INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

1. MATERIAL should be original and not published elsewhere, in whole or in part.

2. LAYOUT should be as follows:

(a) Centred masthead to consist of

Title: informative but concise, without abbreviations and not including the names of new genera or species

Author’s(s’) name(s)

Address(es) of author(s) (institution where work was carried out)

Number of illustrations (figures, enumerated maps and tables, in this order)

(b) Abstract of not more than 200 words, intelligible to the reader without reference to the text

(d) Introduction

(e) Subject-matter of the paper, divided into sections to correspond with those given in table of contents

(f) Summary, if paper is lengthy

(g) Acknowledgements

(h) References

(i) Abbreviations, where these are numerous.

3. MANUSCRIPT, to be submitted in triplicate, should be typewritten and neat, double spaced with

3 cm margins all round. First lines of paragraphs should be indented. Tables and a list of captions for

illustrations should be typed separately, their positions indicated in the text. All pages should be num-

bered consecutively.

Major headings of the paper are centred capitals; first subheadings are shouldered small capitals;

second subheadings are shouldered italics; third subheadings are indented, shouldered italics. Further

subdivisions should be avoided, as also enumeration (never roman numerals) of headings and

abbreviations.

Footnotes should be avoided unless they are short and essential.

Only generic and specific names should be underlined to indicate italics; all other marking up

should be left to editor and publisher.

4. ILLUSTRATIONS should be reducible to a size not exceeding 12 x 18 cm (19 cm including

caption); the reduction or enlargement required should be indicated (and preferably uniform); orig-

inals larger than 35 x 47 cm should not be submitted; photographs should be rectangular in shape and

final size. A metric scale should appear with all illustrations, otherwise magnification or reduction

should be given in the caption; if the latter, then the final reduction or enlargement should be taken

into consideration.

All illustrations, whether line drawings or photographs, should be termed figures (plates are not

printed; half-tones will appear in their proper place in the text) and numbered in a single series. Items

of composite figures should be designated by capital letters; lettering of figures is not set in type and

should be in lower-case letters. If Letraset is used authors are requested to use Helvetica-style letter-

ing, if possible.

The number of the figure should be lightly marked in pencil on the back of each illustration.

5. REFERENCES cited in text and synonymies should all be included in the list at the end of the

paper, using the Harvard System (ibid., idem, loc. cit., op. cit. are not acceptable):

(a) Author’s name and year of publication given in text, e.g.:

‘Smith (1969) describes. .

‘Smith (1969: 36, fig. 16) describes. . .”

‘As described (Smith 1969a, 1969b; Jones 1971)’

‘As described (Haughton & Broom 1927)...”

‘As described (Haughton er al. 1927)...

Note: no comma separating name and year

pagination indicated by colon, not p.

names of joint authors connected by ampersand

et al. in text for more than two joint authors, but names of all authors given in list of references.

(b) Full references at the end of the paper, arranged alphabetically by names, chronologically within

each name, with suffixes a, b, etc., to the year for more than one paper by the same author in

that year, e.g. Smith (1969a, 1969b) and not Smith (1969, 1969a).

For books give title in italics, edition, volume number, place of publication, publisher.

For journal article give title of article, title of journal in italics (according to the World list of scientific periodicals. 4th ed.

London: Butterworths, 1963), series in parentheses, volume number, part number in parentheses, pagination (first and

last pages of article).

Examples (note capitalization and punctuation)

Bu.LtouGu, W. S. 1960. Practical invertebrate anatomy. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.

FiscHER, P. H. 1948. Données sur la résistance et de la vitalité des mollusques. Journal de conchyliologie 88 (3): 100-140.

FiscHEr, P. H., Duvat, M. & Rarry, A. 1933. Etudes sur les échanges respiratoires des littorines. Archives de zoologie

expérimentale et générale 74 (33): 627-634.

Koun, A. J. 1960a. Ecological notes on Conus (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the Trincomalee region of Ceylon. Annals and

Magazine of Natural History (13) 2 (17): 309-320.

Koun, A. J. 19606. Spawning behaviour, egg masses and larval development in Conus from the Indian Ocean. Bulletin of

the Bingham Oceanographic Collection, Yale University 17 (4): 1-51.

THIELE, J. 1910. Mollusca. B. Polyplacophora, Gastropoda marina, Bivalvia. In: ScHuLTzE, L. Zoologische und anthro-

pologische Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise im westlichen und zentralen Stid-Afrika ausgefiihrt in den Jahren

1903-1905 4 (15). Denkschriften der medizinisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena 16: 269-270.

(continued inside back cover)

ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

ANNALE VAN DIE SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

Volume 104 Band

June 1994 Junie

Part 3 Deel

CONTEXT AND DIRECT DATING

OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK

IN THE UPPER SEACOW RIVER VALLEY

I. PLUG, C. A. BOLLONG, T. J. G. HART

C. G. SAMPSON

Cape Town Kaapstad

The ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

are issued in parts at irregular intervals as material

becomes available

Obtainable from the South African Museum, P. O. Box 61, Cape Town 8000

Die ANNALE VAN DIE SUID-AFRIKAANSE MUSEUM

word uitgegee in dele op ongereelde tye na gelang van die

beskikbaarheid van stof

Verkrygbaar van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum, Posbus 61, Kaapstad 8000

OUT OF PRINT/UIT DRUK

T, 21-3, 5-8), 3(1-2, 4-5, 8, t.-p.i.); 4(1), 5(1=3, 55 729).

