Southern African field archaeology

96 Pages·1992·8.1 MB·English

by  Albany Museum (Grahamstown, South Africa)

uthern african
Albany Museum Somerset Street Grahamstown 6139 South Africa ISSN 1019-5785
SouthernAfrican FieldArchaeology
EDITORS
Johan Binneman
Lita Webley
The aim of Southern African Field Archaeology’ is to
communicatebasicdatatoprofessional archaeologistsand
the public.
Manuscripts oforiginal research undertaken in southern
Africa will be considered for publication. These may
include reports of current research projects, site reports,
rock art panels, rescue excavations, contract projects,
reviews, notes and comments. Students are encouraged to
submit short reports on projects. Southern African Field
Archaeology> also welcomes general information on
archaeological matters such as reports on workshops and
conferences.
SouthernAfrican FieldArchaeology is published once a
year.
Subscription rates are as follows: R50,00 per annum for
individualsand R60,00forinstitutions.Outsideofsouthern
Africa U.S. $25,00 for individuals and U.S. $30,00 for
institutions.
Theviewsexpressedbyauthorsaretheirownandneither
the Editors nor the Trustees ofthe Albany Museum take
responsibility for them.
Copyright: Trustees of the Albany Museum, Somerset
Street, Grahamstown, 6139. South Africa. The Albany
Museum is an institution under the auspices of the
Department of Sport, Art and Culture, Directorate
MuseumsandHeritageResources,EasternCapeProvincial
Government. Cover illustration:
Pottery from the excavations at /hei-/khomas in the
ISSN 1019-5785 Richtersveld, Northern Cape, p. 46.
ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD
G. Abrahams M. Schoeman
SouthAfrican CulturalHistory Museum, Cape Town Universityofthe Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
J. Brink B. Smith
NationalMuseum, Bloemfontein Universityofthe Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
S. Hall A. Thackeray
UniversityofCape Town Pretoria
Z. Henderson F. Thackeray
NationalMuseum, Bloemfontein TransvaalMuseum, Pretoria
A. IMalan J. van Schalkwyk
UniversityofCape Town NationalCulturalHistoryMuseum, Pretoria
D. Miller L. van Schalkwyk
UniversityofCape Town KwaZulu Monuments Council, Pietermaritzburg
A. Morris G. Whitelaw
UniversityofCape Town NatalMuseum, Pietermaritzburg
D. Morris R. Yates
McGregor Museum, Kimberley SouthAfrican Museum, Cape Town
SouthernAfrican FieldArchaeology
so1 u t h e r n a f r1 i c a_ni!
1
u IT? tm 2
r
^7A
/ 2001 Vol. 10
CONTENTS
Reading between the lines:
monuments as metaphors.
OPINIONS
1 Goodman Gwasira 88
ARTICLES
A
Riet River Burial from Koffiefontein,
South Africa.
Sven Ouzman 3 OPINIONS
Sister Mariya’s account ofSan painting
NEW OPPORTUNITIES, ACADEMIC
in the Tsolo District in the late 1920's ETHICS AND CONFUSING
and early 1930's.
TERMINOLOGY
Guy Butler 16
This is the 10th volume of Southern African Field
Mid-Holocene denticulates in
Archaeology, and we would liketoextend ourgratitudeto
the Richtersveld. those who have supported thejournal during this period.
&
J.D.J. Orton D.J. Halkett 19 Theobviousquestion which immediatelycomesto mind
is, whathashappened in South African archaeologyduring
Re-assessing the excavation ofthe the past decade? Was there any growth or decline in the
Church Street water furrow, Pretoria, discipline? Pagingthroughtheopinionscolumnsofthepast
by making use ofhistorical sources. years it is evident that few, if any ofthe everyday issues
have changed.
Anton C. Van Vollenhoven 23
By far the most important development during the past
ten years has been the radical change in the socio-political
Revisiting nomenclature:’Early environmentafter 1994. This hadamajoreffect notonlyon
Iron Age’, ’First-Millennium thedirection and thinkingwithin the discipline, butalsoon
Agriculturalists’, or what? the mind sets of archaeologists themselves. The new
John Steele 35 National Heritage Resources Act which came into
operation in 1999, will no doubt have (and all ready has
had) far reaching implications for archaeology.
