Heritage Cases

Problem statement The Middle Stone Age (MSA) studies at Southern Africa in the last twenty years have mainly focus in the Howiesons Poort and the Still Bay technocomplexes for the modern human behaviour debate (McBrearty and Brooks, 2000, Henshilwood and Marean, 2003; Conard et al., 2012, Wadley, 2015). The principal interest have been on demonstrating evidences of complex human behavior for these technological traditions, such as symbolic material culture (Henshilwood and Marean, 2003) and complex technologies (Wadley, 2013). As a result, other technological traditions and time periods within the MSA have received very little attention (Conard et al., 2012, Will et al., 2014). We still have a ‘coarse grain’ view of previous technological traditions and subsistence strategies associated to other time periods within the MSA (Wurz, 2013, Will et al., 2014, Wadley, 2015) pre and post Still Bay/Howiesons Poort outside the southern Cape. In this proposal we inquire on the characterization of the MSA in the grassland biome (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006), an area poorly known in Southern Africa for this time period. The main focus in MSA research in the past decades has been in coastal areas. As a result, the cultural evolution and human interaction with the paleoenvironment is practically unknown for the interior areas of Southern Africa in the Late Pleistocene. Marshill site is in a piedmont area (foothill) near the Drakensberg and the Great Escarpment. The location of the site allows inquiring on the mobility strategies of prehistoric groups in the area through different time periods. We would like to test if there was an altitudinal movement between the Drankensberg and the plains; and which roll the piedmont areas (where Marshill rockshelter is located) played in the past (Kelly, 1983). The main clues to test this will be the raw material procurement analyses (together with technological analyses), the faunal analyses, the geoarcheology of the site and the paleobotanical remains (the different uses of the plant resources through time). This type of approach has been tested in other MSA archaeological assemblages such as Sibudu Cave or Pinneacle Point (de la Peña and Wadley, 2017, Wilkins et al. 2017) where the main changes between the Howiesons Poort and the post-Howiesons Poort were argued to be produced by changes in the mobility patterns (this was argued through different lines of evidences, namely the raw material and technology together with the faunal and paleobotanical remains). Besides, we would like to investigate seasonality analyzing the fauna of Marshill and comparing it to other MSA sites in the coastal areas. Most of the theoretical debates around the MSA are either around complex cognition and early modern human behaviour (Wadley, 2013) or about the particularist characterization of industries (Conard et al., 2012; de la Peña, 2015; Conard and Porraz, 2015). With this project we would like to focus in other aspects, relating human behaviour and paleoenvironment through time in an area poorly investigated such as the Stormberg. Literature review and rationale The MSA (300 000-40/20 000 before present (BP)) covers the first appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens and its subsequent cultural development. The original definition of the term MSA was merely typological, so the objects ascribed to it were simply ordered in a diachronic sequence. The MSA is understood now to be far more complex, but still it is generally depicted with a monotonous evolution in terms of lithic technology. Apart from the Howiesons Poort and the Still Bay technocomplexes, the remaining pre and post development is implicitly conceived of as quite uniform in terms of technological variability (Wurz, 2013), which is sometimes translated (tacitly) into lower cognitive capabilities in comparison to the Later Stone Age. Particularly, Pre-Still Bay, Post-Howiesons Poort and Late MSA assemblages are very seldom described (Conard et al., 2012, Will et al., 2014), and their development is defined by a lack of certain typological implements, rather than by their own idiosyncrasy. Moreover, most of the sites excavated so far in this southernmost part of the continent are located along the west coast. Even if the MSA has been considered by some researchers as a period of high cultural variability, the MSA of southern Africa seems to have, from a typological point of view (Wurz, 2013), an apparent uniform development in lithic technology; and not many regional distinctions have been pointed out, the Pietersburg industry (Sampson, 1974; Porrat et al., 2015, 2018) and the Sibudan (Will et al., 2014, Lombard et al., 2012,) being two of them. The ultimate goal of this project is to initiate a renewed discussion on MSA variability in the eastern part of southern Africa in different biomes. In the last three years I have excavated and collaborated in the research of Mwulu’s Cave (PI) (Savanna biome), Olieboomspoort (Savanna biome) and Border Cave (Indian Ocean coastal belt). Exploring the variability of the MSA in the Eastern part of Southern Africa is an important task to accomplish for several reasons: First, the MSA in the interior areas of Southern Africa, particularly in the Savanna and Grassland biome is very poorly known (Porraz et al., 2015, 2018, de la Peña et al., 2018; Val et al., in preparation). Second, as summarized by Wadley (2015), it seems that the oldest MSA sites in southern Africa are located in the interior part of the region. Investigations in the interior could therefore contribute to shed some light on the beginning of the MSA in southern Africa. Third, it is certainly pertinent to attempt to propose a different picture from a somewhat simplistic view