Geoarchaeology Sediment Micromorphol ogy and Site Formation Processes During the Middle to Later Stone Ages at the Haua Fteah Cave, Cyrenaica, Libya For Peer Review Journal: Geoarchaeology Manuscript ID GEO-16-108.R1 Wiley - Manuscript type: Research Article Date Submitted by the Author: n/a Complete List of Authors: Inglis, Robyn Helen; University of York, Archaeology; Macquarie University, Environmental Sciences French, Charles; University of Cambridge, Archaeology Farr, Lucy; University of Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Hunt, Chris; Liverpool John Moores University, Natural Sciences and Psychology Jones, Sacha; University of Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Reynolds, Tim; Birkbeck, History Classics & Archaeology Barker, Graeme; University of Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Cave Sediments, Site Formation Processes, North Africa, Palaeolithic Keywords: Archaeology, Sediment Micromorphology John Wiley & Sons Page 1 of 69 Geoarchaeology 1 2 3 Sediment Micromorphology and Site Formation Processes During the Middle to 4 5 Later Stone Ages at the Haua Fteah Cave, Cyrenaica, Libya 6 7 8 9 10 Robyn H. Inglis 11 12 Department of Archaeology, University of York, UK; Department of Environmental 13 Sciences, Macquarie University, Australia 14 15 16 Charles French 17 18 Department of ForArchaeology Peer and Anthropology, Review University of Cambridge, UK 19 20 21 Lucy Farr 22 23 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK 24 25 26 Chris O. Hunt 27 28 School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK 29 30 Sacha C. Jones 31 32 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK 33 34 Tim Reynolds 35 36 Department of History, Classics and Archaeology, Birkbeck, University of London, 37 38 UK 39 40 Graeme Barker 41 42 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 John Wiley & Sons Geoarchaeology Page 2 of 69 1 2 3 ABSTRACT 4 5 Understanding the timing, conditions and characteristics of the Middle to Later Stone Age 6 7 8 (MSA/LSA) transition in North Africa is critical for debates regarding the evolution and past 9 10 11 population dynamics of Homo sapiens , especially their dispersals within, out of, and back into, 12 13 14 Africa. As with many cultural transitions during the Palaeolithic, our understanding is based 15 16 17 predominantly on archaeological and palaeoenvironmental records preserved within a small 18 For Peer Review 19 20 number of deep cave sediment sequences. To use such sequences as chronological cornerstones 21 22 23 we must to develop a robust understanding of the formation processes that created them. This 24 25 26 paper utilises geoarchaeological analyses (field observations, sediment micromorphology, bulk 27 28 29 sedimentology) to examine site formation processes and stratigraphic integrity during the 30 31 MSA/LSA at the Haua Fteah cave, Libya, one of North Africa's longest cultural sequences. 32 33 34 The depositional processes identified vary in mode and energy, from aeolian 35 36 37 deposition/reworking to mass colluvial mudflows. These changing processes impact greatly on 38 39 40 the interpretation of the palaeoenvironmental and archaeological records, not least in 41 42 43 identifying potential colluvial sediment deposition and reworking in layers identified as 44 45 46 containing the MSA/LSA transition. This study highlights the importance of developing 47 48 49 geoarchaeological analyses of cultural sequences to fully unravel the limitations and potential 50 51 52 of their contained archaeological and palaeoenvironmental records. 53 54 55 KEY WORDS: Sediment Micromorphology; Geoarchaeology; Caves; North Africa; Site 56 57 58 Formation Processes. 59 60 1 John Wiley & Sons Page 3 of 69 Geoarchaeology 1 2 3 INTRODUCTION 4 5 The appearance of Later Stone Age (LSA) stone tool industries within Africa after ca. 6 7 8 50,000 years BP (ca. 50 ka) marked a major change in human behaviour, contrasting starkly 9 10 11 with the behavioural practices of the Middle Stone Age (MSA, Barham & Mitchell 2008). The 12 13 14 mechanisms, conditions and chronologies of the development of LSA industries from the MSA 15 16 17 industries that preceded them are the subject of intense debate, as summarised by authors in 18 For Peer Review 19 20 Jones and Stewart (2016). Even polarising archaeological entities into neat conceptual ‘blocks’ 21 22 23 — MSA or LSA — can be problematic, ignoring both variation in and the fluid nature of 24 25 26 human behaviour (Mitchell, 2016: 409). The North African archaeological record is central to 27 28 29 these debates. Given its location between Sub Saharan Africa and the Levant, North Africa is a 30 31 region crucial to understanding the dispersals of Homo sapiens populations (‘modern humans’) 32 33 34 out of as well as back into Africa (Foley and Lahr 1997; Garcea, 2012, 2016; Van Peer, 1998). 