6G, 2, ti-pi:). 7-4), 8, 91-2 7); 10-3), 1122s Sa etna

14(1-3), 15(4-5), 24(2, 5), 27, 31(1-3), 32(5), 33,

36(2), 43(1), 45(1), 49(1), 67(5, 11), 84(2)

Kopieregnavrae aan die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum

ISBN 0 86813 155 5

Printed in South Africa by In Suid-Afrika gedruk deur

The Rustica Press (Pty) Ltd, Die Rustica-pers (Edms) Bpk,

Old Mill Road, Ndabeni, Cape Old Mill-weg, Ndabeni, Kaap

D3104

CONTEXT AND DIRECT DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK IN

THE UPPER SEACOW RIVER VALLEY

I. PLUG

Archaeozoology Department, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria

C. A. BOLLONG

Archaeology Centre, Pima Community College, Tucson

T. J. G. HART

Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch

C. G. SAMPSON

Archaeology Department, South African Museum, Cape Town and

Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas

(With 8 figures and 1 table)

[MS accepted 24 December 1993}

ABSTRACT

The stratigraphic positions of a small group of sheep and cattle remains from two rock

shelters in the Richmond District, Upper Karoo, are evaluated. A cluster of 10 specimens in

Haaskraal Shelter appears to be reliably positioned below a layer of historical livestock

remains left by farm Bushmen and later occupants. Two of the deepest specimens were used

for direct radiocarbon dating by the accelerator method, with the goal of resolving conflicting

charcoal dates (1200-1100 Bp or 500-600 Bp) for the introduction of livestock. The AMS

dates support the younger age range. The uppermost livestock specimen in the cluster indi-

cates when last indigenous livestock were present near the shelter before the European inva-

sion. A thin, livestock-free layer intervenes between the top of the cluster and the base of the

historical layer. The interval is too short and the date too recent for AMS dating to be

applied. None the less, the narrow gap supports historic sources that suggest that the Bush-

men once owned livestock, but were dispossessed before the Europeans arrived.

CONTENTS

PAGE

J Rilitro"c Tet to) 10s eee ne astiGeo Benen aE Nae ee HRM ce acs ae ase ea ori NEE ARES dase aia 32

Wolstriistonteiut Shelter acces sco seen nee a eee a ae hectare nae omen ee Rea ceite 35

idaskraaleShelter con ecenc cess cu cence etce erases Sec Aotie soni aes eae neat oi

Distribution of livestock within bone middens ....................20cseeee8 ay

Distribution of livestock below post-Contact specimens .................. 40

Distribution of livestock ‘and early ceramics) ./5-..--225.-ssee- se sesnco sas 43

Summary orcriteriator:selecting, samples ic. .....:.ssccse.secese- cess ace ssoes 45

RHC VA MS dates press cense tee ees ectice ae yasene tee once rete nenee creticaaeisesees 46

GONCHISIONS etch ee coset ote eae eae ea ae eh nek cata tesa tana senna wea man eee acts ae 46

Acknowledsements: sissc is... cie et aa us case cake eso rueclueine mbna sscendcmemecets 47

REPELEN CES He aio aieic ssi cise nae sicdsi wat cleiisieises Secreus ante clecte woreeteas secrclusueidesieewees as 47

Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 104 (3): 31-48, 8 figs, 1 table.

32 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

INTRODUCTION

When Dutch trekboers first introduced sheep and cattle into the Sneeuberg

headwaters of the Seacow River valley (Fig. 1) in the early 1770s, their stock

was systematically destroyed or stolen by resident Bushmen (Godée-Molsbergen

1932: 39; Moodie 1960 III: 43, 44, 46, 52, 53, 67, 103; Raper & Boucher

1988: 82, 96, 180). The first five farmsteads (South African State Archives

1770-1774) were repeatedly abandoned during the war for possession of the

Sneeuberg, which dragged on into the 1790s, after which an uneasy truce pre-

vailed. Throughout this episode, eyewitness reports of Bushmen with livestock

all assume that the animals were stolen from trekboers. Thus, by all accounts,

the upper Seacow River valley Bushmen were without livestock of their own at

the time when their territories were invaded. However, the world view of those

writing these accounts can be called into question. There is certainly no mention

of Hottentots (Khoi) in the valley, with or without livestock, at this time.

< Richmond

Volstruisfontein

e\ Haaskraal

oe?

Fig. 1. The location of two excavated rock shelters in the headwaters of the Seacow River,

showing northern outliers of the Sneeuberg Mountains (stippled area).

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK 33

The truce remained tense. Although in 1797 there was a small farming

settlement in the middle of the valley (Barrow 1806: 253-254), by the turn of

the century there were still only five farms (Van der Merwe 1937: 115). Fol-

lowing the Macartney Proclamation of 1798, which ordered that ad hoc com-

mandos against the Bushmen be replaced by efforts to resettle and ‘civilize’

them (Moodie 1960 III: 115), a few more trekboers entered the upper valley

(Godée-Molsbergen 1916: 186; De Kock 1965: 260). This peace-making initiat-

ive was so effective that a minor land rush took place between 1800 and 1810.

All the best springs were taken, but resident Bushmen were allowed to camp

nearby, and the farmers supplied them with gifts and food (Hutton 1887: 39;

Moodie 1960 V: 24).

Farm servants were recruited out of this new symbiosis, during which it was

quickly observed that certain Bushmen were skilled shepherds who knew where

the best grazing was to be had beyond the limits of the farm boundary. By 1809,

Colonel Collins’ party had no qualms in allowing 20 strange Bushmen, whose

camp they were passing, to take ‘charge of our sheep and spare teams; a trust

often reposed in that people by farmers, and which they have never been known

to abuse’ (Moodie 1960 III: 35).

Many shepherds wishing to build their own herds were encouraged to do so

by gifts and through part-payment for their labour, at a rate of four sheep and

one cow per year. Backhouse (1844: 341) was also told of a Bushman shepherd

who, during 30 years’ service, built up a herd worth more than £1 000. Short-

lived (1814-1817) Bushman mission stations in the lower Seacow River valley

also promoted animal husbandry (Gutsche 1968: 30, 34) and the resulting Bush-

man pastoralists grazed their stock in the same vicinity for some years after the

missions were forced to close (Campbell 1822: 31; Melvill 1825).

