Klasies River Caves – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Cave in South Africa

The Klasies River Caves are a series of caves located east of the Klasies River Mouth on the Tsitsikamma coast in the Humansdorp district of Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. The Klasies River Main (KRM) site consists of 3 main caves and 2 shelters located within a cliff on the southern coast of the Eastern Cape. The site provides significant evidence for hominin behavior and evolution during the Middle Stone Age on Africa’s southeastern cape.[1]

Klasies River Mouth Cave entrance

Site Exposition[edit]

Klasies River Cave is located on the border of the Tsitsikamma mountain range on the southeastern coast of South Africa. The site sits within the Greater Cape Floristic region, characterized by the fynbos biome; however the Klasies River Cave environment is mixed woods and shrubby brushland and maintains a temperate climate.[2] Klasies River main site is located on a sandstone cliff less than 1 kilometer from the Klasies River mouth and on the coast of the Indian Ocean.[3] The district receives approximately 500–700 mm (20–28 in) of rainfall annually.

The site consists of Caves 1 and 2, and the protected overhangs of Cave 1A and 1B, together known as Klasies River main site. However, Cave 2 was not accessible until later stages after there had been significant deposition and build-up of sediments, and Cave 1B has been under-documented; most finds therefore come from Caves 1 and1A.[4] These caves contain 21 meters of deposits that researchers have struggled to delineate stratigraphically.[5][4] While sea levels fluctuated over time, during certain occupations, the proximity to the coast and the surrounding grasslands provided marine life and terrestrial animals that were exploited by the caves inhabitants.[6]

Stratigraphy and Dating[edit]

The dates of the KRM stratigraphy have been obtained through isotopic analysis and dating of biological materials.[7] Because the site exceeds 50,000 years old, radiocarbon dates are less useful due to carbon contamination. Researchers have resorted to analysis of unstable isotopes, such as Uranium-Thorium (U-Th) to provide more accurate date ranges. Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) are used to compare large-scale global temporal comparisons; each stage in the Klasies River Caves site correlates with a MIS stage.

The stratigraphy of the site consists of very fine, thin layers of sediment that have compressed under the successive layers on top of them.[7] Researchers have used microstratigraphic techniques to analyze and interpret the complex timeline of sediment deposition and post-depositional activities within the caves. Because the cave system has so many varied layers and the different caves have different depositional characteristics and sediment properties, it has been hard to create a uniform system to group and chronologically group the layers for a site-wide comparison; natural processes such as erosion, and the influence of people at certain areas of the site (anthropogenic deposition of shell middens, hearths, etc.) have further complicated the interpretation of the stratigraphy.[8] A lithostratigraphic and culture stratigraphic approach are both used at KRM today.

Singer and Wymer’s stages at KRM began at the base, MSA I, followed by MSA II, Howiesons Poort, MSA III, and MSA IV. These groupings are based on changes on stratigraphy and/or changes in material culture though time.[7]

Culture-Stratigraphic Association Date Ranges Marine Isotope Stage Dating Method and Location
MSA IV 70-65 kya[9] MIS 4 single-grain optical luminescence dating (SG OSL) and thermoluminescence (TL) OSL dating. Dating material from Cave 1.
MSA III 60-43 kya[9] MIS 4[9] /

MIS 3[10]

 linear uranium uptake model electron spin resonance (LU ESR) and TL dating. Dating material from Cave 1A.
Howiesons Poort 65-45 kya[9] MIS 4[11] LU ESR, U-Series, and OSL dating.[9][11] Dating material from Cave 1A.
MSA II 104-36 kya[9] MIS 5d-a[10] LU-ESR and U-Th shell dating in Cave 1.

*in Cave 1A, the MSA II dates from 80-28 kya based on Uranium-Thorium and OSL dating within the same layer.

MSA I 110-90 kya[9] MIS 5d/e[8] Amino Acid Racemization (AAR), U-Th, and TL-OSL dating.

Paleoenvironment[edit]

Paleoenvironment reconstruction uses multiple analytical foci to help determine a proximate estimate of the climate of a site during a given time frame. These reconstructions are aided through archaeological excavations and finds. Analysis of faunal remains can indicate what species existed across space and time. Likewise, archaeobotanical analysis provides insight into the plants that were in proximity to the site. These determinations are also aided by global climate estimates provided by deep sea cores. Plant and animal remains can also be indicative of certain climates as species have certain climatic ranges and preferred biomes.[12] Changes in the location of the sea shore and in the grassy or wetland areas surrounding the cave have been determined using these methods.

