Вильтон мәдениеті: Тас және сүйек құралдарының эволюциясы мен географиясы

Wilton is a term archaeologists use to generalize archaeological sites and cultures that share similar stone and non stone technology dating from 8,000 4,000 years ago. Archaeologists often refer to Wilton as a technocomplex (Archaeological culture), or Industry. Technological industries are defined by a common tradition of stone tool assemblages, but these technological industries extend to common cultural behaviors. As such, archaeologists use these industries to define a discrete cultural taxonomy. Archaeological assemblages in Zambia contains evidence for non stone technology that has led some archaeologists to hypothesize an increased importance of wooden tools Wilton tool sets. though recent studies separate Wilton from the final late Stone Age at 4,000 years ago. Despite Wilton as a term meant to generalize the behaviors of human populations, foraging communities that utilized Wilton like technology and exhibited Wilton like behaviors can be found in near coastal, and montane environments. These diverse landscapes contradict the specificity of Wilton culture that archaeologists had hoped to encompass with this term. In fact, archaeological deposits and isotopic data show that Wilton foragers used a wide range of technologies and exhibited diverse behaviors including diets, mobility, and exchange networks. Additional wooden and bone tools lead archaeologists to think that biological materials played an important role in communities that made Wilton technologies. Previous technological industries like the Oakhurst may have included biological tools like bone and wooden implements, but since biological remains do not survive in the archaeological record, archaeologists are not able to always use these biological tools to define technological industries. It is these changes in stone and non stone technology that imply changes in cultural behaviors of foragers at these sites and thus, have caused some archaeologists to recognize Wilton technology as a single cultural entity. Wilton is widely described as a shift from large to small stone technology with an emphasis on stone scrappers and backed tools, though not all sites associated with Wilton contain high numbers of backed tools. Many archaeologists acknowledge that Wilton is not a single culture or identity but, instead, solely reflects general trends over small regions in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Transvaal, and most of South Africa from 8,000 4,000 years ago.

Wilton technology was first described by John Hewitt after he excavated with the collaboration of C. W. Wilmot a cave on the farm Wilton near Alicedale in the eastern Cape of South Africa. Backed tools were created by blunting one margin of the stone tool at a near 90 degree angle. These backed tools were likely hafted to projectiles and served as barbs. Archaeologists have used the assemblage at the Wilton rock shelter to define other Wilton like assemblages throughout South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Today, Wilton technology covers much of the same geographical scale as the preceding industry, Oakhurst. Wilton was originally associated with the archaeological assemblage from Wilton farm, which included a high number of scrapers, though archaeological assemblages elsewhere showed additional evidence for backed technology. So, today, Wilton technology is associated with an increase in formal tools like scrapers and backed pieces as well as a significant reduction in size. including some sites in Zambia and Zimbabwe. This mosaic of industries makes it difficult to make regional generalizations of technological industries like Wilton. So, the term Wilton is now limited from 8,000 4,000 years.

Archaeologists associate Wilton assemblages with an assortment of different types of stone and non stone technology. Stone materials are one of the longest lasting artifacts and, as such, allow archaeologists to interpret the behaviors of past peoples. In rare instances, it is possible for archaeologists to recover non stone technology, hereafter referred to as biological material. Biological materials like wooden shafts of spears or digging sticks give insight into the broader cultural pattern of past foraging communities that is usually only represented via stone materials. For the Wilton archaeological record, archaeologists have access to a wide variety of stone tools and cases where biological tools were recovered, allowing Wilton to be defined by not only stone but also non stone technology.

