Temporal perspectives on Still Bay point production at Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, in the context of southern Africa

Abstract

Based on optically stimulated luminescence age estimates it has been argued that the Still Bay represents a sudden, short-lived technological innovation dating to about 72-71 kya. Yet, few sites have the stratigraphic integrity and Still Bay point assemblage size to test this assumption. The Wadley deep sounding of Sibudu Cave provides such an opportunity. Here we use fine-grained analyses consisting of technological attributes and morphometric data to explore the retouched point assemblages of Sibudu over a period of more than ten thousand years spanning the Still Bay. Although we found subtle changes through time, we found no evidence of a technological break in retouched point-production strategies since the Wadley early pre-Still Bay at more than 77 kya through to the final Still Bay/early Howiesons Poort dating to 64.7 ± 2.3 kya. We did, however, uncover a potential point-production hiatus at the site and we present testable hypotheses for this phenomenon. We further contextualise the Sibudu assemblages within southern Africa by directly comparing them with those of Hollow Rock Shelter, Umhlatuzana and Apollo 11. Although our results demonstrate both variation and similarities between the different Still Bay assemblages, we could not replicate a previous suggestion regarding technical disconnection between a northeast/south-west axis on the greater landscape. RÉSUMÉ

‘I Can Do It’ Becomes ‘We Do It’: Kimberley (Australia) and Still Bay (South Africa) Points Through a Socio-technical Framework Lens

“…For example, the dating of Still Bay assemblages at sites such as Peers Cave or Dale Rose Parlour, or the publication of full data sets for all the points (as well as technological analyses of the full assemblages) from the Blombos Cave and Hollow Rock Shelter Still Bay sequences, may help to refine any of the scenarios we present. Especially in the case of Blombos, a full temporal technological analysis of all its points and point fragments (see Archer et al 2015 for morphometric analysis of bifacial pieces), comparable to what we have done for Sibudu Cave (Lombard et al 2019) would be important in light of the new environmental proxy data for the site (e.g. Roberts et al 2016).…”

“…With our recent diachronic work on point production at Sibudu Cave (Lombard et al 2019), we have also demonstrated that, contrary to some interpretations (e.g. Jacobs et al 2008;Jacobs and Roberts 2017), the production of Still Bay-type points was not an abruptly appearing, short-lived techno-behaviour.…”

“…2). This is a narrow definition for Still Bay points for the benefit of a general readership, but we continue the line of broad theoretical thinking about tool class discussed in our introductory section, in our subsequent scenario building (also see Lombard and Högberg 2018; for our understanding of more narrow typological, technological and morphometric units, which fall outside of the scope of this paper, see Högberg and Lombard 2016a;and Lombard et al 2019). Needless to say that, like any other definition in the discipline, this is a modern archaeological construct and does not reflect any ancient 'reality' (Thackeray and Kelly 1988;Högberg 2009).…”

“…Similar to some other sites, the Still Bay at Diepkloof was followed by the Howiesons Poort techno-complex (Lombard et al 2012;Porraz et al 2013), which usually do not include bifacial point production as a key formal feature (but see de la Peña et al 2013; de la Peña and Wadley 2014; de la Peña 2015). The Howiesons Poort represents a technical reorganisation (de la Peña 2015; Lombard et al 2019), which according to the set of dates used for the Diepkloof Tribolo scenario could have happened during the first half of MIS 5 at~90 ka (Tribolo et al 2013). The appearance of the Howiesons Poort signifies a destabilisation that resulted in the end of Still Bay point production at the site.…”

“…This way of thinking about a technology or artefact category allows for a broader theoretical perspective, with which we hope to stimulate discussion about the multifaceted articulations between technology and society. In line with the theme of this special issue, our aim is not to provide a new method for analysis (for our body of work on method and data development relating to the Still Bay technocomplex we refer readers to Högberg and Lombard 2016a, b;Lombard and Högberg 2018;Lombard et al 2019) or to present ultimate answers. Instead, here, we use the socio-technical framework as a 'new thinking tool' (in the context of the Kimberly and Still Bay points) to develop ideas about the possible interplay between 'old technologies' and historical or ancient societies.…”