Wilton culture
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.
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.
[15][16] Additional wooden and bone tools lead archaeologists to think that biological materials played an important role in communities that made Wilton technologies.
[2][7] This discrepancy offers some evidence that broad categories like Wilton overgeneralize behaviors of people whom, though may have had some cultural activities in common, exhibit diverse tool sets.
[20] Many archaeologists[specify] 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.
[21][9][18] The Wilton site is adjacent to the Karoo region of South Africa and represents a diverse environment that could have easily supported forager groups living in this area.
[2][4][18] In 1929, Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe initially used Wilton as a term to describe Microlith archaeological assemblages that contained small stone scrapers and backed tools.
[19] During this early period of excavation, Goodwin and Van Riet Lowe broke up Wilton technology into two variations defined by the interior and coastal geography of South Africa.
For instance, the site of Gwisho in Zambia had predominantly more backed tools than scrapers, contradicting what was originally found at the Wilton rock shelter.
[27] Evidence for the introduction of ceramics, pastoralism, and ironworking post-dating 4,000 years ago has created a mosaic of final late stone age technological industries in Southern Africa.
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.
[32][33] 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.
[36] 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.
[18] 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.
[39] Fagan and Von Noten identify several types of wooden tools at the Gwisho sites that include Pointed implements, digging sticks, club-shaped objects, and an array of smoothed fragments.
[14] Musonda and Gutin similarly show that the presence of fauna at the Mufulwe rock shelter in Zambia suggests periods of increased aridity that would have forced foraging communities to seasonally migrate between different sites on the landscape.
[47] 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.
For instance, the way in which past peoples made arrowheads and backed stone tools, suggests different methods of production and thus, limited communication between foraging communities associated with Wilton technology.
[50] 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.
[50] Hall and Binneman show increased emphasis in burial practices and material production from two South African sites, Klasies River Caves and Welgeluk Shelter.
[50][59] 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).
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.
[70] 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.
Building on this hypothesis, Judith Sealy posits that Wilton technology was developed under low populations that occurred due to increased aridity throughout much of South Africa during the middle Holocene.
[16] Environmental data shows favorable climate and increased site density from 12,000-8,000 years ago, corresponding to Oakhurst technology, which consists of large, informal tools.
[citation needed] Khoisan, sometimes just referred to as San, is the name for the Indigenous communities of South Africa and to many archaeologists, represents direct cultural descendants from later Stone Age foragers.
[77][78] 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.
[80] 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.
[16] 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.
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.
