... but there are also contemporaneous intraregional differences, with other sites lacking not only lack bladelets but grindstones as well (Apollo 11 and Melikane).
EXPLAINING INTRAREGIONAL ASSEMBLAGE VARIABILITY IN SOUTHERN AFRICA DURING MIS 2: DIFFERENT STROKES OR DIFFERENT FOLKS? 1
Genevieve Dewar and 2Brian Stewart
1
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Scarborough Museum of Anthropological Archaeology, University of Michigan
2
ABSTRACT In southern Africa Marine Isotope Stage 2 (29-14 ka) was a period of intense cold, and palaeoenvironment and geoarchaeological data indicate variable moisture availability: the winter rainfall zone was humid while the summer rainfall zone was arid. Sea levels fell rapidly, exposing the continental shelf with a minimum during the Last Glacial Maximum. The number of archaeological sites across the subcontinent decreased, likely a result of populations concentrating along the now-submerged coastline. There were, however, pockets of inland ‘refugia’. People contracted into centres of occupation in the northwestern escarpment, the Western Cape, the southern Cape Fold Mountains, and the MalotiDrakensberg Mountains when the rest of the country seems largely abandoned. Similar artefacts (bladelets) suggest that these distant groups were socially enchained – likely a risk aversion tactic that was clearly not environmentally determined. In two of these regions, the northwestern escarpment and Maloti-Drakensberg, some sites dated 24-23 cal kBP conform to the popular culture such as Spitzkloof A and Sehonghong, but there are also contemporaneous intraregional differences, with other sites lacking not only lack bladelets but grindstones as well (Apollo 11 and Melikane). Two hypotheses are being tested. First, there were multiple groups on these landscapes, with some participating in attenuated social networks while others not. The latter may have recently moved into these refugia, perhaps from deeper in the southern African interior, and were not connected to the greater social network. A second hypothesis is that the different signatures reflect differences in the use of individual sites, whether seasonally or because of variable catchment potential.