Excavations at /hei-/khomas (Vaalhoek)
The Act promotes public participation and involvement
in the Richtersveld, Northern Cape.
regardingthe identification,conservation and management
Lita Webley 46 of heritage resources. This introduces new issues and
thoughts to the archaeological world in the form of
An introduction to a Later Stone Age indigenous intellectual property rights and related issues -
coastal research project along the in short, “who owns the past”. Unfortunately, it is not
south-eastern Cape coast. alwaysaboutethics, indigenousrights, intellectual property
Johan Binneman 75 and sensitive heritage(i.e. human remains), butoften about
political and/or personal agendas. Several of these issues
2
have been discussed previously in this column (Ouzman Terminology seems to be aproblem across a wide field.
1999; Prins 2000). Steel re-addressesalongstandingproblem inthe Iron Age
So the question remains is, what stand archaeologists (alsoaproblematicterm)anddiscussesseveralpossibilities.
andarchaeologytodonowandinthefuture?ThewayIsee Also in Stone Age papers and in general we have been
it, one can continue to hide in adark office, orto open the wrestling with terms such as Khoi, KhoiKhoi, Khoisan,
curtains and observe the field of opportunities which we Khoe,Khoekhoe,Khoekhoen,Khoe-Khoen,Khoesaanand
are presented with. On the one hand, the new Act places recently KhoiSan and Khoe-San. In the past we refered to
newresponsibilitiesonarchaeologists-itputstheintegrity Bushmen paintings, but now it is San paintings. What’s
ofarchaeology in the hands ofarchaeologists. We cannot next?
affordto bringthe discipline into disrepute by selfinterest
and/or socio-political agendas.
On the other hand, and most importantly, the new Johan Binneman
dispensation opens up new opportunities in the cultural Department ofArchaeology
heritage field. For example, heritage tourism creates Albany Museum
numerous opportunities and employment prospects for Grahamstown
heritageconsultantsi.e. the trainingofheritageguidesand
management/conservation and openingofheritage sitesto
the public (also see Ouzman 1996). This may be the future References
ofarchaeology.
Let us return to some ofthe general everyday issues in Ouzman, S.1996. Archaeo-tourism and images of Africa
archaeology, which have been around for some time and Southern African Field Archaeology 5:57-58.
have surfaced again in this volume. The interview andthe Ouzman, S.1999.Opinions. Indigenous intellectual
article by Butler is controversial, both in terms of the propertyrights.SouthernAfricanFieldArchaeology
information on the San and their paintings (in comparison 8:57-59.
withcurrentviewsregardingtheinterpretationoftheart)as Prins, F. E. 2000. Opinions. Indigenous intellectual
well as his refusal to allow anyone else to interview Sister propertyrightsand archaeological involvement: are
Mariya. It is unfortunate that this action prevented we prepared for the challenges. Southern African
specialists in the field of rock art from collecting infor- Field Archaeology 9:1-4.
mation which could have been of great value to the
discipline.
3
SouthernAfrican FieldArchaeology 10:3-15. 2001.
A RIET RIVER BURIAL FROM KOFFIEF0NTEIN,
SOUTH AFRICA
SVEN OUZMAN
RockArtDepartment, NationalMuseum PO Box 266,
Bloemfontein, 9300, SouthAfrica
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.nasmus.co.za/rockart/rockartl htm
ABSTRACT
In October 1997 a human burial was rescued from an erosional context next to the Riet River on the farm
Poortjie, Koffiefontein District, Free State Province, South Africa. The stone-lined and capped grave housed
an adult femaleburied inavertically flexed position. An undecoratedminiaturepotterybowl andthreecowrie
shellswererecovered as associatedgravegoods. The Poortjieburial is l4C determinedto250±45 BPand it is
thesixthof87excavatedRietRiverburialstobedated.Theburial islocated42,5mfromaTypeRstone-walled
settlementand310mfromtworock-engravingsandagongrock.ThePoortjieburial isdescribedwithreference
tothe identity ofRiet Riverburials and the authorship ofType Rsettlements. The ethics ofexcavatinghuman
remains, even in such ‘rescue’ contexts, is also considered.
