Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30303992›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

The MIS5 Pietersburg at '28' Bushman Rock Shelter, Limpopo Province, South Africa.

Guillaume Porraz, Aurore Val, Chantal Tribolo, Norbert Mercier, Paloma de la Peña, Magnus M Haaland, Marina Igreja, Christopher E Miller, Viola C Schmid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Archaeological adhesives made fromProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Guillaume PorrazCNRS, UMR 7041, ArScAn-AnTET, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0103-9583
Aurore ValEvolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Chantal TriboloCNRS, UMR 5060, IRAMAT-CRP2A, CNRS-Université Bordeaux Montaigne, Bordeaux, France.
Norbert MercierCNRS, UMR 5060, IRAMAT-CRP2A, CNRS-Université Bordeaux Montaigne, Bordeaux, France.
Paloma de la PeñaEvolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Magnus M HaalandDepartment of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3655-3120
Marina IgrejaUniversity of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Christopher E MillerCentre for Early Sapience Behaviour (SapienCE), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Viola C SchmidCNRS, UMR 7041, ArScAn-AnTET, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past few decades, a diverse array of research has emphasized the precocity of technically advanced and symbolic practices occurring during the southern African Middle Stone Age. However, uncertainties regarding the regional chrono-cultural framework constrain models and identification of the cultural and ecological mechanisms triggering the development of such early innovative behaviours. Here, we present new results and a refined chronology for the Pietersburg, a techno-complex initially defined in the late 1920's, which has disappeared from the literature since the 1980's. We base our revision of this techno-complex on ongoing excavations at Bushman Rock Shelter (BRS) in Limpopo Province, South Africa, where two Pietersburg phases (an upper phase called '21' and a lower phase called '28') are recognized. Our analysis focuses on the '28' phase, characterized by a knapping strategy based on Levallois and semi-prismatic laminar reduction systems and typified by the presence of end-scrapers. Luminescence chronology provides two sets of ages for the upper and lower Pietersburg of BRS, dated respectively to 73±6ka and 75±6ka on quartz and to 91±10ka and 97±10ka on feldspar, firmly positioning this industry within MIS5. Comparisons with other published lithic assemblages show technological differences between the Pietersburg from BRS and other southern African MIS5 traditions, especially those from the Western and Eastern Cape. We argue that, at least for part of MIS5, human populations in South Africa were regionally differentiated, a process that most likely impacted the way groups were territorially and socially organized. Nonetheless, comparisons between MIS5 assemblages also indicate some typological similarities, suggesting some degree of connection between human groups, which shared similar innovations but manipulated them in different ways. We pay particular attention to the end-scrapers from BRS, which represent thus far the earliest documented wide adoption of such tool-type and provide further evidence for the innovative processes characterizing southern Africa from the MIS5 onwards.

Indexed as

Tool Use BehaviorArchaeologyCultureFossilsHumansLuminescencePaleontologyQuartzSouth AfricaTechnologyQuartz

Identifiers

PMID30303992
PMCPMC6179383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.