A Review of the Geomorphological Context and Stratigraphy of the Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa

A multiscale stratigraphic investigation of the context of StW 573 ‘Little Foot’ and Member 2, Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa

“…The general shape of the talus is partly influenced by the underlying Member 1 breccia and the overlying boss speleothem, which here we consider to be part of the autogenic Member 1 formation process. During the vadose collapse of the cave, a process that formed Member 1, the thickest Member 1 deposits formed where there was greatest decay of the dolomite, i.e., where faults in the dolomite are most abundant on the southern boundary of the system (Stratford, 2017). The highest part of the roof of Silberberg Grotto is in the east, the area where the largest amount of dolomite and chert material was removed to the base of the chamber during the vadose, joint-governed collapse, thereby forming a talus of chert blocks encased in a black-gray sandy matrix subsequently cemented by calcite (i.e., Member 1 and the associated boss speleothem).…”

“…Partridge (1978) first described the Member 2 deposit from exposures in the Silberberg Grotto (Figure 1; and Stratford & Crompton, 2018). The morphology of the Silberberg Grotto is defined by the strong east to west fault-guided cavity development that characterizes the Sterkfontein system (Martini et al, 2003; Stratford, 2017; Bruxelles 2018). The chamber has developed along the southern boundary of the cave system and extends approximately 30 m east to west.…”

“…Research at Sterkfontein has yielded specimens representing three genera of hominin and potentially five species spanning possibly 4 million years (maximum age based on Partridge et al, 2003, see below for discussion). The depositional sequence used by researchers to divide the Sterkfontein sequence into chronostratigraphic units was developed by Partridge (1978; 2000) and is referred to as the Sterkfontein Formation (also see Stratford, 2017 for review). This sequence comprises six members ordered stratigraphically (although in no single exposure are all members represented), with Member 1 at the base and Member 6 at the top.…”

Complexities of assessing palaeocave stratigraphy: reconstructing site formation of the ∼2.61 Ma Drimolen Makondo fossil site

“…25) that have been decoupled from active hydrogeochemical systems ( Ford, 1995 ), infilled with relict sediments and are heavily eroded. A few palaeocave sites in South Africa are still associated with active cave systems and have been reworked within more recent karstification phases ( Stratford & Palmer, 2017 ). Similar intersections of active cave passages and palaeokarst have been identified in Australia ( Osborne, 1999 ; Osborne, 2007 ).…”

“…Specifically, South African palaeocaves serve as depositional repositories for some of the densest concentrations of early hominin remains in the world, including well preserved partial skeletons ( Berger et al, 2010 ; Berger et al, 2015 ; Clarke, 2019 ; Keyser et al, 2000 ). Such deposits are palaeontological and archaeological data sources for several reasons: a collection of various carcasses within a ‘death trap’ accumulation ( Val et al, 2015 ); a source of shelter or occupation for various species (e.g., baboon sleeping sites, porcupine accumulations ( Brain, 1981 ; Bountalis & Kuhn, 2014 )); or, as depositional repositories for fluvially transported material from the surrounding landscape ( Adams et al, 2010 ; Berger et al, 2010 ; Berger et al, 2015 ; Caruana, 2017 ; Clarke, 2019 ; Herries & Adams, 2013 ; Herries et al, 2020 ; Granger et al, 2015 ; Murszewski et al, 2019 ; Stratford & Palmer, 2017 ; Stammers, Caruana & Herries, 2018 ).…”