The apparent ease, speed and skill with which some upper Seacow River

Bushmen were converted from hunter-gatherers (and former stock thieves) into

pastoralists, begs the question whether they had possessed livestock before the

coming of the Europeans. When an archaeological survey of the upper valley

revealed the presence of hundreds of low, stone-walled kraals (Sampson 1984)

of a design similar to those of modern Nama pastoralists, this question was only

partly (and imperfectly) answered. Whereas the design and layout of the kraals

suggested ancestral Khoi herders to be the most likely agents, surface pottery

found in many of them included not only typical Khoi ceramics but also the

stamp-impressed fibre-tempered wares traditionally attributed to Karoo

Bushmen.

After several stratified rock shelter fills were excavated, it appeared that

both Khoi and undecorated fibre-tempered wares were introduced into the upper

valley as long ago as 1200-1100 radiocarbon years BP. At Haaskraal (Fig. 1),

both types were found in the base of the fill that had dammed up behind a kraal

wall built on the talus slope of a rock shelter (Fig. 2). This evidence strongly

supports the proposition that the agents who introduced both kinds of pottery to

the upper valley were also the wall builders and, by implication, ancestral Khoi

herders (Hart 1989).

The Khoi pottery, never abundant in any of the excavated shelter fills,

apparently disappeared from the upper valley about 300 years ago, after which

only the decorated fibre-tempered wares were made (Sampson et al. 1989).

34 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

Three scenarios might explain this observation: (a) the Khoi herders departed

with their livestock, leaving behind partly acculturated hunter-foragers with

enough skills to make fibre-tempered pottery; (b) ditto, but the acculturated

residents were left with small flocks of their own; or (c) the Khoi lost all their

stock and abandoned Khoi vessel-making as a craft because there was no further

need for it, i.e. no milk storage. Dispossessed of their herds, they became

‘Bushmen-Hottentots’ as many eighteenth-century writers called the valley resi-

dents. The archaeological consequences of scenarios (a) and (c) would be that

no stone kraal was in use after about 300 years ago. The upshot of scenario (b)

might be that some stone kraals continued in use by herders who only made dec-

orated fibre-tempered pottery. Each scenario sounds too trite, and the reality

was probably a messy combination of all three processes. If so, it will be

extremely difficult to recognize in the archaeological record.

Fig. 2. Haaskraal: excavations (thick line) were conducted (area I) under the shelter drip line

(dashed line) through collapsed historical walling, and immediately behind the prehistoric

kraal wall on the talus slope (area II).

Ultimately, the best proof that indigenous livestock was still present in the

upper valley when the trekboers arrived will come from neither pots nor kraals,

but from the physical remains of the animals themselves. To this end, we have

plotted the provenances of all recovered fragments of domestic fauna from nine

excavated rock shelters in the upper valley. The overwhelming majority of these

(often abundant) remains occur in the upper levels of each shelter fill, in firm

association with European artefacts. Whereas the European-derived livestock

remains tell a fascinating story of their own (Voigt et al. in prep.), it is the

much rarer pre-European specimens that are the focus of this study.

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK 55

Five shelters contained no trace of pre-European livestock and two others,

with many European livestock and artefacts, also have livestock at depth. How-

ever, they also have European artefacts thrust down into the crucial levels.

Consequently, the context of each case is compromised and the deeper Ovis/

Capra remains may originate in the historical levels above.

These shelters all occur on the east and north-central flanks of the upper

Seacow River valley (Sampson ef al. 1989: 3, fig. 1), where stone kraals were

originally thought to be absent (Sampson 1985) but are now known to be present

in very low numbers (Hart 1989: 99-100). It follows that the likelihood of

recovering domestic livestock from shelters in the east and north-central areas

would be quite low, as events have shown.

However, two more shelters on the west side of the valley, Volstruisfontein

and Haaskraal (Fig. 1), are in the vicinity of literally hundreds of kraals, and

Haaskraal is itself associated with two of them (Fig. 2). As expected, both pro-

duced rare traces of pre-European livestock. Conflicting dates (1200-1100 BP or

500-600 BP) for the lowermost specimens were achieved by conventional dating

of associated charcoal (Hart 1989: 158). As a first step towards selecting live-

stock specimens for direct dating by accelerator, a detailed contextual evaluation

follows.

Henceforth, the term ‘Contact’ will be used to denote the European appear-

ance in the archaeological record, following conventional usage in North Ameri-

can historical archaeology. Thus, livestock derived from trekboer sources are

post-Contact, and specimens predating the European arrival are pre-Contact.

VOLSTRUISFONTEIN SHELTER

Typical of most other shelter fills in this region, Volstruisfontein is shallow,

stony, leached, devoid of visible stratigraphy and disturbed by burrows. These

disadvantages are offset by very high yields of artefacts and fauna per unit

volume of matrix. Such yields repay the rigorous excavation and recording

procedures applied to them (Sampson ef al. 1989: 7). The Volstruisfontein

sequence nicely exemplifies the problems that arise when trying to validate the

presence of pre-European livestock in such deposits. It also serves as an intro-

duction to the procedures used in the evaluation of their contexts.