Initially derived from the Wilton rock shelter in South Africa, Janette Deacon classified the Wilton assemblages into four phases that mark the beginning of Wilton (stage 0), a growth phase (stage 1), a mature phase (stage 2), and a decline phase (stage 3). Janette Deacon recognizes a pre ancestral stone industry at Wilton rock shelter dating to 10,000 years ago by the presence of large stone scrapers made from Quartzite materials. Furthermore, these stone materials are associated with large fauna, suggesting pre ancestral peoples foraged large animals. These large stone tools are attributable to what Goodwin and Lowe would term Smithfield, a contemporaneous but distinct culture from Wilton. At 8,000 years ago, scrapers at the Wilton site become much smaller, and very few tool types are represented at this time. Deacon claims that this forms the basis for a growth phase (stage 1) of Wilton, which turns towards a mature phase (stage 2) dating to around 4,800 years ago. Stage 2 is represented by the smallest variation in scraper size and shape as well as a faunal assemblage dominated by small animals, distinguishing the Wilton from its predecessor. Additionally, this period is correlated with an increase in backed tool manufacture at Wilton. Though Deacon does not bring attention to this increase, backed tools become a prevalent factor in Wilton assemblages with sites like Gwisho. Archaeologists associate these backed tools and segments as inserts that would have been hafted to form spear like weapons. Some archaeologists argue that the reoccurrence of standardized stone segments and backed tools reflect a similar adaptation to environmental stress including increasing populations and deteriorating climate. Zambian Wilton technology is defined from the Mumbwa site, which shares similar technologies to South African Wilton and dates to the same later stone age period (8,000 4,000 years ago). Stone technology from Luano Spring consists of mostly quartz materials and, like South Africa, reflects a shift towards decreased size and emphasis on formal tools. However, this site is unique because of the frequency of Denticulate tools. Others have further noted that not all Nachikufan assemblages in Zambia reflect a similar Wilton like appearance and thus, question their role in the later stone age industries. The distinction between Wilton and Nachikufan is defined by the absence of large scrapers, which had defined the previous Oakhurst technologies. Similar sites in Zambia like that of Gwisho contained both inorganic (stone) and organic tools. Stone technology at Gwisho was similarly made on quartz raw materials. Specifically, the site of Pomongwe in Zimbabwe as well as Gwisho and Amadzimba cave in Zambia provide an assortment of bone and wooden technologies. Pomongwe cave in Zimbabwe has preserved several wooden and bone tools dating around 2,000 years ago and assigned as a Wilton assemblage. Two large and four small wooden projectile points and an element shaped like a hook were recovered from Pomongwe in association with notched bone shards, which are likely the result of scraping motions. Examples of bone tools found at Gwisho include points, awls, and needles. These types of tools were also encountered at the Amadzimba Cave in Southern Rhodesia, This variation could be the result of clear differences in technologies that foragers used at these sites, or taphonomic biases. That is, since biological materials rarely survive in the archaeological record, sites that lack evidence of biological tools may simply reflect instances with poor preservation, instead of technological changes. Wooden fragments found at Gwisho are another form of technological strategy that implies the importance of wood as tools at these sites. Though some archaeologists show that Wilton sites dating between 8,000 and 4,000 years ago share similar stone and non stone technology, contrasts between sites like Gwisho Spring, Pomongwe, Mumbwa, Wilton rock shelter, and Rose Cottage Cave show variability in the tools that foragers used during the middle Holocene. Changes in frequency and types of tools present reflects the variability at each of these sites. These changes might be a result of different environmental adaptations, however, Wilton like assemblages still reflect homogeneous shifts from large to small tools and thus, may suggest a changes in behavioral adaptation that may include different diets, social networks, and population changes. Plant use also appeared to increase during Wilton occupations until 2,000 years ago. These trends of plant and animal use are also reflected in the South African interior at sites like Rose Cottage Cave. Among the list of bovids represented here, past peoples consumed zebra, tortoise, aardvark, and small browsing antelope. In this region of Zambia, these fauna represent a similar environment that exists in Zambia today. This contrasts South African interior sites where the environment was less stable, yet both sites show similar animal and plant use patterns among the inhabitants. Even along the southern coast of South Africa, despite the vicinity to the ocean, the faunal assemblages reflect terrestrial hunting strategies but with a slight increase in marine resources. Sites like Nelson Bay Cave show continued dependence on small game animals from 9,000 5,000 years ago. However, after 5,000 years ago diets at Nelson Bay Cave and other coastal sites reflect an increased dependence on marine resources. At Nelson bay cave 3,300 years ago, marine resources like fish and seals became a staple food source for these people. The site of Matjes River, which lies 14km along the shore from Nelson Bay Cave shows a similar trend away from terrestrial foods but, instead of foraging marine resources, isotopic and archaeological data suggest the inhabitants of Matjes River had a mixed diet. Inter regional variability can be seen between the Wilton rock shelter and sites like Zambia. At Wilton, there are few backed tools, something that, today, defines Wilton assemblages but in contrast, sites in Zambia exhibit a high number of backed tools. In contrast, some archaeologists suggest that the reduction in stone tool size is a practice that spread through large social networks. On the other hand, ocher has functional uses such as ultraviolet protection and mastic for binding stone tools to spear like weaponry, however, many scholars have also argued that ochre was used to symbolize group identities like shell beads. Ochre was also recovered from burials that date to Wilton period, suggesting ceremonial importance for ochre. Though stone technology may have been exchanged on the southern African landscape, the presence of non tool stone materials during the mid Holocene does suggest a diverse array of behaviors. Among inter regional variations in technology, there exist intra regional burial practices primarily located along coastal environments that vary widely in the material culture that accompanies burials. These authors show an increase in shell bead production that accompanies burials and suggest that this reflects a stressed environment and increased emphasis on group identity. In this latter case, archaeologists interpret, not an increase in exchange networks, but evidence for exclusive behaviors associated with territorial defense. To exemplify regional differences in Wilton communities, more recent studies of the Drakensberg montane region show large networks of forager communities. Stewart and colleagues use isotopes of strontium to show that ostrich eggshells traveled hundreds of kilometers into this region 8,000 years ago. This pattern contrasts that seen along the coastal regions where foragers are grounding themselves to specific parts of the landscape of South Africa, suggesting regional differences in mobility and potential for material exchange. For 50,000 years, forager communities in Africa have used ostrich eggshell beads. Archaeologists believe that the increase in bead production links prehistoric cultures to an increased need to symbolize group identities. The extensive movement of shells inland and the symbolic potential of these objects suggests highly mobile groups of people during the first period of time that we see Wilton like technology (8,000 years ago). These networks once used to span from East to South Africa but appear to be disconnected after the Last Glacial Maximum. For instance, the stylistic design of eggshell beads remained similar between southern and eastern Africa until 33,000 years ago, forming an inter regional network of foraging communities. By 19,000 years ago, the design of these beads varied, and by the middle Holocene, eastern and southern African communities appeared separated from one another. The spatial extent of social exchange was likely limited by prehistoric networks. The isolation of southern Africa may reflect the reason why Wilton like technologies only extend as far north as Zimbabwe. Lastly, the use of Ochre during this period has been interpreted as both, a symbolic and functional material. Ochre is a mineral pigment that past foraging communities have used since the Middle Stone Age for burials, symbolism, and hafting stone tools. During the Holocene, there is an increased use of ochre with evidence that ochre was heavily used in burials and hafting stone technology. Given that Wilton technology is associated with an increase in backed tools, it is likely that ochre was used for hafting these implements to create weapons. However, sites in southern Namaqualand, South Africa, exhibit an absence of preserved ochre on the backed tools in Holocene assemblages. This absence may suggest that ochre was used for other functional purposes during the Holocene and not exclusively for hafting stone tools. An additional use of ochre may be as an insect repellent and protection of UV light. By contrast, ochre may have been used as a social adaptation. For instance, the symbolic use of ochre could be related to signaling group identity and artistic expressions in the form of rock art. Most middle Holocene assemblages spanning from the coastal regions to inland montane environments do contain evidence that ochre was heavily used.