INTRODUCTION there are at least 92 low (maximum height 1 m) and
extensivestonecirclesthatclusteringroupsof2-13. These
South Africa’s western Free State and eastern Northern settlements follow 135 km ofthe Riet River between the
Cape Provincesconstitutean interiorplain made up of260 KalkfonteinDamand Plooysburg(Fig. withanoticeable
1),
million year old Ecca Group geology within the Karoo concentration between Koffiefontein and Jacobsdal. Here
Supergroup (King 1980:537,556; Catuneanu et al. 1998). they occurevery 5-8 km and are always built within 3 km
The ecology ofthis region may be characterised as semi- of the Riet River - hence their designation Type ‘R’ or
arid Eastern Mixed Nama Karoo rich in medicinal plants ‘Riet’ by Maggs (1971). Though Type R settlements have
and geophytes and which receives 300-500 mm ofpatchy a physical structure distinct from known Late Iron Age
summerrain(Low&Rebelo 1996:55).Thecurrentecology settlements, it is not entirely certain who built them. Type
islargelyafunctionofovergrazingandAcocks(1975:7-10) R settlements do not have an abundant material culture-a
has suggested greater Bushveld coverage until AD 1400, function ofthe harsh environment and the episodic way in
with sweetveld grasses around the Riet River in the east. which these settlements seem to have been occupied.
The perennial Riet River, which the IKora, a Khoekhoen Excavations reveal both hunted game and domestic stock
herder people, called *Gama-!ab or ‘Muddy River’ remains(Maggs 1971;Humphreys 1973; Brinke/a/. 1992).
(Nienaber& Raper 1977:419-420), runsthroughthe lower Numerous grinding patches attest to the use of plant
western Free State and into the Northern Cape to its resources. Freshwater mussel shells and stone fish traps
confluence withthe Vaal RiverorHei-!Garib(Fig. 1). The indicate utilisation ofriverine resources (Stamelman 1948:
Riet River is adominant topographical feature and natural 73; Willcox 1965:139-140). Metal finds are rare but Later
focus forhuman activity. Gatherer-hunters ancestral to the Stone Age lithics are abundant. The plain, well-fired and
San1 have left behind near-countless Middle and Later thick Type R pottery constitutes a singular local style with
Stone Age lithics (e.g., Sampson 1972; Humphreys & cosmopolitan influences (Jacobson etal. 1994, 1998). It is
Thackeray 1983) and thousands ofrock-engravings (e.g., better made than gatherer-huntergrass-tempered ware and
Johnson 1910:70-78; Morris 1988). The Riet River region has elements ofKhoekhoen pastoralist pottery (cf. Sadr &
played a formative role in the development of Southern Sampson 1999),withahintofmore northerly Blackfarmer
Africanarchaeology. ItwasherethatGoodwin& Van Riet pottery. Available dating evidence places the building of
Lowe based much of their pioneering 1929 Southern TypeRsettlementstobetweenAD 1380-AD 1780(Maggs
African lithic sequence. Van Riet Lowe went so far as to 1976:44; Humphreys 1997:78). Though mostlyabandoned
describe the area as “...rich beyond the dreams ofeven an priortotheearly 18th-centurytravelsofBurchell,Campbell
archaeologist”(1931:434).ThoughnotaregionofIronAge and Smith, historic and ethnographic evidence shows the
settlementonaccountofitsaridity(e.g., Humphreys 1976), Riet River as home to a heterogeneous mix of San,
4
Fig. 1: Research region with locations ofdated Riet River burials.
5
Khoekhoen (!Kora and Griqua), Black (Tswana and were protruding out of it. The buried person’s severely
Xhosa)andWhite(Boersandhunter-travelers)(Humphreys weathered cranium was visible and bone fragments lay
1975, 1997) groups, most of whom appear to have been exposed on open ground next to the grave. A diminutive
relativelyrecentresidents.Thecombinationofexcavational butwell-madeand undecorated grit-tempered pottery bowl
contextual and ethnographic evidence points strongly to was also exposed. (Fig. 3). The burial’s stone sides and
stock-owning San asthe builders and occupiers ofType R cappinghadprovidedsomeprotection, butthesurrounding
settlements(Maggs 1971; Humphreys 1972, 1997; seealso ground level had eroded by up to a metre’s depth and total
Beaumont & Vogel 1984:95). These people combined a destruction was imminent. The burial’s parlous state was
traditional gatheringand hunting lifestyle withapastoralist probably initiated by the 1988 floods that destroyed three
one and though a distinctive local group, they had links Riet River burials at Pramberg nearJacobsdal (Brinketal.
