847420 Morris A G 2002 Isolation and the origin of the khoisan Late pleistocene and early holocene human evolution at the southern end of Africa Human Evolution 17 3 231 240 doi 10 1007 BF02436374 ISSN 1824 310X S2CID 85291675 Protsch R R R 1977 Mumbwa Its absolute chronology and archaeology Zeitschrift fur Morphologie und Anthropologie 68 1 1 7 doi 10 1127 zma 68 1977 1 ISSN 0044 314X JSTOR 25756291 PMID 595785 S2CID 40773745 Pargeter Justin MacKay Alex Mitchell Peter Shea John Stewart Brian A 2016 Primordialism and the Pleistocene San of southern Africa Antiquity 90 352 1072 1079 doi 10 15184 aqy 2016 100 ISSN 0003 598X S2CID 163277811 Lombard Marlize Bradfield Justin Caruana Matthew Makhubela Tebogo Dusseldorp Gerrit Kramers Jan Wurz Sarah 2022 The Southern African Stone Age Sequence Updated II South African Bulletin 77 217 172 212 a b Sealy Judith 2016 Jones Sacha C Stewart Brian A eds Cultural Change Demography and the Archaeology of the Last 100 kyr in Southern Africa Africa from MIS 6 2 Population Dynamics and Paleoenvironments Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Dordrecht Springer Netherlands pp 65 75 doi 10 1007 978 94 017 7520 5 4 ISBN 978 94 017 7520 5 retrieved 2023 03 07 Sealy Judith Yates Royden 1994 The chronology of the introduction of pastoralism to the Cape South Africa Antiquity 68 258 58 67 doi 10 1017 S0003598X00046196 ISSN 0003 598X S2CID 161249617 Coutu Ashley N Taurozzi Alberto J Mackie Meaghan Jensen Theis Zetner Trolle Collins Matthew J Sealy Judith 2021 Palaeoproteomics confirm earliest domesticated sheep in southern Africa ca 2000 BP Scientific Reports 11 1 6631 Bibcode 2021NatSR 11 6631C doi 10 1038 s41598 021 85756 8 ISSN 2045 2322 PMC 7988125 PMID 33758223 a b c Forssman Tim 2022 An Archaeological Contribution to the Kalahari Debate from the Middle Limpopo Valley Southern Africa Journal of Archaeological Research 30 3 447 495 doi 10 1007 s10814 021 09166 0 ISSN 1573 7756 S2CID 254610375 Challis Sam 2012 Creolisation on the Nineteenth century Frontiers of Southern Africa A Case Study of the AmaTola Bushmen in the Maloti Drakensberg Journal of Southern African Studies 38 2 265 280 doi 10 1080 03057070 2012 666905 ISSN 0305 7070 S2CID 145673044 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Wilton culture amp oldid 1213795096, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.