ESR dating of the Die Kelders Cave 1 Site, South Africa

Schwarcz, Henry P.; Rink, W.J.

doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0352

Cited by 41 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For luminescence, 5.5 m of rock above the cave was assumed, while for ESR, 24 m of overburden was assumed. Examination of the photographs of Marean et al (2000) shows that 5.5 m is likely to be the correct value, so the values given by Feathers and Bush (2000) were used for this study instead of the values of Schwarcz and Rink (2000). Two of the ESR samples were conjoining pieces of a tooth found in layers 4/5 and 6, so these layers have to be regarded as one stratigraphic unit for dating purposes.…”

Section: Comment [Msu34]: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feathers and Bush (2000) calculated alternative dates using 10%, 15%, and 20% water content with an uncertainty of ±5%. Schwarcz and Rink (2000) calculated alternative dates assuming 10%, 20%, and 30% water content. It seems prudent to allow for this uncertainty by assuming a water content of 20 ± 10%.…”

Section: Comment [Msu34]: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Electron-spin-resonance dates have been obtained from layers 4/5, 6, 10, and 12 (Schwarcz and Rink, 2000) and from Layers 4/5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 by luminescence (Feathers and Bush, 2000).…”

Section: Southern African Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Authors need to publish the detailed data, or make it available on request, especially as (1) calculation of dates depends on constants such as half-lives that have been revised over the years, and (2) three of the papers that did give full data contained errors in the calculations or performed them differently from their stated method. For the trapped-charge techniques (ESR, OSL, TL), different authors were occasionally inconsistent in their calculations of dose rate from the same sediment, which can be excused due to the passage of time between the application of the different techniques, but cannot be excused when it occurs in consecutive papers in the same journal (i.e., Feathers and Bush, 2000;Schwarcz and Rink, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

Millard¹

2008

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThe chronometric dating evidence for all hominid fossils from Africa and the Near East that have previously been dated to 500-50 ka is critically assessed using the concept of chronometric hygiene, and these dates are revised using Bayesian statistical analyses where possible. Sixteen relevant hominid sites lacking chronometric evidence are briefly discussed.Chronometric evidence from 37 sites is assessed in detail. The dates for many hominid fossils are poorly constrained, with a number dated by comparisons of faunal assemblages a method that does not have good chronological resolution for much of the last million years. For sites with stratigraphic sequences of dates, it is generally possible to refine the dating, but in some cases, the revised chronology is less precise than previous chronologies. Fossils over 200 ka in age tend to be poorly dated, but for the last 200 ka, dating is better due to the availability of electron-spinresonance and thermoluminescence dating. Consideration of the chronologies favored by the proponents of the out-of-Africa and multiregional hypotheses of human evolution shows their selectivity. The chronological assessment of the fossils here is compatible with either hypothesis.If evolutionary schemes that do not rely on the morphology of the hominid fossils to decide the sequence of fossils are to be built, then further dating is required, alongside full publication of existing dates.3

show abstract

Section: Comment [Msu34]: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comment [Msu34]: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Electron-spin-resonance dates have been obtained from layers 4/5, 6, 10, and 12 (Schwarcz and Rink, 2000) and from Layers 4/5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 by luminescence (Feathers and Bush, 2000).…”

Section: Southern African Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

Millard¹

2008

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the early 1990s, research resumed at the site under G. Avery, C. Marean, and F. Grine in order to expand the MSA artifact collection, explore the paleoenvironmental context of the cave sequence, and understand the geologic contexts. While the absolute dating of the full DK1 sequence is still not fully known, it is arguably close to 70 ± 10 ka (Feathers and Bush, 2000;Schwarcz and Rink, 2000). Grine et al (1991) report the MSA lithic assemblage from the Schweitzer excavations and note a dramatic increase in the frequency of fine-grained raw materials (silcrete) in Layer 9-12, while also indicating that the assemblage is not typologically linked to the HP or SB.…”

Section: Pinnacle Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape variability in tool-use and edge damage formation in South African Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages

Schoville

2016

Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores how early modern humans used stone tool technology to adapt to changing climates and coastlines in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa. The MSA is associated with the earliest fossil evidence for modern humans and complex cultural behaviors during a time period of dramatic climate change. Human culture allows for the creation, use, and transmission of technological knowledge that can evolve with changing environmental conditions. Understanding the interactions between technology and the environment is essential to illuminating the role of culture during the origin of our species. This study is focused on understanding ancient tool use from the study of lithic edge damage patterns at archaeological assemblages in southern Africa by using image-based quantitative methods for analyzing stone tools. An extensive experimental program using replicated stone tools provides the comparative linkages between the archaeological artifacts and the tasks for which they were used. MSA foragers structured their tool use and discard behaviors on the landscape in several ways -by using and discarding hunting tools more frequently in the field rather than in caves/rockshelters, but similarly in coastal and interior contexts. This study provides evidence that during a significant microlithic technological shift seen in southern Africa at ~75,000 years ago, new technologies were developed alongside rather than replacing existing technologies. These results are compared with aspects of the European archaeological record at this time to identify features of early human technological behavior that may be unique to the evolutionary history of our species.ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

show abstract

References

2011

Wiley‐Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ESR dating of the Die Kelders Cave 1 Site, South Africa

Cited by 41 publications

References 14 publications

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

A critique of the chronometric evidence for hominid fossils: I. Africa and the Near East 500–50ka

Landscape variability in tool-use and edge damage formation in South African Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About