with many of their neighbours. Charles Sirr Orpen, for 1992) (Fig. 1). Immediate action was required to prevent
example, encountered Kwa-ha, a San man whose mother further destruction and the burial was excavated on 12th-
was a ‘Bushwoman’ and father a ‘Gonah Hottentot’ 13th October 1997. Adapting the tech-nique developed by
(1877:83). Kwa-ha was born and resident near Bethulie, Humphreys & Maggs (1970:1 16), a2 m x 2 m grid was set
110 km south-east of Kalkfontein Dam. He said: “I can upoverthe grave with Nl, N2, SI & S2 quadrants(Fig. 4).
speak Bushman language well, but I cannot understandthe The grave pit had maximum surviving horizontal
Bushmen of Riet River; their language is Too double’” dimensions of850 mm x 780 mm and vertical dimensions
(Orpen 1877:85):suggestingadistinctSanorperhapsKhoe of 450 mm below the present surface level and 220 mm
group. This ‘Khoe-San’ identification is confirmed by above it. Allowing forthat portion ofthegrave already lost
skeletal evidence from graves excavated along the Riet to erosion, this falls within the 0.6 m - 1.4 m depth range
River, manyofwhichweresited nexttoType Rsettlements recorded forRiet Riverburials(Morris 1992:28). Nl & N2
(Morris 1984, 1992:171-172). were excavated firstand asection drawn, afterwhich S1 &
These Riet Riverburials are located on the riverbankor S2 were excavated (Figs. 4 & 5). The burial was capped by
terrace and are most concentrated between Kalkfontein at least eight small rocks and six larger rocks formed the
Dam and Jacobsdal (Maggs 1976:44; Morris 1992:25-26) grave’ssides. Seven additional rocksofasimilarsizerange
(Fig. 1) - neatly overlapping the core area of Type R lay within 1 m ofthe grave’s perimeterand may have been
settlements. In addition,just as Type R settlements are far part of the grave’s walls or may have formed additional
fewer between Jacobsdal and Plooysburg, so too do Riet layersofsoil-separated cappingsuch as wasrecorded forat
River burials become scarcer (but see Humphreys 1982). least nine other Riet River burials (van Riet Lowe
Since William Fowler - Walter Battiss’ archaeological 1931:432; Humphreys & Maggs 1970:118-119; Morris
mentor - excavated the first such burial in 1922, 86 1992:28). The Poortjie grave’s infill consisted of hard,
skeletonshavebeen recovered from 83 graves(Humphreys gritty brown soil that did not powder easily despite
1970; Humphreys & Maggs 1970; Morris 1984:33-37; containing many small rootlets. There had been termite
1992:17-18,25-38; Brink etal. 1992:56-57). Alan Morris’ activity in S2. The original contours ofthe oval and bowl-
physical anthropological research identifiestheseskeletons shaped grave pit were easily discernible (Fig. 6) as the
as “likely to represent a single, relatively homogenous infill, though hard, was much softerthan the very hard red
population” (1992:152) that could be ‘San’ or ‘Khoe’ but ground ofthe river terrace and the even harder, shallower
most probably San with uni-directional gene flow to ground beyond. The Poortjie person was buried in aseated,
northern Sotho-Tswana farmers and which have little in vertically flexed position. The bones are almost complete
common with known Khoekhoen groups living further but brittle. The body had suffered considerable downward
down the lower Orange River or Kai-!Garib (Morris and northward torsion. The spine thus ended up on an
1984:320, 1992:154). Most ofthe 86 Riet River skeletons north-south axis and the head faced north-north-west. The
were recovered from primary burialsand 35 had associated legs were drawn up and the arms held between chest and
grave goods - a context that favours the expression of legs, with forearms restingjust below the knees. Most of
group and individual identities (eg., Chapman elal. 1981; the toes and some fingers survived. The arm and leg bones
Carr 1995). I now describe one further such Riet River are all present, though their epiphyses are in a poor
burial from the farm Poortjie in the Free State’s condition. The vertebrae and one scapula (the other was
Koffiefontein District. missing) are preserved, as are most ofthe ribs. The upper
halfofthe cranium had weathered away completely. The
DESCRIPTION OF THE POORTJIE BURIAL mandible and 27 teeth are in good condition. The pelvis
wasfragmented butsufficiently intactto identifytheperson
In October 1997 Mark Liddell ofKoffiefontein reported a as an adult female.