according to which the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort techno-complexes would be, respectively, preceded and followed by the monotonous pre-Still Bay and post-Howiesons Poort phases (Will et al. 2014). Fourthly, inquiring into the MSA variability in this area allows us to link it with other Africa regions where the MSA is still poorly described, such as in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mozambique (Bicho et al., 2017). Notably most of the hypotheses put forward in the last decade on the MSA have originated mainly from coastal sites, such as the Cape floral hypothesis (Marean 2010, 2014). A final issue, recently mentioned by Porraz et al. (2018), is to enquire in possible local variations. Are there true techno-cultural regionalization since the early stages of the MSA, as proposed by Clark (1959)? The site of Marshill (Stormberg, Eastern Cape, South Africa) was documented in 2018 during a visit to the Stormberg area of the Eastern Cape, thanks to the courtesy of Mr. Maclennan (Chairman of the Museum of Dordrecht) and Hugh & Charlotte van Heerden (owners of the farm where the site is located). The site is well known in the area. In the surface of the rock shelter MSA and Later Stone Age material was documented (faunal remains and stone tools). Moreover, there are several rock art panels, with fine line paintings, currently under investigation by Mr. David Witelson for his doctoral dissertation. This site was mention in C.P. Van Riet Lowe list of sites, although no archaeological or paleontological work has been performed in this rockshelter. Marshill (potentially) holds a long sequence with Late Pleistocene and Holocene deposits with organic preservation (bone and plant remains). The site offers the opportunity to characterize the MSA and Later Stone Age of the grassland biome in a long stratigraphic sequence associated to the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. The results of this excavation will be compared with other MSA investigations in open air sites in the area (excavation at Simoneu site, Stormberg, funded by CoE and currently under investigation); and with other archaeological sites in the Eastern part of Southern Africa. The site of Marshill The site of Marshill is located in the Stormerg area (geographic coordinates: 31.101966° S, 27.279277° E) (Figure 1). The site is a long rockshelter (Figure 2). The sedimentary deposit seems deep. On the surface abundant stone tools associated to the MSA and the Later Stone Age are found. Besides, rock art paintings can be found along the wall of the rock shelter (Figures 3, 4). Figure 1. Location of Marshill in Southern Africa. Figure 2. Photograph of the Marshill Rock Shelter. Figure 3. Photograph of the upper part of the Rock Shelter. Figure 4. Photograph of Rock Art panel. Proposed research The first aim of the proposed research is to expose two stratigraphic profiles in the areas where the blasting did not affected the sedimentary deposits, by excavating two test trenches in two different areas of the shelter. This will allow me to describe the stratigraphy and understand it in detail, because several micromorphology blocks will be taken for analysis. Moreover, a complete 3D photogrammetry model will be compiled for the purpose of fully documenting the exposed sections. Archaeology The excavation will follow the geological stratigraphic layers defined by a geoarcheologist in the field. All sediment removed will be sieved through 2 mm mesh, and the volumes of deposit removed will be recorded. All the buckets of sediment removed and the sediment samples for the different analyses will be plotted in using a total station theodolite (EDM reference). All the archaeological material and features like hearths will be mapped using an EDM. This will provide a 3-dimensional reference for all the finds. Moreover, 3D plotting will allow me to make a spatial analysis of the densities of finds per layer, and correspond this with features and geological stratigraphic layers. QGIS software will be used for this purpose. Photogrammetry Several photogrammetry models are planned; one to record the whole site and another to document the new profiles unveiled by the excavation. Moreover, photogrammetry will be implement to document all the surface of the layers documented in the excavation. Professional Agisoft software will be used for this purpose. Geoarchaeology Micromorphology samples of all the profiles will be taken. Geoarchaeological analyses help identify primary and secondary site formation processes, and their impact on the archaeological record (Karkanas and Goldberg, 2010). Geoarchaeological investigations should be a priority for initial investigations, and include bulk and micromorphological sampling in order to establish a stratigraphic and contextual framework for the site, deposits or area of interest. At least five micromorphology blocks will be taken in order to study the entire stratigraphic sequence, with a main focus on hiatus and unconformity changes. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), ESR dating and TL dating. Sediment cores will be removed for OSL dating. This dating method is favoured because, based on preliminary typological information during the visit of the site, the industry appears to be a Pre-Still Bay assemblage. It is therefore likely that the chronology is in excess of 30,000 BP. Ideally two OSL cores will be taken per layer. This protocol will allow for independent results from two laboratories. Besides, samples for ESR and TL will be also be taken, as OSL dating must be tested together with other dating methods, as recently assessed in other MSA sequences (such as Mwulu's (Feathers et al., under revision). Phytoliths and pollen Sediment samples of all the layers will be taken for analysis of phytoliths and pollen. Moreover, a full pollen sequence will be taken by the team of Murcia University led by José S. Carrión. Paleomagnetism Samples for paleomagnetism will be also taken. The study of paleomagnetism in archaeological sites serves as a qualitative relative chronometric tool and as a mean of characterization of the deposits. Petrography of rock types A thin section will be cut for all the main rock types identified by eye during excavation. The thin section will be prepared following standard techniques, and examined using a transmitted light microscope at the School of Geosciences, University of Witwatersrand. Petrographic examination will include mineral identification, mineral shape, textures, and distinction between larger clasts and groundmass. The final classification into rock type will be based on petrographic observations. Team and collaborators of this project Paloma de la Peña (Fieldwork direction and lithic analyses). Evolutionary Studies Institute. Wits University, South Africa. Fernando Colino (Fieldwork direction and lithic analyses). Guias de Espeleología y Montaña, Madrid, Spain. María del Carmen Arriaza (Fieldwork and faunal / taphonomy analyses). Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies. Wits University, South Africa. José S. Carrión (Paleobotany). Universidad de Murcia, Spain. David Witelson (Rock Art). Ph. D. candidate in the Rock Art Research Institute. Wits University, South Africa. Joseba Rios Garaizar (Use wear analyses on stone tools). CENIEH, Burgos. Spain. James Feathers (OSL and TL dating). University of Washington. United States. Mary Evans (OSL dating). Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies. Wits University, South Africa. Ben Maclennan. Chairman of the Museum of Dordrecht. Andrew Murray (OSL dating, pending of confirmation). Nordic Laboratory for Luminescence Dating. Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Denmark. Charles French (Geoarcheology, pending of confirmation). McBurney Laboratory. University of Cambridge CENIEH paleomagnetic team (Paleomagnetism, CENIEH, pending of confirmation) Phytoliths (pending of confirmation) DNA sediment analyses (pending of confirmation) Isotopes analyses (pending of confirmation). References Bicho, N., Cascalheira, J., Haws, J., Gonçalves, C. (2018). Middle Stone Age technologies in Mozambique: a preliminary study of the Niassa and Massingir regions. J Afr Archaeol 16(1):60–82. Conard, N.J., Porraz, G., Wadley, L. (2012). What is in a name? Characterising the ’Post-Howieson’s Poort’ at Sibudu. South African Archaeological Bulletin; 1:180–99. Conard, N.J., Porraz, G. (2015). Revising models for the cultural stratigraphic sequence of the Middle Stone Age. S Afr Archaeol Bull 70(201):127–30. de la Peña, P. (2015). Refining our understanding of Howiesons Poort lithic technology: the evidence from Grey rocky layer in Sibudu cave (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa). PloS One 10(12):e0143451. de la Peña, P., Wadley, L. (2017). Technological variability at Sibudu Cave: The end of HowiesonsPoort and reduced mobility strategies after 62,000 years ago. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0185845 Henshilwood, C.S., Marean, C.W. (2003). The origin of modern human behavior: critique of the models and their test implications. Current anthropology, 44(5), pp.627-651. Henshilwood, C.S. (2012). Late Pleistocene techno-traditions in southern Africa: a review of the Still Bay and Howiesons Poort, c. 75–59 ka. J World Prehist 25(3-4):205–237. Karkanas, P. and Goldberg, P. (2010). Site formation processes at Pinnacle point Cave 13B (Mossel Bay, Western Cape Province, South Africa): resolving stratigraphic and depositional complexities with micromorphology. Journal of Human Evolution, 59(3-4), pp.256-273. Kelly, R.L. (1983). Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of anthropological research, 39(3), 277-306 Lombard, M., Wadley, L., Deacon, J., Wurz, S., Parsons, I., Mohapi, M., Swart, J., Mitchell, P. (2012). South African and Lesotho Stone Age sequence updated. S Afr Archaeol Bull 67(195):123–144. Marean, C.W. (2010) Pinnacle Point Cave 13B (Western Cape Province, South Africa) in context: the Cape floral kingdom, shellfish, and modern human origins. J Hum Evol 59(3-4):425–443 Marean, C.W. (2014). The origins and significance of coastal resource use in Africa and Western Eurasia. J Hum Evol 77, 17-40. McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior.” J Hum Evol 39:453–563 Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. (2006). The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Porraz G, Val A, Dayet L, de la Peña P, Douze K, Miller CE, Murungi ML, Tribolo C, Schmid VC, Sievers C (2015) Bushman Rock Shelter (Limpopo, South Africa): a perspective from the edge of the Highveld. South African Archaeological Bulletin 70:166–179. Porraz G, Val A, Tribolo C, Mercier N, de la Peña P, Haaland M, Igreja M, Miller CE, Schmid V (2018). The MIS5 Pietersburg at ‘28’ Bushman Rock Shelter, Limpopo Province, South Africa. PloS One. Sampson, C.G. (1974). The Stone Age Archaeology of Southern Africa. Studies In Archaeology, Academic Press. Will, M., Bader, G., Conard, N.J. (2014) Characterizing the Late Pleistocene MSA lithic technology of Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. PloS One 9:e98359. Wadley, L. (2015). Those marvellous millennia: the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa. Azania 50:155–226. Wilkins J, Brown KS, Oestmo S, Pereira T, Ranhorn KL, Schoville BJ, et al. (2017). Lithic technological responses to Late Pleistocene glacial cycling at Pinnacle Point Site 5–6, South Africa. PLoS ONE 12 (3): e0174051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174051 PMID: 28355257.