A composite section of the 1 m x 3 m trench is given in Figure 3A and

shows the Contact horizon as defined by projected positions of various Euro-

pean items (Saitowitz & Sampson 1992; Crass & Sampson 1993a, 1993b; Moir

& Sampson 1993; Westbury & Sampson 1993) and their associated livestock

remains. Clearly positioned below this line are four 25 cm x 25 cm x 2.5 cm

excavation units (blocks), all near the rear of the shelter, that contain livestock

remains. The deepest is a lower left mandible fragment of Ovis/Capra; above

this is a distal second phalanx of Ovis aries; at the same level and slightly

forward in the fill is a right radius shaft fragment of O. aries; still farther for-

ward and at the same level is the proximal third phalanx fragment of Ovis/

Capra. The mandible fragment is at exactly the level of the lowermost Khoi and

plain fibre-tempered (GTPW) sherds, and of the block with charcoal dated to

560 + 170 Bp (SMU-1791). The upper set of three specimens is still within the

36 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

narrow band of Khoi and ‘intermediate’ sherds with minimum fibre and coarse

inclusions (MFCI sherds). On the face of it, this appears to be a straightforward

situation with little room for doubt, except for a few crucial details. Firstly, the

Ovis/Capra remains are concentrated at the rear of the shelter, whereas the

pottery is widely distributed. This cannot be ascribed to poor bone preservation

at the front because there is a dense lens of non-domestic fauna at this level in

the front (Plug & Sampson in prep.). Also, there are irregularities in the Con-

tact horizon, and two MFCI sherds in the post-Contact levels hint at upward

churning.

———S_ Ovis/Capra 4 Khoi sherd <. MECI sherd © deepest GTPW sherd

horizon

560 + 70 BP

8 Ovis/Capra wv Bos taurus o European artefact

5 M4 SHS

oer Wh burrow

aoa les ted 8

charcoal

10)

—_S——

—— — {

Fig. 3. Volstruisfontein Shelter: composite sections of the 1-m-wide trench cut from back

(left) to front (right) of the deposit. A. The positions of pre-Contact livestock remains

relative to selected pot sherds and one dated charcoal sample. MFCI = minimum fibre,

coarse inclusions; GTPW = grass-tempered plain ware. B. The positions of all livestock

remains relative to recorded features and European artefacts.

When the positions of all European items and livestock are projected on to

the same composite section (Fig. 3B), together with features recorded on one

face of the trench (Hart 1989: 157), the integrity of the upper three purported

pre-Contact Ovis/Capra specimens is put in doubt. A small, ash-filled pit was

dug (probably for making lead grapeshot) into the pre-Contact levels. Worked

into the ash were two crumb-size, burned fragments of a teapot lid, joined by

dashed lines in Figure 3B, that match with two others found farther forward in

the shelter, also joined by dashed lines. The lowermost crumb is at the same

level as the three crucial bones, and the pit was dug from the surface where the

most European livestock remains occur. One face of the excavation trench

revealed a burrow void right at the Contact line. Although the charcoal lens to

the lower left of this could be a hearth, these features also occur as floor linings

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK oi

to burrows at Blydefontein Shelter, a unique deposit where burrow fills can be

distinguished from the surrounding matrix (Bousman 1990: 153). The doubt cast

on the upper set of three Ovis/Capra by this halo of minor disturbances and sus-

picious features must inevitably infect the integrity of the lowermost mandible

fragment which, although itself in an apparently untroubled situation, is too

close to the others to be very reassuring. Overall, it must be viewed as a high-

risk sample in which to invest an accelerator date.

HAASKRAAL SHELTER

The matrix of the Haaskraal Shelter fill is decomposed dolerite. It is rela-

tively stone free, very dark in colour and has no visible stratigraphy. Not even

interfaces between matrix and contained features can be seen during excavation,

but thin separations appear after standing sections are allowed to dry out (Hart

1989: 129-130). Variable slope configurations and excavation outlines (Fig. 2)

make it necessary to present five different composite sections at this site

(Fig. 4). Section A covers the back two metre squares of the excavation; sec-

tion B covers the middle of the deposit behind the drip line; section C is perpen-

dicular to the other two and combines the front-to-back, metre-wide trench that

was cut through the collapsed (historical) wall at the drip line (Fig. 2); section D

combines the upslope half of the trench cut into the fill behind the kraal wall;

and section E covers the downslope half of the same trench, flush with the kraal

wall itself.

When the positions of blocks containing livestock remains are projected on

to all these sections, together with the positions of European artefacts, they

correlate to form a well-defined and almost continuous Contact horizon within

the shelter (Fig. 5A-C, base of light stipple), but not behind the kraal wall

(Fig. 5D, E) where there are no European artefacts. It follows that correlations

between the shelter and talus units remain somewhat tentative.

Altogether 14 specimens occur in the shelter’s pre-Contact levels, but there

is only one at the appropriate depth in the steeply sloping deposits behind the

kraal wall. The distribution by taxon and element of the apparently pre-Contact

remains is given in Table 1. There is a well-defined spatial grouping projected

on the section in Fig. 5B, but they appear as scattered occurrences on the other

projections.

DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK WITHIN BONE MIDDENS

In Figure 6, the post-Contact specimens (open circles) include proportion-

ally more cattle than were found at Volstruisfontein. Because Haaskraal over-

looks a historical cattle post at the foot of the talus slope, this is the most likely

source. The relative paucity of livestock remains in the fill behind the kraal wall

can be ascribed to lower overall bone densities in the rocky, unprotected

deposit. This does not help to explain why cattle remains are relatively more

numerous than sheep behind the kraal wall. Usually, cattle remains, although

larger, are at greater risk of disintegration, so they should be scarcer.

By projecting those blocks with the highest bone densities (g per 1.8 litre

block) of unsorted fauna on to each section, it becomes possible to define the

38 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

outlines of separate bone middens, not otherwise visible in the stratigraphy.

These middens are composed mainly of non-domestic fauna. The clearest pro-

jection (Fig. 6C) reveals a sequence of two pre-Contact faunal middens followed

by a thick, possibly two-phase post-Contact midden. These separations are vis-

ible but less clearly defined in the other two shelter sections (Fig. 6A, B); how-

ever, the talus slope displays only thin, patchy bone distribution, where pockets

and lenses of fauna are concentrated between boulders in the talus fill (Fig. 6D,

IE):

Area Il

Fig. 4. Haaskraal Shelter and talus: layout of composite

sections shown in Figures 5-8.