One implication of small, standard, stone tools that Wilton represents is related to the movement of peoples through southern Africa and hence, the interaction of different forager populations. However, during the middle Holocene, temperatures increased, forming arid regions that became unsuitable for forager populations in South Africa. Archaeological sites in South Africa show a discontinuous spatial distribution of Wilton technology and thus, suggests sparse populations. The use and emphasis on small, formal, stools from 8,000 4,000 years ago can be explained as a strategy for coping with poor environmental conditions. Yet, the uniform transition from large to small tools may suggest that there were extended networks between foraging communities in South Africa that extended north into portions of Zambia and Zimbabwe. At an early account for the site of Mumbwa in Zambia, Protsch argued that Khoisan peoples emerged in central Africa around 20,000 years ago. Other accounts by d'Errico and colleagues use evidence from Border Cave to suggest a much earlier emergence of Khoisan communities dating to 40,000 years ago. These contrasting views reflect two main components of the Kalahari debate in which the question of cultural continuity between late Stone Age peoples and modern Indigenous communities comes under scrutiny. On one end, the cultural identities of African communities represent a direct link to prehistoric populations and can help to describe prehistoric behaviors. On the other end of this debate, cultural contact and transformation have been ongoing for thousands of years and so, modern communities do not reflect the exact cultural behaviors or identities of prehistoric populations. During the Holocene, the question becomes whether Wilton technology reflects the foundation for modern Indigenous communities in South Africa today. Wilton is the last colloquially recognized technological industry before the final late Stone Age that post dates 4,000 years. After 4,000 years ago, the technologies that foragers use become less standardized and more variable across Southern Africa. Increased variability in the types of tools people made may reflect human choices to specialize to specific environments and may signal a disconnect from exchange networks that some posit existed from 8,000 4,000 years. Contact between foraging and pastoral communities likely impacted the types of tools present and cultural behaviors. Some scholars show that not all foraging communities conformed to pastoral lifeways, but, instead, adapted to the presence of pastoralists by specializing in tools designed for a new economy. A change in economy after 2,000 years may not have changed cultural practices of foragers during this time, but the introduction of this economy did change the kinds of stone technology. Creolization refers to the expression of new cultural traits as an effect of the contact between two unique cultures. Evidence for creolization in the historic past raises questions about whether cultural identities remained intact up until the present day. If cultural identities are intact, then archaeologists can use modern Indigenous communities to interpret Holocene behaviors, but the creolization may suggest a shift in cultural behaviors. This raises an additional question about what the difference between stone tools and cultural behaviors. In the instance where foragers in South Africa increased the production of stone scrapers as a result of changing economies with pastoral communities, does this reflect a change in cultural behavior or material production? Furthermore, since tools may be driven by changes in the economy and not necessarily cultural behaviors, this makes it difficult to argue that cultural identities are directly linked to stone technology. This brings us back to the concerns that stone industries like Wilton overgeneralize cultural behaviors and may not accurately reflect groups identities across southern Africa.