35 36 37 Establishing the timing and palaeoenvironments of the MSA/LSA transition across this key 38 39 40 region is critical if we are to reveal past population histories in North Africa, yet our 41 42 43 understanding of this important transition still requires clarification (Barton et al., 2016). 44 45 46 Although arguments concerning the MSA/LSA transition in North Africa have mostly centred 47 48 49 on population dispersal scenarios, it currently remains unclear to what extent such a 50 51 52 technological shift may reflect: 1) migrations into new regions of human populations using 53 54 55 culturally and technologically distinct tool kits (Oliveri et al., 2006; Pereira et al., 2010); 2) in 56 57 58 situ technological adaption to changing environmental conditions and resources (Garcea, 59 60 John Wiley & Sons 2 Geoarchaeology Page 4 of 69 1 2 3 4 2010); 3) a change in population dynamics and enhanced opportunities for cultural 5 6 7 transmission (Powell et al., 2009); 4) a biological change occurring in human populations 8 9 10 (Klein, 1994); or 5) a combination of these scenarios, such as decreasing residential mobility, 11 12 13 population growth and environmental change (Tryon & Faith, 2016). 14 15 Present understanding of the MSA/LSA transition in North Africa is, as in the case of most 16 17 18 Palaeolithic regionalFor chronologies, Peer based largely Review on artefacts, palaeoenvironmental proxies and 19 20 21 dating material preserved within cave sediment sequences. Yet each of these stratigraphies 22 23 24 were formed through processes unique to their setting and history (Farrand, 2001; Woodward 25 26 27 & Goldberg, 2001). Changing modes and rates of deposition have been long known to impact 28 29 30 on the taphonomy of the archaeological record through sediment removal and reworking, or 31 32 33 changing rates of sedimentation and hiatuses (e.g. Butzer, 1971; Harris, 1989; Stein, 1987, 34 35 36 2001). This can distort interpretation of these cultural and environmental chronologies, and 37 38 39 create apparently abrupt changes in environmental proxies and/or technological artefact 40 41 42 attributes, as well as ‘inversions’ of cultural material (Campy & Chaline, 1993; Hunt et al., 43 44 45 2015; Mallol et al., 2012). Therefore, if we are to use deep cave sequences as the cornerstones 46 47 of regional cultural chronologies, we must understand the processes that created them, and 48 49 50 consider the archaeological records they contain in light of this understanding. 51 52 53 Geoarchaeological analyses are well-placed to analyse site formation processes through a 54 55 56 range of methods and analytical scales (e.g. Bailey and Woodward 1997; Frumkin et al., 2016; 57 58 59 60 John Wiley & Sons 3 Page 5 of 69 Geoarchaeology 1 2 3 4 Mallol et al., 2009). In particular, sediment micromorphology allows microscopic interrogation 5 6 7 of sediments, enhancing field observations and complementing quantitative sediment analysis 8 9 10 (Goldberg & Sherwood, 2006; Woodward & Goldberg, 2001), especially in studies of 11 12 13 sedimentation rates and stratigraphic integrity beyond the reach of radiocarbon dating (e.g. 14 15 Aldeias et al., 2014; Karkanas & Goldberg, 2010; Mallol et al., 2012). 16 17 18 This paper utilisesFor a range Peerof geoarchaeological Review techniques to examine site formation 19 20 21 processes in the late MSA to early LSA layers at the Haua Fteah cave on the Cyrenaican coast 22 23 24 of northeast Libya (22 o3’5”E, 32 o53’70”N). The cultural sequence revealed by Charles 25 26 27 McBurney’s excavations in the 1950s (McBurney, 1967) is unparalleled in North African 28 29 30 prehistory, with the earliest deposits dating to the end of MIS 6 (Douka et al., 2014; Jacobs et 31 32 33 al., 2017), and containing cultural material from the MSA to the present (McBurney, 1967). 34 35 36 Renewed investigations by a multi-disciplinary team, The Cyrenaican Prehistory Project 37 38 39 (CPP), between 2007 and 2015 have combined archaeological excavation with 40 41 42 palaeoenvironmental and chronological analyses (e.g. Barker et al., 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 43 44 45 2012; Farr et al., 2014; Rabett et al., 2013). The present study, part of that project, combines 46 47 sediment micromorphology, bulk sedimentology, and field observations to develop a 48 49 50 sedimentological and taphonomic framework for the sediments containing the late MSA and 51 52 53 early LSA artefacts. Within this framework, the existing and existing and emerging 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 John Wiley & Sons 4 Geoarchaeology Page 6 of 69 1 2 3 4 archaeological and palaeoenvironmental records of this important cultural sequence can be 5 6 7 situated and interpreted. 8 9 10 THE MSA AND LSA IN NORTH AFRICA 11 12 13 Reviews of the MSA and LSA of North Africa reveal a complexity of demographic 14 15 scenarios that may underlie the equally complex cultural shifts that occurred both within the 16 17 18 MSA and LSA andFor from the MSAPeer to the LSA Review (Garcea, 2016; Van Peer, 2016).