Jacobs Zenobia, Roberts Richard G
ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
J Hum Evol. 2017 Jun;107:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.02.004. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
The chronology of the Still Bay (SB) and Howieson's Poort (HP) lithic industries remains an issue of keen interest because of the central role of these two phases of technological and behavioural innovation within the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa. Several dating studies have been conducted on SB and HP sites, including a pair published by the present authors and our colleagues in 2008 and 2013. These reported the results of systematically applying single-grain optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating procedures to 10 sites in South Africa, Lesotho and Namibia to constrain the timing of the start and end of the SB and HP and reveal the existence of a gap of several millennia between them. Alternative ages for these two industries have since been proposed by others for one of these South African sites (Diepkloof Rockshelter) and some concerns have been raised about the procedures used in our earlier studies to estimate the beta dose rates for a small number of samples. Here, we provide an update on our chronology for the SB and HP and address the issues raised about the methods that we used previously to estimate the beta dose rates and their associated uncertainties. To test the sensitivity of our new SB and HP ages to different underlying assumptions, we have run the same statistical model as that used in our 2008 and 2013 studies under three different scenarios. We show that the ages for the different samples are insensitive to how we analytically process or statistically model our data, and that our earlier conclusions about timing of the start and end of the SB and the HP and the probability of a gap between them remain true for two of the three scenarios. We conclude by bringing our study into the context of additional chronometric, stratigraphic and lithic technology studies that have been conducted in the intervening decade.
斯蒂尔湾(SB)和豪伊森斯普特(HP)石器工业的年代顺序一直是人们极为关注的问题,因为这两个技术和行为创新阶段在南部非洲中石器时代起着核心作用。已经对SB和HP遗址进行了多项年代测定研究,包括本文作者及其同事在2008年和2013年发表的两项研究。这些研究报告了将单颗粒光激发荧光(OSL)测年程序系统应用于南非、莱索托和纳米比亚的10个遗址的结果,以确定SB和HP开始和结束的时间,并揭示它们之间存在数千年的间隔。此后,其他人针对南非的一个遗址(迪普克洛弗岩棚)提出了这两个工业的不同年代,并对我们早期研究中用于估计少数样品贝塔剂量率的程序提出了一些担忧。在这里,我们提供了SB和HP年代顺序的更新,并解决了之前对我们用于估计贝塔剂量率及其相关不确定性的方法提出的问题。为了测试我们新的SB和HP年代对不同潜在假设的敏感性,我们在三种不同情况下运行了与我们2008年和2013年研究中使用的相同统计模型。我们表明,不同样品的年代对我们分析处理数据或进行统计建模的方式不敏感,并且我们早期关于SB和HP开始和结束时间以及它们之间存在间隔的可能性的结论在三种情况中的两种情况下仍然成立。我们通过将我们的研究置于在这十年间进行的其他计时、地层和石器技术研究的背景下来得出结论。