STERKFONTEIN
Lo CATION
Brecciated cavity-fill in dolomitic limestones, 10 km
west of Krugersdorp, near Johannesburg, Gauteng,
South Africa.
D I s COVERY
StW 53 recovered by A. Hughes, August 1976; StW
80 in November, 1979.MATERIAL
The only Sterkfontein materials yet attributed to
Homo are the StW 53 partial cranium and the StW 80
crushed mandible from Member 5 West. Additional
attributions by Robinson (1962) await confirmation.
DATING AND STRATIGRAPHIC CONTEXT
Reappraisal of the stratigraphy of the Sterkfontein site
has shown that the principal excavation area has a
complex history of infilling in the period between
about 2.8 and 1.4 Ma, with sporadic later sediments
as well (Kuman and Clarke, 2000). StW 53 was re-
portedly (Hughes and Tobias, 1977) recovered from
the artifact-bearing Member 5 of the Sterkfontein
Fm, as later defined by Partridge (1978) and refined
by Partridge and Watt (1991). However, Kuman and
Clarke (2000) have shown that the StW 53 infill is, in
fact, a distinct sedimentary pocket that is stratigraphi-
cally intermediate between the classic Member 4 and
the artifact-containing breccias of the later Member 5.
Lithologically, the infill breccia is said to be closer toMember 5 than to Member 4, but the lack of artifacts
in the infill has led Kuman and Clarke to conclude
that these sediments were probably formed as part of
a late phase of deposition of Member 4. The infill it-
self probably dates from some time in the 2.6-2.0 Ma
range and is indicative of a relatively closed habitat
(see Kuman and Clarke, 2000, and references therein),
although it apparently formed under somewhat drier
conditions than Member 4. Member 5 West, which
includes the “extension site” of Robinson (1962), rep-
resents a carnivore accumulation (Pickering, 1999),
and is estimated to lie in the 1.7-1.4 Ma age range
(Kuman and Clarke, 2000).ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Stone tools are known from Member 5 but not from
Member 4 or from the StW 53 infill (Kuman and
Clarke, 2000). Member 5 West implements include at
least two Acheulean bifaces, and are said by Kuman
and Clarke (2000) to contrast in other ways as well
with the typical Oldowan, e.g., in a high frequency of
manuports and the presence of large flakes.PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES
Hughes and Tobias (1977) provisionally described
StW 53 as Homo hadilis, a designation since ap-
proved by most paleoanthropologists. However,
Kuman and Clarke (2000) have presented com-
pelling arguments for excluding this fairly megadont
specimen from the genus Homo. Instead, they assign
it to the genus Australopithecus. They also state that263