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK “39

ULLLZA, 77 77Z

E essere i

Post-Contact livestock Wo cee 2 CH) (ose

monn Pre-Contact livestock o European artefact

Fig. 5. Haaskraal Shelter and talus: composite sections showing positions of livestock

relative to European artefacts. Correlation indicates one pre-Contact and three post-Contact

layers of livestock.

40 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

TABLE 1.

Livestock fragments from pre-Contact levels at Haaskraal.

Square-block/ Species Element Wear class/Age

spit

A-14/10 Ovis aries Right distal humerus Adult

A-11/8 Ovis aries Second phalanx Adult

E-12/8** Ovis aries Right third phalanx Adult

F-5/5* Ovis aries Pelvis, pubis fragment Adult

F-6/6* Ovis aries Right talus Adult

F-9/7* Ovis aries Right premaxilla fragment Adult

F-15/7* Ovis aries First phalanx, proximal fragment Adult

I-3/7* Ovis aries Second phalanx, proximal fragment Adult

I-3/7* Ovis aries Calcaneum, unfused Neonate/Juvenile

B-4/9 Ovis/Capra Left lower second molar Vv

B-8/8 Ovis/Capra Left lower first incisor Vv

E-12/7* Bos taurus _ Second phalanx, proximal fragment Adult

E-12/8** Bos taurus _ Left lower second premolar Vil

I-1/8* Bos taurus __ First phalanx, distal fragment Adult

O-8/9 (wall) Bos taurus Vertebra fragment Adult

*—apparently sound context

**_selected for AMS dating

Of the 15 pre-Contact specimens (Table 1), 10 are embedded in blocks with

relatively high densities of other fauna. Whereas the four specimens towards the

rear of the shelter (Fig. 6A, C) occur at the same level as the pre-Contact mid-

dens, they are surrounded only by small splinters of bone and tooth enamel. The

contrast between their own whole, relatively undamaged condition and that of

their few, highly fragmented associations is striking. This raises the possibility

that they were thrust down from the overlying post-Contact levels, where live-

stock specimens are in a comparably undamaged condition. A similar question

hangs over the solitary pre-Contact specimen from just above the lower midden

in Figure 6B.

DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK BELOW POST-CONTACT SPECIMENS

Unlike Volstruisfontein, there are no intrusive European artefacts at the

back of Haaskraal Shelter to serve as an independent cross-check of the churn-

ing hypothesis, nor are there any visible signs of disturbance in this ‘black-box’

deposit. If, however, the five suspect specimens occur immediately below

dense, deep areas of post-Contact livestock, this will strengthen the case for

their hypothetical downward intrusion from the upper levels.

Figure 7A shows the horizontal distribution of post-Contact livestock to be

patchy, with a diagonal line of small concentrations running from the rear right

to the front left of the excavation. One very high concentration (40 specimens)

suggests a small, localized bone dump. The pre-Contact specimens (solid

circles) form a central cluster separated from three outliers at the rear of the

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK 41

0 100

ZZZLZLZLN,

XZLLY)

Ovis/Capra

Post-Contact

Bos taurus

Cc ° io of) 6 fo) o 8 ie]

° Aa y a> Ppyyporen oO : : ro)

= C7722) CZZZZZ 262 PD CLD)

e Ovis/Capra

Pre-Contact

« Bos taurus

Faunal density: > 75>50>40>30

(g/block) ea \ \

Fig. 6. Haaskraal Shelter and talus: composite sections showing positions of livestock by

taxon, relative to lenses of dense (unsorted) fauna, termed bone middens.

42 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

( Dp

European livestock

\\ 4 spits deep

HT 3 spits deep

European livestock

IA 10+ specimens

= 5-9 specimens = 2 spits deep

we 1-4 specimens [ y 1 spit deep

®@ specimen below Contact horizon ® specimen below Contact horizon

Y~) VY)

Bos taurus

= 5 specimens

4 specimens

( 3 specimens

E=] 2 specimens

LA 1 specimen

Y specimen below Contact horizon

[| deepest livestock

a Khoi sherd

o deepest GTPW sherd

Fig. 7. Haaskraal Shelter. A. Horizontal positions of the deepest recovered livestock relative

to variable density of overlying post-Contact livestock. B. Horizontal positions of the

deepest recovered livestock relative to variable thickness of the overlying layer with post-

Contact livestock. C. Horizontal positions of the deepest recovered cattle remains relative to

variable density of overlying post-Contact cattle remains. D. Horizontal positions of the

deepest recovered livestock relative to positions of selected pot sherds. GTPW = grass-

tempered plain ware.

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK 43

shelter. Specimens in the central cluster are distributed randomly underneath

areas of high and low post-Contact livestock density. One of the outliers at the

right rear of the excavation is positioned immediately below an isolated post-

Contact concentration, which casts further doubt on its stratigraphic integrity,

and that of its immediate neighbour. The other three specimens, selected for

closer scrutiny in the previous exercise, are under relatively light-density areas

(1-4 specimens per block).

In Figure 7B, their positions are shown relative to the depth of post-Contact

livestock accumulations and, again, the right rear outlier is under an isolated,

deep sequence. This further compromises its contextual validity, and that of its

neighbour. The other three possibly suspect specimens all underlie shallow

accumulations of post-Contact livestock.

As an additional cross-check, the distribution of pre-Contact cattle remains

is compared with post-Contact cattle densities in Figure 7C. None of the three

specimens is immediately below a post-Contact concentration, although they are

in the general vicinity of the area with highest densities. By contrast, the soli-

tary Bos taurus vertebra fragment from behind the kraal wall (Fig. 6D) occurs

below a dense, deep accumulation of cattle fragments, a situation that casts con-

siderable doubt on its position. Although it appears to be in a localized concen-

tration, all of the surrounding material is highly comminuted bone splinters that

contrast sharply with the size and condition of the specimen itself. This adds

further to the burden of doubt hanging over the stratigraphic integrity of the

specimen.

