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