Speleology and Magnetobiostratigraphic Chronology of the GD 2 Locality of the Gondolin Hominin-Bearing Paleocave Deposits, North West Province, South Africa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Human Evolution 51 (2006) 617e631 Speleology and magnetobiostratigraphic chronology of the GD 2 locality of the Gondolin hominin-bearing paleocave deposits, North West Province, South Africa Andy I.R. Herries a,e,*, Justin W. Adams b,c, Kevin L. Kuykendall d,c, John Shaw e a Palaeoanthropology Research Group, Department of Anatomy, School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington 2052, Sydney, Australia b Department of Anthropology, Washington University, Campus Box 1114, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA c School of Anatomical Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa d Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, S1 4ET, UK e Geomagnetism Laboratory, School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, Oliver Lodge, University of Liverpool, L69 7ZE, UK Received 6 October 2005; accepted 7 July 2006 Abstract Speleological, paleomagnetic, mineral magnetic, and biochronological analyses have been undertaken at the Gondolin hominin-bearing paleocave, North West Province, South Africa. Two fossiliferous but stratigraphically separate sequences, GD2 and GD1/3, which were once part of a large cavern system, have been identified. Although some comparative paleomagnetic samples were taken from the GD 1, 3, and 4 localities that are currently under investigation, the research presented here focuses on the fossil-rich, in situ deposits at locality GD 2, excavated by E.S. Vrba in 1979. The GD 2 deposits are dominated by normal-polarity calcified clastic deposits that are sandwiched between clastic-free flowstone speleothems. The lower flowstone has a sharp contact with the red siltstone deposits and is of reversed polarity. The capping flowstone shows a change from normal to reversed polarity, thereby preserving a polarity reversal. While the paleomagnetic work indicates that the GD 2 fossil material was deposited during a normal-polarity period, the shortness of the sequence made matching of the magnetostratigraphy to the geomagnetic polarity time scale (GPTS) impossible without the aid of biochronology. While lacking multiple time-sensitive taxa, the recovery of specimens attributable to Stage III Metridiochoerus andrewsi is consistent with a deposition date between 1.9 and 1.5 Ma. A comparison of the magnetostratigraphy with the GPTS therefore suggests that the fauna-bearing siltstone of GD 2 date to the Olduvai normal-polarity event, which occurred between 1.95 and 1.78 Ma, and that the reversal from normal to reversed polarity identified in the capping flowstone dates to 1.78 Ma. The main faunal layers therefore date to slightly older than 1.78 Ma. Deposits from the GD 1 locality are dominated by reversed directions of magnetization, which show that this deposit is not of the same age as the faunal layers from the GD 2 locality. Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Early Pleistocene; Paleomagnetism; Biochronology; Olduvai Event; Dolomite Paleocave; Speleology; Australopithecus Introduction deposits from existing open chambers). The site is situated 34 km northwest of Johannesburg and 20 km from the Sterk- The fossil site known as Gondolin is a historically lime- fontein Valley, near the town of Broederstroom, in the North mined relict cave deposit (or ‘‘paleocave,’’ to distinguish the West Province of South Africa (Fig. 1). The site lies in the tran- sition zone between the Mixed Bushveld and Rocky Highveld grassland biomes on the rocky slopes of the Skurweberg moun- * Corresponding author. Palaeoanthropology Research Group, Department tain range (Low and Robelo, 1996). A number of depositional of Anatomy, School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington 2052, Sydney, Australia. units can be identified at the site. However, mining activities at E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] the turn of the twentieth century essentially removed the entire (A.I.R. Herries). center of the paleocave deposit, making stratigraphic 0047-2484/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.07.007 618 A.I.R. Herries et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 51 (2006) 617e631 Fig. 1. Location of Gondolin in relation to other hominin-bearing paleocave deposits. correlations across the site very difficult. Further excavation Watson (1993) interpreted the excavated GD 2 fauna as the re- around the edges of the initial opencast excavations to remove mains of a carnivore accumulation, with the suid fauna sug- speleothem deposits has resulted in the two main fossil-bearing gesting that the deposits had formed around the same time localities (GD 1 and GD 2; Figs. 2, 3) that are now stratigraph- as those of Swartkrans Member 1, dated by faunal correlation ically discontinuous. (de Ruiter, 2003) and ESR (Curnoe et al., 2001) to approxi- As a result of this heavy mining, the Gondolin site today mately 1.6 Ma. preserves only remnants of the paleocave deposit, consisting Locality GD 3 represents an infilled