DISTRIBUTION OF LIVESTOCK AND EARLY CERAMICS

In Figure 8, the vertical positions of Khoi sherds and the lowermost fibre-

tempered sherds are projected on to the same sections together with blocks con-

taining pre-Contact livestock. There are no intermediate (MFCI) sherds. Also

plotted are the positions of blocks with charcoal used for radiocarbon dating.

The sherds form a narrow, well-defined band within the shelter, and match-

ing sherds display only minor vertical distribution within the band. In contrast to

Volstruisfontein (Fig. 3A), there are no Khoi sherds displaced upwards, not

even at the (suspect) rear of the shelter. This combines with the absence of

downward-displaced European artefacts (Fig. 5) to suggest a relatively undis-

turbed shelter deposit, in spite of previous misgivings.

The radiocarbon date of 544 + 43 Bp (SMU-1636) is an excellent match

with that from the equivalent cultural-stratigraphic position in Volstruisfontein.

However, there is strong support for a 600-year hiatus in occupation at Haas-

kraal prior to this date. Whereas the two earlier dates at Haaskraal of 1180 +

70 BP (SMU-1789) and 1140 + 60 BP (SMU-1790) are good markers for the

introduction of pottery (Fig. 8B, C), neither sample is well positioned to date

the introduction of livestock.

The horizontal distribution of Khoi and early fibre-tempered sherds

(Fig. 7D) displays little direct overlap with the positions of pre-Contact live-

stock, and there are more sherds in the forward position. The suspect Ovis/

Capra molar and incisor from the right-rear of the excavation (Fig. 7A, B) are

again notable because they fall completely outside the ceramic scatter.

44, ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

te) 100

544 + 43 Bp

1180 + 70 BP

Contact horizon

Or eulee 1180 + 70 BP 544 + 43 ep

4s Khoi sherd 4 matching o deepest GTPW sherd

c—— deepest livestock roc: Charcoal sample

Fig. 8. Haaskraal Shelter and talus: composite sections showing positions of apparently pre-

Contact livestock relative to selected pot sherds and dated charcoal samples. GTPW = grass-

tempered plain ware. Black rectangle denotes position of AMS-dated specimens. Shaded

areas in triangles denote matching sherds of specific vessels.

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK 45

In the talus slope (Fig. 8D, E), the Khoi ceramic horizon appears vertically

diffused because of the steeply sloping deposits. There are five specimens from

well above the top of this band. On the left side of the excavation, two of these

displaced sherds refit (triangle containing cross) and match a sherd from near

the top of the main Khoi horizon below. That the deposit in this immediate area

was churned is verified by a contaminated, near-modern radiocarbon date

(SMU-1639) on charcoal taken from several blocks at the top of the Khoi hor-

izon. Otherwise, the horizon itself has overall integrity, as shown by the match-

ing sherds (black-top triangles) from its upper levels. These also correlate it

convincingly to the top of the Khoi band near the front of the shelter (Fig. 8C).

On the right side of the talus excavation (Fig. 8D, E), where the suspect Bos

taurus vertebra is located, the specimen is well positioned within the Khoi hor-

izon, but there are two upward displaced Khoi sherds above it, further shroud-

ing its context in doubt.

SUMMARY OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTING SAMPLES

The goal of this exercise is to select bone fragments with the least doubtful

contexts, to be submitted for direct radiocarbon dating by the accelerator

method. This is essential in the light of the revised dates (Sealy & Yates 1994)

of apparently early, but actually intrusive sheep remains at other sites, dated

only by conventional '*C methods on associated charcoal.

Both shelters in this study are in an area with high concentrations of pre-

European stock kraals, and they are the only sites out of nine excavated to yield

plausible samples of domestic mammal remains from levels beneath their

historical deposits. Like all the other tested shelters, they contain historical

sheep and cattle bones in their upper levels, abandoned by late eighteenth- and

nineteenth-century Bushmen, and by later occupants. Because they are both

shallow and potentially churned deposits, there is a very real danger that the

small samples from beneath the historical layers are derived from those layers,

and will yield modern accelerator dates.

To evaluate the context of individual specimens, their positions were plotted

to the nearest 25 cm x 25 cm horizontally and to the nearest 2.5 cm vertically.

Positions were projected on to composite sections and compared with those of

historical livestock, of European artefacts, of the earliest (assumed pastoralist)

ceramics, of radiocarbon-dated charcoal samples, and of high-density faunal

lenses, termed bone middens.

Criteria for suspecting the stratigraphic integrity of a specimen are as fol-

lows: (a) it occurs immediately below a dense, deep patch of historical livestock

remains; (b) a European artefact has intruded from above into the specimen’s

vicinity; (c) visible disturbances such as unconformities or burrow outlines

occur anywhere near the specimen; (d) Khoi (prehistoric pastoralist) sherds are

found in the historical levels overlying the specimen; and (e) the specimen is not

embedded in a bone midden with well-preserved pieces of non-domestic fauna,

but is surrounded by thinly distributed bone splinters that contrast with its own

preservation conditions.

46 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

The solitary candidate from Volstruisfontein is disqualified on all criteria

except (e). The two isolated specimens from the back of Haaskraal Shelter are

also rejected on criteria (a) and (e), and the solitary vertebra from behind the

kraal wall must be passed over as it meets criteria (a), (d) and (e). Residual

doubts cling to the other two outlying specimens at the back of Haaskraal Shel-

ter because both meet criterion (e).

The central group of three Bos taurus and seven Ovis aries fragments do not

fulfil any of these criteria and may, therefore, provide a reliable pool from

which to draw direct dating samples. Conventional radiocarbon dating of char-

coal from a contiguous block suggests that the earliest specimen is 500-

600 years old, but another charcoal sample from the same level at the front of

the shelter is c. 1 200 years old.