burial eroding out ofthe Riet River’s terrace on the farm
Poortjie 990, which is 1 1 km south-east of Koffiefontein GRAVE GOODS
(Fig. 1 ). The burial was located at 29.27.23 S; 25.07.09 E
in an erosion ditchor‘donga’thatdrains intothe Riet River Grave goods have been recovered from 35 (17 female)
450 m to the south-west (Fig. 2). The upper part ofan oval ofthe83 Riet Rivergraves(Humphreys 1970; Morris 1984;
grave pit had been exposed by erosion and human remains Appendix 1, 1992:28-33; Brink et al. 1992:56-57). These
6
Fig 2: View to the east oferosion threatening Poortjie burial. Note theType Rstone walls.
Fig. 3: View to the south-east ofthe Poortjie burial before excavation
7
THE POORTJIE BURIAL
S29° 27’ 23" E25° 07' 09"
Rian View
S
* - Cowrie Shell ' - Penmeter ofgrave pit
N
Q
/ - Bone ^7 - Miniature Bowl - Rock
Section View
0 0.5
Fig. 4: Plan and section drawings ofthe Poortjie burial.
8
grave goods include: animal bone ornaments - such as a 200 g sample of the Poortjie person’s left femur. The
sheep/goat metacarpal pendant and cattle teeth from a Poortjieand Lentelusburialsmaythusbenomorethan 00
1
female’s grave - in 8 graves (2 female, 4 male, 2juvenile); years apart. The Poortjie date is also consistent with four
boredstonesin3 graves(2 female, 1 male);copperbangles, other Riet River burials excavated between Koffiefontein
beads and earrings in 7 graves (3 female, 4 male); cowrie andJacobsdal (Fig. 1)anddatedtobetweenAD 1060-AD
shells in 8 graves (4 female, 2 male, 1 juvenile, 1 1840 (Table 1). These numbers are also in agreement with
unknown); glass beads in 3 graves (1 female, 1 male, 1 two excavated Type R settlements - Oudefontein and
juvenile); grindstones in 4 graves (1 female, 3 male); Khartoum - that cover the period AD 1470 - AD 1800
ostrich eggshell beads in 20 graves (9 female, 8 male, 3 (Maggs 1976:44). There is, however, one seemingly
juvenile); pottery in 3 graves (2 female, 1 unknown); anomalous Riet River burial located far to the west at
tortoise shell fragments in ajuvenile’s grave; a sharpened Weltevreden near Plooysburg and dated to 3360 ± 60 BP
slate slab in a male’s grave and a red ochre and specularite (Humphreys 1974) (Fig. 1) which, ifreliable, suggests an
sprinkling in another male’s grave. The Poortjie burial undeniably ‘San’ antiquity for the very distinctive Riet
confirms this pattern with four items recovered as grave River burial pattern.