rift cavity on the west- of thin coverings of heavily calcified, fine-grained sediments ern edge of the site and grades up into the GD 1 deposits. Lo- (siltstones), breccias, conglomerates, and abundant speleo- cality GD 4 represents the basal deposits exposed in the center thems on the walls of the ancient cave (Fig. 3). Locality GD of the site and can be traced to the northern wall, where the 1 is located in the northwest corner of the cave and represents deposits lie below GD 1. a series of interstratified speleothem, in-washed sediments, Interspersed with the in situ sequences are extensive ex situ and talus deposits covering a variety of time periods related breccia dumpsites that were produced during the initial mining to a vertical entrance to the system. Fossil materials from at the site. One of these breccia dumps was sampled in 1997 GD 1 excavated in 2003 have been described by Adams and yielded the first hominin material from the sitedan iso- (2006), and research on these deposits is currently ongoing. lated left M1 or M2 that is likely to represent the genus On the northern edge of the cavity, huge blocks of cave infill Homo and an unusually large left M2 attributed to the genus deposits have detached from the 6-m-high wall. Paranthropus (Kuykendall and Conroy, 1999; Menter et al., Locality GD 2 (Figs. 2, 4) is located on the eastern edge of 1999). The Paranthropus M2 exhibits morphological features the cave and consists of a stratified speleothem and siltstone unique for South African representatives of the genus, but it sequence containing dense fossil accumulations from caching is metrically more similar to Australopithecus (Paranthropus) activity via a lateral entrance. These deposits are now com- boisei specimens from eastern Africa (Kuykendall and Conroy, pletely separate from the other localities and no direct strati- 1999; Tobias, 2000). graphic links can be made. Initial excavations by E.S. Vrba Few absolute dating methods optimally cover the time range and D. Panagos in 1979 removed in situ fossils from the GD of the South African hominin paleocaves and consequently nu- 2 deposits that were initially described by Watson (1993; merous problems occur in their application. Paleomagnetic Fig. 4). In her preliminary faunal and taphonomic analysis, (McFadden, 1980), electron spin resonance (ESR; Curnoe A.I.R. Herries et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 51 (2006) 617e631 619 Fig. 2. Survey of the Gondolin site and location of localities (redrawn by Herries after Menter et al., 1999). et al., 2001), and isotopic dating (Partridge et al., 2003) have all grain sizes give similar results for certain standard mineral been attempted at other South African early hominin sites, with magnetic tests but can be distinguished by a more detailed mixed results. Previous paleomagnetic analysis of South Afri- analysis. In many cases, the siltstones and breccias are domi- can cave deposits has suffered from a number of problems. nated by secondary magnetizations carried by these ultrafine Work undertaken at Sterkfontein and Swartkrans by Jones grains. This is a function of their age, as well as depositional et al. (1986) suggested that the cave breccias were dominated mechanisms and sediment sourcing from the surrounding en- by large detrital grains of magnetite and were unsuitable for pa- vironment (Herries, 2003). New techniques and more sensitive leomagnetic analysis due to environmental conditions of depo- equipment have made it possible to identify a weak primary sition. More recently, however, positive paleomagnetic results remanence carried by magnetic grain sizes that are stable have been achieved for speleothem deposits at Sterkfontein over these geologic time periods (Thackeray et al., 2002; Her- (Partridge et al., 1999, 2000; Herries, 2003) and from ries, 2003; Herries et al., 2006). calcified siltstones, conglomerates, breccias, and speleothem A primary task at even the longer-studied South African deposits at Makapansgat (Herries, 2003; Herries et al., 2006), early hominin sites is to develop speleogenetic and develop- Gladysvale (Lacruz et al., 2002; Herries, 2003) and Kromdraai mental models with firmly established depositional sequences (Thackeray et al., 2002). on which a magnetostratigraphy can be based. A lack of such Detailed mineral magnetic analysis at these localities models can lead to confusion over the age and sequencing of (Herries, 2003) has shown that the main problem for the reco- deposits and fossils, and mistrust in well-established and valid very of stable, primary paleomagnetic directions is in most techniques. The study of the caves, including an interpretation cases not due to the presence of large detrital grains of magne- of the speleogenesis, developmental history, and infill, is there- tite, as suggested by Jones et al. (1986), but rather by fine, vis- fore paramount for understanding depositional sequences at cous grains that do not hold a stable remanence over the time the sites and in constructing a reliable composite sequence period since deposition of the deposits. These two distinct on which magnetostratigraphic analysis can be based (e.g., Fig.