Geoarchaeological investigations at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa Christopher E. Miller a, * , Paul Goldberg b, c, 1 , Francesco Berna b, d, 1 , 2 a Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tübingen, Rümelinstr. 23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany b Department of Archaeology, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA 02215, USA c The Role of Culture in Early Expansions of Humans (ROCEEH), Heidelberg Academy of Science, University of Tübingen, Rümelinstr. 23, 72070 Tübingen, Germany d Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6 article info Article history: Received 22 October 2012 Received in revised form 15 February 2013 Accepted 16 February 2013 Keywords: Middle Stone Age Micromorphology FTIR Site formation processes Combustion features abstract The sedimentary sequence at Diepkloof Rock Shelter formed through a complex interaction of deposi- tional and post-depositional processes and was variously influenced by biogenic, geogenic, and anthropogenic agents. Here, we present the results of a micromorphological study of the sediments at Diepkloof, focusing in particular on the numerous anthropogenic inputs and modifications recorded within the sequence. By applying the microfacies concept, we were able to identify hearth burning and maintenance, bedding construction and burning, and surface modification by trampling as major pro- cesses that contributed to the formation of the site. The human activities recorded within the sediments show a marked change throughout the sequence, implying a shift in the use of the site over time. The present study also provides a context for evaluating other classes of artifacts and data collected from the site. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Excavations at Diepkloof Rock Shelter (DRS) have yielded a long, cultural sequence spanning MIS 5e3 and including pre-Still Bay, Still Bay (SB), Howiesons Poort (HP), post-HP and Later Stone Age (LSA) occupations (Table 1)(Parkington et al., in this issue; Porraz et al., in this issue; Tribolo et al., in this issue). Such a complete sequence is unusual in South Africa. Therefore, DRS provides a rare opportunity to investigate the cultural evolution of modern humans living along the western coast of southern Africa during the Middle Stone Age (MSA). The archaeological record of DRS, as with any archaeological site, does not consist solely of chipped stone, ochre, eggshell containers, and floral and faunal remains. Rather, these materials are embedded within a sedi- mentary matrix that provides the ultimate context for the inter- pretation of the site (Goldberg and Berna, 2010). The present geoarchaeological study investigates the site formation processes at DRS, emphasizing the roles that various depositional and post-depositional agents have played in forming this important archaeological sequence. Geoarchaeological research at DRS has focused on two main issues in the interpretation of the sequence and site. First, we wished to investigate the integrity of the various layers and con- texts, testing hypotheses developed from the analysis of various classes of artifacts. Specifically, our investigation addresses the following questions about the sequence: do we see major deposi- tional hiatuses in the sequence? Do transitions between various technocomplexes reflect longer-term periods of cultural change, or do they represent abrupt changes that have been masked by later post-depositional processes, such as bioturbation? And, are pre- cocious technological and symbolic artifacts located within strati- graphically secure contexts? Secondly, we wished to identify the various geogenic, biogenic, and anthropogenic processes that led to the formation of the DRS sequence and understand how these processes changed over time. Through the use of micromorphology, geoarchaeologists are able to isolate different agents and processes that form a site, making it possible to identify human actions that helped to create the geo- archaeological record (Courty et al., 1989). Thus, with the appro- priate analytical tools, geoarchaeologists treat deposits as proper artifacts (Goldberg and Bar-Yosef, 1998; Goldberg and Berna, 2010; Miller, 2011), and by identifying the various human activities that contributed to the accumulation of deposits at DRS, we are able to * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 (0) 707129 76 511. E-mail addresses: christopher.miller@uni-tuebingen.de (C.E. Miller), paulberg@ bu.edu (P. Goldberg), fberna@bu.edu, francesco_berna@sfu.ca (F. Berna). 1 Tel.: þ1 617 358 1666. 2 Tel.: þ1 778 782 9674. Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas 0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.014 Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2013) 1e21 Please cite this article in press as: Miller, C.E., et al., Geoarchaeological investigations at Diepkloof Rock Shelter, Western Cape, South Africa, Journal of Archaeological Science (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.014