MSA I fauna indicate a mosaic environment that included closed, drier areas with micromammals including moles, and open grasslands that favored grazing ungulates.[13] This period is associated with an interglacial period (MIS 5e) and higher sea levels and warmer temperatures, which is supported by shell middens.[13][12]

MSA II shows a shift from MSA I. This period is associated with MIS 5d-a, with the early part of this phase associated with warmer temperatures shifting towards cooler temperatures later.[13] During this time the coastline was likely never more than 10 km away from the site.[13] The number of grazers decreased while mixed-feeders and browsers increased; this correlates with a decrease in shrubland and expanding grasslands.[13] Terrestrial fauna include rock hyrax (rock rabbits), brown hyena, Cape dune mole rat, buffalo, equids, and members of the subfamily Alcelaphinae.[14] There is also evidence of forest-dwelling bovid and other animals that prefer wetland grasses and reeds (African marsh rat and hippopotamus), indicating the environmental diversity of the site during MSA II.[13] Warm-water shellfish (brown mussels and other rocky shore species) and cape fur seals were present at the cave as groups were able to exploit marine food sources as well.[14]

The Howiesons Poort (HP) environment shifts from the closed environment of the later MSA II into a more open environment featuring more grazing animals. The earlier levels of HP contain more evidence of browsers which indicate a more closed environment while later periods increase in grazing fauna associated with more open environments.[13] This period is associated with MIS 4, a glacial period with cooler temperatures and lower sea levels.[13] Shellfish that appear in tide pools are more common in HP which suggests a further coastline.[13] Data from Pinnacle Point show that the climate during HP was variable and unstable with periods of drought.

MSA III is marked by a declining temperatures and receding coastline that would have exposed the Paleo-Agulhas Plain.[13][12] The faunal remains are variable and consist of wetland species, open environment grassland grazers, and Cape dune mole rats that prefer sand dunes.[13] This period corresponds to MIS 3, a cooler environment with short warm periods.[13]

Findings[edit]

Material Culture[edit]

There is evidence for stone tool production at the site. Rounded quartzite cobbles appear to be the preferred material for stone tool production based on the recovery of raw materials at the site.[6] Analysis of flakes and debitage indicate that free hand stone percussion was the primary method of tool production at Cave 1, and the prevalence of consistent and nearly uniform points suggest that these tools were the desired end product.[6]Lithic artifacts do show variation through the various occupation stages of KRM. Howiesons Poort interrupts the relative uniformity seen in MSA I and MSA II: in the latter, large and long quartzite points and blades were the goal end products and were usually not retouched,[3] while the Howiesons Poort lithics were made from a wider variety of materials and were fashioned into smaller blades and artifacts.[15][5] Tools from MSA III are made from more non-local raw materials than MSA I or II, but less than Howiesons Poort; these tools from MSA III also have a similar core morphology to Howiesons Poort. The MSA IV lithics consist of more flake blades than observed in MSA III.[3]

Later layers from the site have a density of shellfish and debitage from stone tool production, indicating that the site was used as a home base at times; at earlier times, a higher density of stone tools and lower density of shellfish at later dates suggest that the site was only used as a tool production site rather than a residential location.[15] This change in mobility at KRM corresponds to a similar change during the same time period at Pinnacle Point: during MIS 5e-d hominins were more mobile, but developed more residential patterns in the earlier MIS 5c.[15]

Faunal Remains and Food Sources[edit]

Plants within a 12.5 kilometer foraging radius of the caves would have included 161 native species from a mix of geophytes / underground storage organs (USOs), leaves, and fruits, all of which would provide sufficient nutrients for the hominins at the site. By increasing the foraging radius to 35 kilometers away from the site, more nuts, seeds, and grains become available with a total of 281 available edible plant species; these resources were less abundant within the smaller radius and would give reason for an extended foraging journey to acquire varied and less perishable nutrients. A majority of the food plants within these radii can be eaten raw.

The association of animal and plant remains with hearths provides evidence that hominins at the site used fire to cook. Bones with cut marks and percussion marks from hammer stones indicate that meat and bone marrow were consumed. Cooked foods provide quickly digestible energy and would have contributed to a higher quality diet sparking an evolutionary change in Homo sapiens. Samples taken from hearths within MSA I and Howiesons Poort levels identified parenchyma, heated bones and shellfish found together indicating the cooking of multiple food sources. The parenchyma samples came from underground storage organs, but preservation did not allow for determination of plant species. The abundance of plant species available year-round, as discussed in previous sections, would have provided many reliable energy sources for humans; cooking these starchy plants increases energy absorption.

Human Remains[edit]

During the first excavation in 1967 by Singer and Wymer, a coarse sieve was used for screening causing the loss of smaller bones, shells, and other artifacts; because of this sample sized are biased because long bones (i.e. bone shafts) and small bones (i.e. finger bones) were not collected. However, the bones that were analyzed show anatomical differentiation within Homo sapiens throughout time.[16] Over 50 human remains have been found, a majority of them from Singer and Wymer’s original excavation in 1967-68, and a majority of these excavated in Cave 1.[3]

An argument for cannibalism has been posed by some researchers based on human remains with cut marks and charring, leading to the conclusion that the inhabitants participated in episodic cannibalism.[1] Two individuals appear to be deposited around the same time in one stratigraphic layer, but correlating a site-wide cannibalism event requires a finer-scale understanding of the lithostratigraphy that is not possible at present.[4]

Related sites[edit]

General:

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Deacon, H.J.; Wurz, S. (2005). “A Late Pleistocene Archive of Life at the Coast, Klasies River”. In Stahl, Ann Brower (ed.). African archaeology : a critical introduction. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 130–149. ISBN 1-4051-3712-6. OCLC 60564740.
  2. ^ Reynard, Jerome P.; Wurz, Sarah (June 2020). “The palaeoecology of Klasies River, South Africa: An analysis of the large mammal remains from the 1984–1995 excavations of Cave 1 and 1A”. Quaternary Science Reviews. 237: 106301. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106301. ISSN 0277-3791. S2CID 218956114.
  3. ^ a b c d Grine, Frederick E.; Wurz, Sarah; Marean, Curtis W. (1 February 2017). “The Middle Stone Age human fossil record from Klasies River Main Site”. Journal of Human Evolution. 103: 53–78. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.12.001. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 28166908.
  4. ^ a b c Morrissey, Peter; Mentzer, Susan M.; Wurz, Sarah (1 March 2022). “A Critical Review of the Stratigraphic Context of the MSA I and II at Klasies River Main Site, South Africa”. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. 5 (1). doi:10.1007/s41982-022-00110-2. ISSN 2520-8217. S2CID 257089427.
  5. ^ a b Larbey, Cynthia; Mentzer, Susan M.; Ligouis, Bertrand; Wurz, Sarah; Jones, Martin K. (1 June 2019). “Cooked starchy food in hearths ca. 120 kya and 65 kya (MIS 5e and MIS 4) from Klasies River Cave, South Africa”. Journal of Human Evolution. 131: 210–227. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.015. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 31182202. S2CID 184485363.
  6. ^ a b c Wurz, Sarah; Bentsen, Silje Evjenth; Reynard, Jerome; Van Pletzen-Vos, Liezl; Brenner, Mareike; Mentzer, Susan; Pickering, Robyn; Green, Helen (November 2018). “Connections, culture and environments around 100 000 years ago at Klasies River main site”. Quaternary International. 495: 102–115. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2018.03.039. ISSN 1040-6182. S2CID 135412855.
  7. ^ a b c Deacon, H.J.; Wurz, S. (2005). “A Late Pleistocene Archive of Life at the Coast, Klasies River”. In Stahl, Ann Brower (ed.). African archaeology : a critical introduction. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 130–149. ISBN 1-4051-3712-6. OCLC 60564740.
  8. ^ a b Morrissey, Peter; Mentzer, Susan M.; Wurz, Sarah (1 March 2022). “A Critical Review of the Stratigraphic Context of the MSA I and II at Klasies River Main Site, South Africa”. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. 5 (1). doi:10.1007/s41982-022-00110-2. ISSN 2520-8217. S2CID 257089427.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Grine, Frederick E.; Wurz, Sarah; Marean, Curtis W. (1 February 2017). “The Middle Stone Age human fossil record from Klasies River Main Site”. Journal of Human Evolution. 103: 53–78. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.12.001. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 28166908.
  10. ^ a b Reynard, Jerome P.; Wurz, Sarah (June 2020). “The palaeoecology of Klasies River, South Africa: An analysis of the large mammal remains from the 1984–1995 excavations of Cave 1 and 1A”. Quaternary Science Reviews. 237: 106301. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106301. ISSN 0277-3791. S2CID 218956114.
  11. ^ a b Larbey, Cynthia; Mentzer, Susan M.; Ligouis, Bertrand; Wurz, Sarah; Jones, Martin K. (1 June 2019). “Cooked starchy food in hearths ca. 120 kya and 65 kya (MIS 5e and MIS 4) from Klasies River Cave, South Africa”. Journal of Human Evolution. 131: 210–227. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.015. ISSN 0047-2484. PMID 31182202. S2CID 184485363.
  12. ^ a b c Thackeray, J. Francis (2019). “A 40-Year Reflection on Klasies River Research Projects (1977–2017)”. South African Archaeological Bulletin. 40 (210): 86–90.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Reynard, Jerome P.; Wurz, Sarah (June 2020). “The palaeoecology of Klasies River, South Africa: An analysis of the large mammal remains from the 1984–1995 excavations of Cave 1 and 1A”. Quaternary Science Reviews. 237: 106301. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106301. ISSN 0277-3791. S2CID 218956114.
  14. ^ a b Wurz, Sarah; Bentsen, Silje Evjenth; Reynard, Jerome; Van Pletzen-Vos, Liezl; Brenner, Mareike; Mentzer, Susan; Pickering, Robyn; Green, Helen (November 2018). “Connections, culture and environments around 100 000 years ago at Klasies River main site”. Quaternary International. 495: 102–115. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2018.03.039. ISSN 1040-6182. S2CID 135412855.
  15. ^ a b c Brenner, Mareike J.; Ryano, Kokeli P.; Wurz, Sarah (7 July 2020). “Coastal adaptation at Klasies River main site during MIS 5c-d (93,000–110,000 years ago) from a southern Cape perspective”. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology. 17 (2): 218–245. doi:10.1080/15564894.2020.1774444. ISSN 1556-4894. S2CID 225776351.
  16. ^ Thackeray, J. Francis (2019). “A 40-Year Reflection on Klasies River Research Projects (1977–2017)”. South African Archaeological Bulletin. 40 (210): 86–90.