THE AMS DATES

To resolve this conflict, two specimens from the base of this cluster were

selected and sent to the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit for

AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) dating. They both came from the same

block (E-12/8 in Table 1), shown in Figure 8C in black, bracketed between the

two conventional charcoal dates. The results were:

OxA-4394 Bone Ovisaries 1'36C = —9.0 per mil 410 + 65 BP

OxA-4395 Tooth Bos taurus ¥6C = -13.5 per mi! 515 + 65 BP

In both specimens, the fraction dated was the ion-exchanged gelatin and the

dates are uncalibrated radiocarbon years. The OxfCal program gives calibrated

ranges for the sheep bone of AD 1437-1519 and also of AD 1578-1626 at the

68.2 per cent confidence level, with a range of AD 1421-1641 at the 95.4 per

cent confidence level. The same program gives calibrated ranges for the cattle

tooth of AD 1315-1344 and of AD 1392-1456 at the 68.2 per cent confidence

level, with ranges at the 95.4 per cent confidence level of AD 1299-1509 and

AD 1600-1617.

CONCLUSIONS

The rigorous selection procedure produced positive results. The two dates

are close enough to accept the contextual integrity of block E-12/8 itself, and

the conventional charcoal date of 544 + 43 BP from the block next to E-12/8

(Fig. 8C) is sound. Furthermore, the case for a c. 600-year-old disconformity

running below the dated specimens is strengthened. Livestock was introduced to

Haaskraal after this time gap, not before it. This is the first direct evidence for

the presence of prehistoric sheep and cattle in the Upper Karoo. However, pot-

tery was present here before the disconformity, as direct dates on fibre temper

of ceramics have shown (Bollong ef al. 1993). Livestock was present at the time

that so-called Bushman pottery (stamp-impressed, fibre-tempered cooking

bowls) was being made.

A case now exists for assuming that the lower cluster of 10 specimens

(including the cattle remains) from Haaskraal is all of pre-Contact age and none

DATING OF PRE-EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK “47

was intruded from the cattle-rich European material above. Also in the light of

these results, the context of the lowermost sheep/goat specimen at Volstruis-

fontein (Fig. 3A) is vindicated as charcoal from the same level dates to 560 +

170 BP.

The break between the top of the pre-Contact cluster in Haaskraal and the

base of the historical livestock level is clear (Fig. 5A—-C) and a similar break

may now be inferred for Volstruisfontein (Fig. 3A-B). For a brief time, live-

stock stopped accumulating in both shelters. This supports archival sources that

indicate the indigenous population had no livestock of their own at the time of

the trekboer influx. That some Bushmen proved strikingly adept at herd man-

agement suggests that the duration of this gap could be less than a century.

Although AMS dates could be obtained for livestock specimens at the top of

the pre-Contact cluster at Haaskraal, they would not yield usable results.

Firstly, the expected standard error would be larger than the brief time lapse

represented by this break in livestock deposition. Secondly, the mean date

would fall so close to the troublesome 200 BP mark that too many calendric

options would occur due to excessive wiggles in the calibration curve. Thus, the

timing (and the cause) of the gap remain elusive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Excavations and analysis were funded by the National Science Foundation,

Washington, DC, and by the Foundation for Research Development, Pretoria.

Beatrix Sampson provided complete logistical support at all stages of the

research, and also assisted in archival research and in the analysis of livestock

remains. The faunal density data were compiled by Frans Motsai and Dennis

Neville. We thank Graham Avery, Royden Yates and anonymous reviewers for

their critical comments of an early draft. We are especially grateful to Dr

Rupert Housley for his guidance and advice on selecting appropriate specimens

for dating.

REFERENCES

BACKHOUSE, J. 1844. A narrative of a visit to the Mauritius and South Africa. London:

Hamilton, Adams & Co.

BARROW, J. 1806. Travels into the interior of South Africa. London: Cadell and Davis.

BOLLONG, C. A., VOGEL, J. C., JACOBSON, L., VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, W. A. & SAMPSON,

C. G. 1993. Direct dating and identity of fibre temper in pre-Contact Bushman

(Basarwa) pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 41-55.

BousMAN, C. B. 1990. Holocene paleoecology and Later Stone Age hunter-gatherer

adaptations in the South African interior plateau. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist

University.

CAMPBELL, J. 1822. Travels in Southern Africa, 1,2. London: Francis Westley.

Crass, D. C. & Sampson, C. G. 1993a. Glassware and metalwork acquired by the Seacow

River Bushmen. Martevaan: Newsletter of the Cape Historical Archaeology Association

9: 3-13.

Crass, D. C. & Sampson, C. G. 1993b. “A few old cloathes”: European dress adopted by

the Seacow River Bushmen. Africana Notes and News 39 (6): 219-234.

48 ANNALS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN MUSEUM

De Kock, W. J. ed. 1965. Reizen in de binnen-landen van Zuid-Afrika gedaan in den jaare

1803 door W. B. E. Paravicini di Capelli. Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society.

GoDEE-MOLSBERGEN, E. C. ed. 1916. Reizen in Zuid-Afrika in de Hollandse tyjd, tweede

deel: tochten naar het Noorden 1686-1806. s’Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

GoDEE-MOLSBERGEN, E. C. ed. 1932. Reizen in Zuid-Afrika in de Hollandse tyjd, vierde

deel: tochten in het Kafferland 1776-1805. s’Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

GUTSCHE, T. 1968. ' The microcosm. Cape Town: Howard Timmins.

Hart, T. J. G. 1989. Haaskraal and Volstruisfontein: Later Stone Age events in the Great

Karoo. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Cape Town.

Hutton, C. W. ed. 1887. The autobiography of the late Sir Andries Stockenstrom, Bart.,

sometime lieutenant-governor of the eastern province of the Colony of the Cape of Good

Hope. Cape Town: J. C. Juta.