goods: three mature cowrie shells (Cypraea spp.; probably
DISCUSSION
ursellus, which occurs between KwaZulu-Natal and
Mozambique) and asingle undecorated, grit-tempered and
Authoring Riet River burials and Type R settlements
well-fired pottery bowl (Fig. 7). The grave infill was sifted
mm mm The Poortjie burial is typical ofthe very distinctive Riet
through 6 and 3 mesh, but no furthergrave goods
were found. The cowrie shells were located near the River burial pattern (e.g., Morris 1992:26-29). It is a deep
person’sneck(Fig. 4)and wereprobablypartofanecklace (0.67- 1.0m),stone-cappedovalgravepithousingaseated
and vertically flexed femaleskeleton with associated grave
or even the headdress favoured by at least some historic
goods. Thepresenceofexoticcowrieshellsshowsapeople
Riet River inhabitants. William Burchell, for example,
noted the following on 12th November 1811 nearthe Riet with extensive social and trading networks. This is
and Vaal Rivers’ confluence: “We were visited by a party supported bythe answergiven to Burchell’s 1811 query to
the cowrie-wearing San: “On inquiring whence these
offourteen Bushmen...Several ofthem wore two or three
cowries interwoven with their hair.” (vide Humphreys [cowrie] shells had been procured, 1 could get no further
information than that oftheir having being obtained from
1975:25). The pottery bowl was placed near the person’s
knees and hands and itmims very small - evenmmminiature - tShuecirh bnaeritgehrbmoauryshabvyebeaxrtteern”de(dvitdoethHeiurmppohtrteeryystoo1;97a5t:l2e5a)s.t
with dimensmiomnsof120 diameterand 55 mhimgh. The in terms of cultural interchange. In a related manner the
wallsare 3 thickatthe rim and thickento 14 atmthme RietRiverburialsshareelementswith Khoe, Sanand Black
base. This bowl is markedly finer than the up to 40
farmer’sburialpatterns. Forexample,Silberbauerrecorded
thickpotteryfragmentsfoundattheadjacentType Rstone-
for the Khoekhoen: ‘Burials having a grave covering of
walled settlement and it may represent a purpose-made stone cairns found with the body interred in the vertical-
gravegoods item. The bowl’soneside isdistorted; perhaps
flexed position andstonesplacedon, aroundand belowthe
from the weightofthegrave’scapping. Interestingly, three
deceased are key attributes of pastoralist (Hottentot)
other miniature pottery bowls have been recovered as Riet
River burial grave goods. A virtually identical 110 mm mortuary practices’ (1979:61; see also Barnard 1992:192-
diameter and 60 mm high bowl was found in an unsexed 193,252). Gatherer-hunterSan burialsareextremelyrare in
the central interior and are shallow, seldom have any
flood-damaged Type R burial at Pramberg, 46 km to the capping and may have simple grave goods (Morris
north-west(Brink etal. 1992:57). The othertwo miniature 1992:65). Black farmer’s graves tend to be dominated by
bowls were recovered from ‘crouched’ female graves on
males and infants buried within the settlement precinct;
Lentelus, 6,5 km west-north-west ofPoortjie (Humphreys
often inthecattlekraal oritswalls. Gravegoods,cairnsand
1970:105,108; Morris 1992:30). The Lentelusbowlsare76
mm and 83 mm high (Maggs 1971 :52; seealsoGoodwin & theverticallyflexedpositionarecommon(Morris 1992:66-
van Riet Lowe 1929: plate 36)and both were accompanied 6is7)n.otPearnhiasposlawthedatindhiusmtiantgiuoins.heWsitthheinPo3o5rtmjioefbiutriinalloiscatthiaotnist
by cowrie shells, hintingat an emic association of: females
not threatened by erosion there are at least 6 stone cairns
- seated position - miniature pottery bowls - sea shells. In
addition, one Lentelus burial is l4C dated to AD 1560 visually identical to Riet River burial cappings. Similar
cemeteries have been noted for other Riet River burials
(Morris 1984:332, 1992:33). Given these graves’ striking
(e.g.,Morris 1992:26-28).Thesecemeteriesarealladjacent
similarity with their seated positions, geographical toType R settlements and 42,5 m tothe north-north-eastof
proximity and near-identical grave goods, 1 decided to test the Poortjie burial is a Type R settlement that consists ofa
for a temporal correspondence. 25 m - 30 m diameter primary enclosure and at least five
AGE DETERMINATION OF smaller enclosures (Fig. 2). An episodic low stone wall
THE POORTJIE BURIAL encirclesabout40%ofthissettlement. Thereare morethan
two dozen pan-shaped lower grinding surfaces and one
A l4C agedeterminedto250±45 BP(Pta-7923),calibrated lenticularsuch surface in and around thissettlement. There
to AD 1655 (1669) 1681; 1749-1806, was returned from a are also rocks that show signs ofhaving sharpened metal