MELVILL, C. 1825. Notes respecting the Bushmen: extracted from a letter from Mr. Melvill

of Griqua Town. South African Commercial Advertiser, August 23, 1825: 2.

Morr, R. W. & SAMPSON C. G. 1993. European and oriental ceramics from rock shelters in

the upper Seacow valley. Southern African Field Archaeology 2: 35-43.

MoopiE, D. 1960. The record, or a Series of official papers relative to the condition and

treatment of the native tribes of South Africa. (3 vols.) Facsimile reprint. Cape Town

and Amsterdam: A. A. Balkema.

RAPER, P. E. & BoucHER, M. eds. 1988. Robert Jacob Gordon: Cape Travels, 1777 to

1786. Houghton: Brenthurst Press.

SAITOWITZ, S. J. & SAMPSON, C. G. 1992. Glass trade beads from rockshelters in the upper

Seacow River valley. South African Archaeological Bulletin 47: 94-103.

SAMPSON, C. G. 1984. A prehistoric pastoralist frontier in the upper Zeekoe valley, South

Africa. In: HALL, M., AVERY, G., AVERY, D. M., WILSON, M. L. & HUMPHREYS,

A. J. B. eds. Frontiers: southern African archaeology today. BAR International Series

207: 194-220.

SAMPSON, C. G. 1985. Atlas of Stone Age settlement in the central and upper Seacow

valley. Memoirs van die Nasionale Museum 29: 1-111.

SAMPSON, C. G., HART, T. G., WALLSMITH, D. L. & BLAGc, J. D. 1989. The ceramic

sequence in the upper Seacow valley: problems and implications. South African

Archaeological Bulletin 44: 3-16.

SEALY, J. & YATES, R. 1994. The chronology of the introduction of pastoralism to the

Cape, South Africa. Antiquity 68: 58-67.

SOUTH AFRICAN STATE ARCHIVES. 1770-1774. De oude wildschutte boeke. South African

Archives, Cape Town: RLR 21/1, 21/2, 22/1, 22/2, 23/2, 78a.

VAN DER MERWE, P. J. 1937. Die Noordwaartse beweging van die boere voor die Groot

Trek, 1770-1842. Den Haag: W. P. Van Stockum & Zoon.

WESTBURY, W. & SAMPSON, C. G. 1993. To strike the necessary fire: acquisition of guns

by the Seacow valley Bushmen. South African Archaeological Bulletin 48: 26-31.

6. SYSTEMATIC papers must conform to the International code of zoological nomenclature (particu-

larly Articles 22 and 51).

Names of new taxa, combinations, synonyms, etc., when used for the first time, must be followed

by the appropriate Latin (not English) abbreviation, e.g. gen. nov., sp. nov., comb. nov., syn. nov.,

etc.

An author’s name when cited must follow the name of the taxon without intervening punctuation

and not be abbreviated; if the year is added, a comma must separate author’s name and year. The

author’s name (and date, if cited) must be placed in parentheses if a species or subspecies is trans-

ferred from its original genus. The name of a subsequent user of a scientific name must be separated

from the scientific name by a colon.

Synonymy arrangement should be according to chronology of names, i.e. all published scientific

names by which the species previously has been designated are listed in chronological order, with all

references to that name following in chronological order, e.g.:

Family Nuculanidae

Nuculana (Lembulus) bicuspidata (Gould, 1845)

Figs 14-15A

Nucula (Leda) bicuspidata Gould, 1845: 37.

Leda plicifera A. Adams, 1856: 50.

Laeda bicuspidata Hanley, 1859: 118, pl. 228 (fig. 73). Sowerby, 1871: pl. 2 (fig. 8a—b).

Nucula largillierti Philippi, 1861: 87.

Leda bicuspidata: Nicklés, 1950: 163, fig. 301; 1955: 110. Barnard, 1964: 234, figs 8-9.

Note punctuation in the above example:

comma separates author’s name and year

semicolon separates more than one reference by the same author

full stop separates references by different authors

figures of plates are enclosed in parentheses to distinguish them from text-figures

dash, not comma, separates.consecutive numbers.

Synonymy arrangement according to chronology of bibliographic references, whereby the year is

placed in front of each entry, and the synonym repeated in full for each entry, is not acceptable.

In describing new species, one specimen must be designated as the holotype; other specimens

mentioned in the original description are to be designated paratypes; additional material not regarded

as paratypes should be listed separately. The complete data (registration number, depository, descrip-

tion of specimen, locality, collector, date) of the holotype and paratypes must be recorded, e.g.:

Holotype

SAM-—A13535 in the South African Museum, Cape Town. Adult female from mid-tide region, King’s Beach, Port Eliza-

beth (33°51’S 25°39’E), collected by A. Smith, 15 January 1973.

Note standard form of writing South African Museum registration numbers and date.

7. SPECIAL HOUSE RULES

Capital initial letters

(a) The Figures, Maps and Tables of the paper when referred to in the text

e.g. ‘. . . the Figure depicting C. namacolus ...’: ‘. . . in C. namacolus (Fig. 10)...’

(b) The prefixes of prefixed surnames in all languages, when used in the text, if not preceded by

initials or full names

e.g. DuToit but A.L.du Toit; Von Huene but F. von Huene

e.g. Therocephalia, but therocephalian

Punctuation should be loose, omitting all not strictly necessary

Reference to the author should preferably be expressed in the third person

Roman numerals should be converted to arabic, except when forming part of the title of a book or

article, such as

‘Revision of the Crustacea. Part VIII. The Amphipoda.’

Specific name must not stand alone, but be preceded by the generic name or its abbreviation to initial

capital letter, provided the same generic name is used consecutively. The generic name should

not be abbreviated at the beginning of a sentence or paragraph.

Name of new genus or species is not to be included in the title; it should be included in the abstract,

counter to Recommendation 23 of the Code, to meet the requirements of Biological Abstracts.